I want to complete the previous post on the subject of toxic femininity.
We left off with the observation that women can never be "equal" to men (in terms of outcomes) without the intervention of something much stronger than men, which is the state. (We could also say God, but that's not an option for the left.)
But this only kicks the can down the road, since it sets up a new hierarchy in which weak and ineffectual men -- AKA politicians -- will have a chance to compete.
Now you know how the Party of Feminism end up with a Joe Biden at the top. Biden will boast about a cabinet that supposedly "looks like America," but let's not confuse with power with pander. Nor will the choices have anything to do with merit, because they are designed to patronize (as in pater) various yapping, resentful, and petulant identity groups.
It's not as if (non-Trump) Republicans don't do the same thing, except to say they do it vis-a-vis philosophy rather than identity. In other words, they pretend to support conservatives. It's how the Party of Actual Men ends up with a Mitt Romney, or John McCain, or Paul Ryan. The sooner these types die off, the better.
The bottom line is that Democrat rule results in kakistocracy, while Republican rule results in cuckocracy.
Some more observations from the book:
It is not by accident that feminism has had its major impact through the necessarily coercive machinery of the state rather than through the private decisions of individuals (Levin).
In many ways, the soft coercion of the welfare state is a mirror image of the hard coercion of law enforcement and prison. As we know, the great majority of criminals are young men who come from broken homes with absent fathers.
As such, the institutions of "law enforcement" and "criminal justice" are like the return of the Father, only in a crude and heavy-handed manner: too little and definitely too late. It's a quintessentially masculine response to the problem of toxic -- or uncivilized -- masculinity. (And in this context, the defund-the-police movement is just a sick mother screaming that her murderous baby is innocent.)
Analogously, the welfare state is like a smothering and controlling mother who doesn't allow the child space to grow. Nor is there freedom to fail. Of course, failure still occurs, just minus the freedom. Consider the female dominated public school system, which no one but the wealthy are free to avoid, and yet assures so much failure.
For example,
In 19 of Baltimore’s 39 high schools, out of 3,804 students, only 14 of them, or less than 1%, were proficient in math.
In 13 of Baltimore’s high schools, not a single student scored proficient in math.
In five Baltimore City high schools, not a single student scored proficient in math or reading.
(https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2020/12/walter-williams-last-column.php)
One could cite similar statistics for Washington, D.C. Which, of course, is why Democrats would like to make it a state. Which is also why they want children to vote. Speaking of identity groups, they need all the morons they can get.
So,
Although feminism speaks the language of liberation, self-fulfillment, options, and the removal of barriers, these phrases invariably mean their opposites and disguise an agenda at variance with the ideals of a free society.
To put it mildly. Putting it bluntly, feminism is the very opposite of what it pretends to be. Which goes to the essence of toxic femininity, which revolves around deception (and seduction). Conversely, toxic masculinity revolves around violence (and the coercion that is at antipodes to seduction).
Let's take a giant leap into the past -- not the horizontal past but the vertical past. Why is Genesis 3 structured as it is? Why does the whole catastrophe begin with the woman? Why is she more vulnerable to the spirit of deceit, and how is it that she seduces the man into the deception?
Hey, at least Eve didn't murder anyone! No, that doesn't occur until the next generation. But make no mistake: lies lead to violence and murder.
Back to the text: it doesn't actually get into the why, only the what. The text is but a mythico-clinical description of what happens, and we err if we try to blame one or the other sex.
Recall the principle discussed two posts upstream -- that masculinity and femininity are two complementary poles of a single reality. Genesis 3, being a "story," necessarily deploys in time. But in reality, the poles play out in a timeless metaphysical reality.
Moreover, there are other considerations to consider, which we won't consider at the moment because they will take us too far afield. Suffice it to say that if we wish to have an integral understanding we must consider the fall in the context of redemption, and vice versa. It's a Big Story, the biggest ever. The struggle of Man v. Woman is just the undercard, a sideshow.
Let's ponder for a moment the following description of the Adversary:
He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him.
Interesting: a liar and a murderer. Eve and Cain, respectively, are the first we know of, but again, these are characters who illustrate principles; if they don't embody principles, then there is nothing to be learned from them. But let's not get into the blame game, for there's more than enough of that to go round and round. Just call it history.
Let's come back down to earth:
Feminism has been presented and widely received as a liberating force, a new view of the relations between the sexes emphasizing openness and freedom from oppressive stereotypes (Levin).
Oppressive stereotypes like, oh, "Eve" and "Adam."
This is, of course, a Lie, truly, among the biggest and most breathtaking ever.
And yet, it's the same old lie. Same snake, new skin.
Feminism is an antidemocratic, if not totalitarian ideology (ibid.).
Bob, you just have a problem with women.
Well, you're half right. In fact, I have a problem with human beings. And feminism only aggravates the problem.
Today's bottom line:
Since innate gender differences express themselves as differences in the typical preferences of men and women, so that people will never freely act in ways which produce a world devoid of sexism, the equalization of the sexes in personal behavior and in the work world demand implacable surveillance and interference (ibid.).
Good news, though: if there's one thing that unites all leftists at all times, it's the need for more surveillance and interference, AKA less freedom and more coercion by the deceitful and the violent, by liars and bullies; or, speaking mythologically, just the endlessly circular riverrun, past Eve and Adam's...
20 comments:
Apropos comes this sad tale of woe at Ace's today. The liberal parents are completely baffled at how their kids grew up to be such losers, and wonder whether now is the time to give them money.
It's actually quite sad; maybe the parents really weren't so bad, but in placing their faith in leftism (inasmuch as it seems like a modern, progressive education was the focus of childrearing and there's no sign or mention of faith) instead of in the key elements of a functional, healthy lifestyle, their kids are... well a Darwinian failure.
Oppressive stereotypes like, oh, "Eve" and "Adam."
...
Same snake, new skin.
Feminists today love to change old myths into new tales of empowerment. Just recently, there was a sculpture of Medusa holding the head of Perseus, because she, like, totally should have killed him and that would have been awesome for women.
The revolution is permanent, because it is a revolt against human nature.
On the flip side, over at the Daily Timewaster the question is asked, Who Writes This Stuff?
The answer is, today, pretty much nobody. Which I honestly think rather sad, as there was a need being met by those silly stories. Today, much of the same purpose is sometimes served by video games, which is why they must be converged just like every other form of masculine entertainment.
Dr. Godwin, great post, as usual. You seldom disappoint. This is a romp through the metaphysical underpinnings of feminism. Of course you're unhappy with feminism. Why wouldn't you be? That's one of your signature attributes, permanent dissatisfaction. Of course a conflict is needed for any form of writing, so it is needed here. I get it.
One paragraph of the post seems in step with the schisms we have seen forming in the Conservative/Republican bloc.
You wrote "It's not as if (non-Trump) Republicans don't do the same thing, except to say they do it vis-a-vis philosophy rather than identity. In other words, they pretend to support conservatives. It's how the Party of Actual Men ends up with a Mitt Romney, or John McCain, or Paul Ryan. The sooner these types die off, the better."
So, the Party of Actual Men declares Mitt Romney, John McCain, and Paul Ryan what, "cucks?"
I'm presuming you count yourself among "Actual Men." Now, that can be challenged. What are the criteria? Loyalty to Trump, eh?
What about other things? Are you a combat veteran? Do you hunt and fish? Do you enjoy football and other contact sports? Can you fix your own car?
There are a lot of markers for Real Men, and I for one don't see how John McCain, for instance, could be anything but more Real Man than you. No offence, but check McCain's cirriculum vitae and I think he's got you beat by wide margin.
Oh, Trump doesn't like him, that's right. You've have to follow that hyena in all matters, I forgot.
I think you've stepped in it here with your arrogance this time. You may issue a retraction and I might look at it.
Nothing seems easier to understand than what we have not understood.
Hi, Bob
I have written a book that exposes some of the lies of femininity and how those lies impacted my life and my faith: PRODIGAL DAUGHTER: A Journey with Mary (available on Amazon). I totally agree with everything you've said about the issue.
Wow. Now all we need is for Jordan Peterson to show up, and we'll have the last three sane psychologists in the same place. I look forward to flogging your book!
That's not legal in California.
Good Lord women are running roughshod all over you so-called "actual men." Why can't you fellows control your women? Your ancestors could. And don't try to blame the ladies. We will advance wherever we see an opening; that's how we operate and you know it, so what is the problem here?
-Chloe Does What She Wants, When She Wants.
Now would you please explain what a cuckocracy is. What the h*ll are you trying to say? Out with it.
Odd that the toxic masculinity is usually radical feministas making the good boys cry.
The victim tone of this post is not masculine; so now you've taken to complaining about women? What are you, an old woman making gossip on the front porch? What the h*ll's the matter with you.
Man up. That's an order.
-Commanding Officer X
My convictions are the same as those of an old woman praying in the corner of a church.
As a psychologist, what do you think this obsession with cuckoldry and who and who isn't a Real Man means?
Is Donald Trump the embodiment of real masculinity? To me, he seems to lack all the masculine virtues and is a creature of pure bluster, vanity, whining, and a truly spectacular level of narcissism and neediness. But then I'm not a psychologist, so maybe I'm missing something.
Each day it become easier to know what we ought to despise: what modern man admires and journalism praises.
Speaking of Real Men, who never surrender never give up, I see yet another Trumpist challenge against election results. What’s it been, like eleventy hundred dismissals? So much disappointment, so much woe. And ridicule by liberal comedians. Yet again and again they try. Even the Supremes seem in on this. Not just the court mind you, but the old singing group too. Is the deep state fight against alternate reality just too strong? Is plutocratic capitalist Chinese Marxism (with a Hugo Chavez twist) just too pervasive?
I’m curious about what it must be like to talk amongst fellow Trumpists, hopeful that this time it’ll be a real Kraken, a real scandal that’ll finally stick. And then it doesn’t. What’s going on around here?
And speaking of unreal men... Back in olden times, real men never smiled. They wore sunglasses indoors and kept an unlit cigarette in the mouths at all times. They snapped their fingers whenever the village poet spoke.
Today’s real man is manly enough to declare that he’s actually a woman. I wouldn’t be surprised if Newt Gingrich crashed an interview dressed like Elizabeth II, speaking like something out of a Money Python skit. Or Shaquille O’Neill perhaps? Now, maybe this just a fad amongst those wired for faddishness. Like back in the androgynous 80’s before AIDS when mullets, sparkly shirts, and dancing the robot were all the rage. Or could it be something much worse?
Sexuality is a powerful thing. We must not let the liberals take control of sexuality.
Despite what is taught today, easy sex does not solve every problem.
"Same snake, new skin"
That'sss a keeper.
Post a Comment