Is radical feminism facilitated by multinational corporate elites?
I came accross a very interesting blog by Steven Yates which got me thinking further about the breakdown of family, increasing individualism and who might benefit from such a phenomena.
To read the whole piece go to -
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2006/08/04/radical-feminists-useful-idiots/
Today, the fruits of radical feminism are everywhere in evidence. The nuclear family is in trouble (although in fairness this is due more to the collapse of real, debauched-dollar-adjusted wages forcing both parents to work). Radical feminists dominate many academic humanities departments, including where I did my graduate work; they are well represented in many administrations at four-year research institutions; they control professional groups such as the Modern Language Association. Much contemporary “scholarship” is predictably sex-drenched and gender-obsessed.
Meanwhile, enrollment statistics over the past few years indicate a fall-off in men enrolling in four-year institutions. This has begun to attract national attention. Recent stats indicate that the percentage of men on college and university campuses has fallen to 43 percent nationwide, with some institutions falling under 40 percent. This is treated like a great mystery: why are men falling behind? To those of us who have watched gender politics in academe since the 1980s, the answer is obvious. No man with self-respect is going to sit in a classroom, at the mercy of a radical feminist professor’s denunciations, if he has an alternative. With political correctness shackling free speech, men are speaking with their feet. Some are going to less-politicized technical colleges. Others are choosing occupations that don’t require a four-year degree.
Has radical feminism helped women? A better question might be: was it intended to help women? Some think not. Many women have the careers feminism promised—but also kids born out of wedlock, from one-night stands and the feminist conviction that “a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.” They come home from work exhausted and then have one or more kids to handle. The result: stress, exhaustion, burn-out. Boys, meanwhile, grow up without proper male role models. One of the effects of radical feminism is the feminization of boys and men. Masculine assertiveness is “out”; “metrosexual” sensitivity is “in”—a recipe for trouble. As Christina Hoff Sommers argues convincingly, normal boys just aren’t wired that way.
Some men are consciously deciding to stay single. They will not approach women, in college or at work, out of fear of guilty-if-charged “sexual harassment” allegations. And with one in two marriages ending in divorce, they are justifiably afraid of being cleaned out—of having their finances destroyed by divorce courts that favor women. Worse still, more than one man has had his life ruined by malicious child-molestation allegations. Again, guilty if charged. Not to mention the emotional devastation to kids after watching their parents fight, sometimes for years.
All of which presages a lot of people—of both sexes—growing older alone.
Could it be that someone wants things this way, because when people’s—especially children’s—families are dismembered and they are psychologically cut off from the most important support network a person can have in an impersonal, materialistic society,
Posts RSS 2.0
Yes. I think a whole group of people want things this way : the feminists. Even if thier imposed beliefs upon society produce some (dire) adverse side effects, I doubt they would stop thier ruthless persuit of world domination – they have too much to lose!
Stephen,
Thanz for posting this. It is a very intersting article.
Hmmm, the Rockefeller clan (again). Conspiracy (again). The CIA, the wars that look about freedom but are really about drugs, Scientology fighting the same big players. It just goes on.
It makes one wonder if the woman drunk with the blood of righteous people sitting on the seven headed dragon is becoming a reality (revelations). Fascinating, absolutely fascinating.
Good article. I read it through and what it all comes down to is this conversation with Rockefeller. If true amazing, if a lie or a Rockeffeler trying to one up everyone at a chateau clique get together meaningless.
I see the problem, as pointed out in my book, as one of a combination of intersecting issues.
1.
We lost too many stand up men in the great wars, and many who came home were often mortally wounded in their characters. An example is of Hemingway on his arrival in Paris bad mouthing the culture there and comparing it to Grenrich village in the states( which today is the seat of feministic thought). Yet he warms to it in the end, like many WWI veterens. In the end his suicide finishes his taking to the wild man ideas as far as it could go. Today we have males still following this revelling in the wild man in their own way.
2.
Art is raised above it station in the subculture and deconstructionism is used to attack all traditions due to cynicism discovered in the trenches and a lack of interested in ideas and history that are not fashionably artistic(classical history has suffered this most). So culture in the form of music, multiculturalism and more become high principle. Why is the Greeco-Roman thought not multicultural? For men from distant lands in togas talking about past issues is not anywhere near a nature fit to English speaking men. Well it isn’t multicultural because it doesn’t push some new fashionable ideas. Which leads to everything being fashionably political, not truly multicultural.
3.
” The right of free speech in guarrented by everyone whose is rich enough to own their own newspaper.” Your article rightly sees that even science must now submit to feminist politics. When you have few clear ideas above your political leanings then poltics can use sport, music etc. to push any higher issues around and one does not need to feel jadeded in the least in pushing politics above other issues.
4.
The effeminate ideas of rationalized cowardice allows any act to be made clean. A women lets some stranger kill her child, well she was afriad for herself(clean and given less in sentencing than a man). A women kills her two boys, well she was afraid of losing her new boyfriend (cleaned)( then she blamed it on a black man, yet she didn’t want to get caught, cleaned with a lesser sentence). A mother kills her 5 kids in a bath tub, yet she was mentally ill for no mother would do that out of plain evilness—-cleaned. Lie about rape, cleaned. Lie about husbands beating, cleaned with lesser sentence. Get money from the gov, ex-husband, new boyfriend, grandparents and friends all at the same time to live high on the hog, cleaned because it is only for the kids that she did this all (wrapping oneself in the child is now done by most, and has replaced that of the flag in our time).
This more complex answer to why we are in this mess may not get me on the moonbat hall of fame, but has more historical basis if anyone is interested.
I think those who think the key is someone from above them in power “always”, are often the ones pushing for humbling themselves before that power or some mystical power, and even the man in the article continued to knock his head in a dead end rush to be part of the old elite, instead of bugging out like all those other men who he talks about who have found other ways to prosper not under the control of what ever force is undermining our efforts. He has lost out in his bid for a postion, and wants us to still follow his and other lost out academics (ex: Save the Males)in working with those above us in power. Instead of saying maybe I should do as these men and form my own power base out the reach of government or at least as far as I can, they reaffirm the idea of both apathy (the ones above are way ahead of us in manipulation)and that they should be the ones that deal with them for they are closer to the great power.
It is a character question, the Christians are right in this, and when you roll around with snakes you will become more snake like, not change the snakes to a honest academic. We need top find a better sort to surround ourselves with and then wage conflict with those who attack the family from outside their string pulling not tell others to join them from the inside where the only paower can be had.
The worst aspect of conspiracy thought is the idea of the less evidence the better the conspiracy!!! HMMM. Therefore those who have the least evidence of any conspricy win, in that their enemy is obviously the biggest and most dangerous. “No mine is more dangerous than yours, because I have less evidence that you.” “No, I have less evidence than you!” “I’m closer to the truth!”
The answers are hard and the way to success is the difficut and thankless road, not the easy road to power( often masked as a hard road).
Does anyone else see a problem with moonbats and those who worship authority in this way?