Operation Gender War Chapter 24 – pg3

Lash – Page 3 of 8

<< page 2   page 4 >>

Backlash against the woman’s Movement

In 1991, Susan Faludi’s Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women solidified impressions around the subject of men’s and woman’s power.8 That it coincided with Anita Hill’s sexual harassment allegations against a man nominated to be a judge on the Supreme Court is relevant. Because here was a high-ranking member of the patriarchy.

Clarence Thomas fit Faludi and her followers picture of a male out to restrict woman’s participation in society. Thomas was eventually appointed to the Supreme Court. But sexual harassment charges then exploded across the country. In 1992, at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), 45 percent more allegations were received, compared with the one-year period before Hills accusations.9 Clarence Thomas had been previously the Chairman of the EEOC!

Soon thereafter Bill Clinton began making the news, first as a presidential contender, then as a sexual disaster area. But even before his election, beginning even before Gennifer Flowers, the bimbo eruptions tracked this Bill Clintons trail. Clinton’s problems only helped Faludis’ case against the shortcomings of a society she saw as supporting male privilege.

Clinton, the Big Kahuna, Mr. Large, was a Federal Reserve Bank connection for his favorite free-loading feminist-flunkey sponges. Faludi and rage-feminism lucked out with Bill Clinton. Here was a guy obsessed with women, a slave to his attraction, with sex scandals flushing out all about. Here the gender feminists had a male to ridicule. So in general, the reactive female camp did well with this Bill. Without their support he would lose his job. They had him in a testosterone basket. So the elitist feminazis types, the grudge-bearing bunch, began to try to take over America! And up front and center, soon they are going to produce the next president of the United States, they think. Why it’s going to be none other than Bill Clintons cuckolded wife, Hillary, the super-victim!

Patriarchal Conspiracy. Faludi talks about war against women. She says that the media lies and misrepresents women, as well as brainwashes them into traditional marriage-oriented lifestyles. The media desire to take back what women had gained in society, she says. Her book pretends to be scholarly, although it is thinly veiled propaganda. It promotes a widespread conspiracy against women.

Similarly, in The Beauty Myth (1992), Naomi Wolf alerts women that they are pawns of a widespread brainwashing conspiracy. This time the conspiracy is to keep them neurologically obsessed with beauty. Women are the victims, this time from society’s expectation for women to be beautiful. This expectation forces females into “a secret ‘underlife’ poisoning our freedom; infused with notions of beauty, it is a dark vein of self-hatred, physical obsession, terror of aging, and dread of lost control”.10 This beauty myth is promoted by the evil patriarchal society to wear down and weaken women and also to remove the gains they had made, says Wolf.

The patriarchy is also out to pressure women to diet, buy clothes, use cosmetics and hit the gyms in ways that are “destroying women physically and depleting us psychologically”.11 Wolf sounds alarm bells, incites fear and promotes anger: “We are in the midst of a civil war over gender… It is also a war against men”.12

Faludi claims the formula of the beauty industry is to aggravate women’s low self-esteem and high anxiety about a “feminine” appearance. Naomi Wolf claims it was the success of the women’s movement that brought out deliberate male antagonism and the conspiracy of the beauty myth to checkmate power at all levels in women’s lives.

Faludi’s focus is on the slant of news coverage in the media as being distinctly anti-female. But Faludi skews data, according to Time magazine. Forbes magazine judged Faludi’s book a “labyrinth of nonsense followed by eight pages of footnotes”. Ironically, Faludi is guilty of exactly what she accuses the American media of – slanted and deceptive reports to warp, coax and influence the understanding of society’s present gender conflict.

Faludi rails on about women being severely punished economically for the social gains that they made in civil politics prior to the 80s. Both Faludi and Wolf agree that it is an economic backlash that is keeping females from getting more power. But they both misuse facts to incite rage, cynicism, hatred and conspiratorial paranoia within the woman’s community. This misuse of facts could backfire if their victims realize the spin tact’s aren’t really the true facts. And then, sooner or later, there may be a real backlash. Both Wolf and Faludi must recognize the potential for a whipsaw to their intentions, because recently they have taken more supportive, motherly positions towards men. Can they sense the destruction they have wrought? Or is it more cunning and wiles, dressed as sympathy for men, an act to deflect responsibility for their outrageous intention to render men as women’s enemies?

Consequences of gender feminist fabrication. The influence of Faludi and Wolf is real; their books are best sellers. They’ve been assimilated, and it’s too late. There is no get-out-of-jail-free card here. The price society is paying for Wolf’s, Faludi’s and many other gender feminist’s fabrications will last for generations. These generations have had their guts ripped out of them and live today in stunned ignorance. All the while our educational institutions functioning in this Information Age misrepresent the stupefaction that has inundated mass culture.

Political correctness (PC) is stupidness, and “stupid is as stupid does”. Society in general is becoming stupider by allowing superficial manners to protect feelings rather than promoting truth. It is also becoming more elitist, more separated and more divided into cliques. Specialization in occupations and fields of study has meant exclusion and separation for most. Increased immigration is a catalyst for social distancing. With gender warfare, male and female are further apart. Their isolation aids in the dumbing-down of the nation through spin and political correctness.

On Absorbing Patriarchal Rules. When Wolf and Faludi assume that women must defend themselves from an enemy who is waging an undeclared war against them, they mean patriarchal society. But because this conspiracy against women’s progress clearly could not be witnessed on the streets, they’ve got an internal, cerebral solution. The women, they say, are being persecuted from within, by internalizing rules and discipline taught by modern bureaucratic institutions such as the schools, military, workplace and hospitals.

In contemporary society, Faludi and Wolf claim that patriarchal direction of the media brings an all-pervasive domination over citizens. They say this control of society becomes omnipresent. So the modern citizen in front of the television continues to internalize patriarchal disciplines and becomes self-policing. Thus indoctrinated, subjects keep themselves in check.

The self-surveillance of the beauty myth, and the heat behind Faludis’ Backlash derive from woman’s sense of victimhood. Wolf and Faludi believe that the women’s movement is undermined when woman’s internal self (psyche) is socialized and conditioned by a patriarchal society’s propaganda and guilt. Thus they complain that the system is aiming at turning women into docile and compliant escorts of men, in an oppressive position of subordination. The gender feminists fear that controlling the internal dynamics of the individual is the speculative plan to get the woman carrying out the wishes of the patriarchy.

Feminist Advocacy “Research”

Mainstream heavyweight support for the victim-spin came from the Ford Foundation, a supporter of much feminist advocacy (sell cars). For example the Ford Foundation picked up expenses for the 1992 Radcliffe College conference: In the Eye of the Storm: Feminist Research and Action in the 90′s. Here it is stated that the “backlash” against the woman’s movement, against woman’s research and against woman’s studies is to be explored by the sponsor, the National Council for Research on Women. This organization represents over seventy woman’s groups, including Wellesley College Center for Research on Women and the 140,000 strong American Association of University Women (AAUW). Here the gender feminists would set ablaze the meme – an idea that wants to knock out the competition – that an undeclared war was being waged against women and is spreading all over the nation and the world! Well, the gender feminists are right about a conspiracy to cripple a gender, but their perception is self-deceptive. Maybe their claim of a gender war against themselves as unjustified and immoral continues to heat up because of anger from neurotic guilt, the guilt of those who have falsely, but knowingly, portrayed a merciless campaign as being against women. Because what is going on is a lambasting of men by those who seek female-gender power and privilege. World War II brought the oppressed into public consciousness as the good guys, the bad guys being the oppressors. So to portray men as oppressing women automatically garners sympathetic response, if believed. And the media bleeds dollar support for women to rise up from this “oppression”. It’s the lesson-addiction around civil rights and democracy that many editors and producers feed robust propaganda into.

Many in the media may be victims of the people they publish. It seems the lies and spin of many feminist wagers of the gender war are the only “reasoning of the facts” that most editors have understood. But on a higher, more-powerful level:

This gender bias and gender war is used to keep
serfs toiling in distraction,
Not capable of any concerted major action.

Gender antagonism is promoted in mainstream media; here it’s so sublime. Innocents of the Information Age are incited into rage, as these consumers, thinking to kick back and unwind, huddle around their television sets, but get instead the anchor-parrot quarterbacks instruction – an incision – in prime time!

Christina Hoff Sommers of the American Enterprise Institute, Washington, D.C., has seen the enemy and writes:

Activist organizations like the National Organization of Women, the Ms. Foundation for Women, and the American Association of University Women, strive constantly to persuade the wider public that women are urgently in need of the protections they will help to provide. These organizations rely on a pool of academic feminists to faithfully produce books, data, and studies that demonstrate alarming amounts of sexism, discrimination, and gender bias.13

History of Thought on Female Instincts

The cunning of the gender feminist is nothing new. Male philosophers and thinkers throughout history have commented on this instinct in women. Arthur Schopenhauer and Immanuel Kant , top thinkers of their times, cautioned about the deceptive nature of women. Schopenhauer, a philosopher of merit and contemporary of feminism’s mother, Mary Wollstonecraft, wrote in an era when woman’s rights were increasing. To Schopenhauer (1788-1860), women:

“…are dependent, not upon strength, but upon craft; and hence their instinctive capacity for cunning, and their ineradicable tendency to say what is not true. For as lions are provided with claws and teeth, and elephants with boors and tusks, bulls with horns, and the cuttle fish with it’s cloud of inky fluid, so Nature has equipped woman, for her defense and protection, with the arts of dissimulation.”14

Like animals when they defend, women use this clouding dissimulation whenever they please, and feel that doing so is perfectly within their rights, says Schopenhauer. He felt women never got beyond a subjective point of view, that women were “thorough-going philistines, and quite incurable”. The way Europeans were treating women at the beginning of the nineteenth century, with reverence and notions of gallantry, irked Schopenhauer. Elevating women, and calling only those who were aristocratically bred, “ladies”, only made less-fortunate women unhappy, he says. It caused something he called the “lady-nuisance”. And to Schopenhauer:

[the] innate rule that governs woman’s conduct, though it is secret and unformulated, nay unconscious in it’s working is this: We are justified in deceiving those who think they have acquired rights over the species by paying little attention to the individual, that is, to us…. But women have no abstract knowledge of this leading principle; they are conscious of it only as a concrete fact.15

Notice how, to Schopenhauer, it is women who are identified with the concept of the “individual”. Finally, women are described as having no sense of justice. Thus, their character, “gives rise to falsity, faithlessness, treachery, ingratitude, and so on”.16

Schopenhauer wrote in the first half of the nineteenth century, whereas things are supposed to have moved on today. However, the word dissimulation is so cosmetically apt that it grabs out and pulls the present so-called male oppressors right back into the need for a respect for something that is like magic. It’s what the up there and at a distance respect for the natural awesome talents of these “oppressed” is really about. Dissimulation gives a reinstated warning about the power of cosmetics and fashion to manipulate male desire today. Masks aid dissimulation.

Feminine pretenses include notions like the divine mother and the exaltation of female nurturing, compassion and vulnerability. These images are ever-shifting, superimposed over woman’s choreographed sexual presentations – this, from the sweet gender, the one who needs protection for her inability to resist caring-sharing, the gentle approach… But the deal can be closed through dissimulation and through sex signals – lipstick beauty and other premeditated applications camouflaging true intention. Her aim is power, control, and she will shift the psychological sands between herself and the opposite sex until she has her way.

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) also comments on the ways of women, in his essay on the interrelations of the two sexes. Acting morally would be difficult for a woman, says Kant, because women are in service of emotion and are reactive, having “very delicate feelings in regard to the least offense, and are exceedingly precise to notice the most trifling lack of attention and respect toward them”.17 Kant says women are motivated by the beautiful; men are motivated by the noble. “Her philosophy is not to reason, but to sense”.

“[And] women will avoid the wicked not because it is unright, but because it is ugly; and virtuous actions mean to them such as are morally beautiful.”18

To Kant, woman’s morality arises not from principle but from their emotional response to situations. It was the male of the species, he thinks, who could best use reason to decipher duty. And moral action is determined by duty, says Kant. Dissimulation makes it’s appearance in Kant as well, as he writes: “and not forgetting, what one must reckon as a secret magic with which she makes our passion inclined to judgements favorable to her…making her known by the mark of the beautiful.”19

About education and the professions, Kant says, “Laborious learning or painful pondering, even if a woman should greatly succeed in it, destroy the merits that are proper to her sex and…will weaken the charms with which she exercises her great power over the other sex.”20

To Immanuel Kant, women who chose a healthy, but pale, facial color possessed a disposition of “more inward feeling and delicate sensation, which belongs to the quality of the sublime; whereas the rosy and blooming complexion proclaims more of the joyful and merry disposition – but it is more suitable to vanity to move and to arrest, than to charm and to attract.”21

Writing in the mid-1700s, Kant declares that marriage had to be based on “the understanding of the man and the taste of the wife”. Thus in marriage the right of the husband is to command in matters of understanding, and the wife to command in matters of taste. If these areas come under question and attack, then the whole union becomes undermined. Marriage will then become “duller” and can “degenerate into familiar love”. Then feelings of “indifference and satiety” can put an end to happiness in marriage, because “all those niceties and delicacies of feeling have their whole strength only at the beginning.”22

Female Influence Today. Today women have become excellent students, and by the twenty-first century they outnumbered men in college and university enrollment. So have they become less powerful in their charms over males, as Kant predicted? Definitely yes, but pornography, miniskirts and strip bars keep the hard-wired at least salivating and humbled to the female form. And the government-as-husband keeps female interests front and center today, as male concerns are buried underneath the assault of “womens rights”.

Feminine charm, beyond the sexual, may not even be much known or appreciated these days. The property of the female that the male jumps to protect is the person of the different sex whom he loves for that very difference. In the past, man approached woman with both fear and sympathy. Though not often seen out in the open, on occasion men glimpsed womans innate wildness, her cunning flexibility and the incomprehensibility of her desires and virtues. And this scared men. They could not grok it all; her nature was a somewhat fearful mystery. But he also found her suffering, discouraged and in need of love. When she yielded to her sensitivity, man found his meaning; his sympathy was excited. The display of the feminine, it’s plea, spurs a man to heroism, but that is going to rapidly evaporate if female sensitiveness and the dynamic influence of the sensitive queen bee dies on the vine.

And many ladies live on their own. A female body with an animus mentality wont do much “soul-attracting” of the normal testosterone male. Females will have some success grinding on some of the new-age feminized guys whose egos have never really been allowed far off the ground. Also females will make inroads with men who have internalized feminist rules and discipline. There are men who produce the touchy-feely words that bring subservience to her territory, who now await her instruction because he’s given up his masculine judgment. But the way the gender feminists have set up the gender-distraction, many more women will now need an extra income, or think that they do, to procreate and set up home for their children.

Other Historical Views on Women. Historically, other philosophers and thinkers have doubted womans rational powers. Plato (427-347 BC) writes in the Symposium that the love of a man for other men, the commitment and trust between the male “brothers”, is superior to the male love for a woman. And Plato actually implies in the Timaeus that women are closer to animals than men.

According to Aristotle (384-322 BC) and St. Thomas Aquinas (AD 1225-1274), a woman is a “misbegotten male”. Aristotle, writing over three hundred years before Christ, claims the female does not share the rational capability of men. And Schopenhauer, of course, would much later claim that these inferior rational powers cause problems concerning woman’s ability to be moral. St. Augustine (AD 354-430) defines wisdom as masculine and knowledge as feminine, and the image of God is to be found in the masculine.

 

Tertullian, AD (160-220), one of the fathers of the Latin church, writing about AD 200, connects the fall from grace, the biblical expulsion of Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden, with the sensuality of Eve. The objects that glamorize a womans body would have been coveted by Eve, says Tertullian. Thus, it follows that the life of spirit would be expected to be destroyed through cosmetics, sexy adornment and the sexual dress of women. (Tammy Baker is Eve?) And it wasn’t enough to avoid sexual impropriety and sexual subversion in ones conduct if one still dressed as a sex object. Tertullian asks that “the pageantry of fictitious and elaborate beauty be rejected”. Why “excite toward yourself that evil passion, the lust of others, he asks?”23 Even woman’s natural beauty should be concealed because it is so distracting to men, he says. As well, the female must try not to lead others into temptation.

The Dominican Fathers, responsible for the Malleus Maleficarum, portray the female concern with procreation in terms of her sexuality and this, to them, left woman with close to an insatiable sensuality and close to being in the hands of the devil. Women are constantly identified with nature and men with reason, and this male reason is said to give a shape to the shapeless procreating matter of women.

Rousseau (1712-1778) and Hegel (1770-1831) also equate the masculine aspects as connected to reason and the female aspects as connected to the fecundity of nature. Here a womans basic concern is reproduction, and thus she is defined in terms of her sexuality.

Sigmund Freud

In the twentieth century, Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) also ties the physical, the body, into identity, saying ones biological functions determine ones destiny. In the late nineteenth century, Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) wrote seriously about “the fundamental problem of man and woman” and sent up his written warning flares so that the significance of the vexation, this “most abysmal antagonism”, would be taken seriously. In Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche testifies that womans “great art is the lie, her highest concern is mere appearance and beauty,” and that “woman would not have the genius for finery if she did not have an instinct for a secondary role.”24 Nietzsche says feminism will lead it’s followers away from truthful insight, and he also claims that a woman wanting enlightenment about herself may only be in search of a “new adornment for herself”. Woman “does not want truth: what is truth to a woman? From the beginning, nothing has been more alien, repugnant, and hostile to women than the truth”. But women want to become self-reliant, says Nietzsche, and are “beginning to enlighten men about women as such: this is one of the worst developments of the general uglification of Europe”.25 Nietzsche said woman ventures forth:

“when the man in man is no longer desired…and as she thus takes possessions of new rights, aspires to become master and writes the progress of woman upon her standards and banners, the opposite development is taking place with terrible clarity: woman is retrogressing.”

Since the French Revolution, Nietzsche felt that woman’s influence had diminished in Europe because women were weakening and dulling their most feminine instincts. The “idea” of feminism concealed an “immense stupidity” that could carry Europe away, thought Nietzsche. And he said:

“Certainly, there are enough of idiotic friends and corrupters of woman among the learned asses of the masculine sex, who advise woman to defeminize herself in this manner, and to imitate all the stupidities from which man in Europe, European manliness, suffers, who would like to lower women to general culture, indeed even to newspaper reading and meddling with politics.”26

He warned women not to follow the feminist insurgents of their time who advised a woman to “defeminize” herself. “There is stupidity in this movement, an almost masculine stupidity of which a woman who had turned out well – and such women are always prudent – would have to be thoroughly ashamed”. Fredrich Nietzsche finished these words back in 1895.26

Modern Ambiguity about Women. Modern ambiguity in understanding women has fit nicely in with political correctness; indeed, this confusion is the basis of political correctness.

Off-balance, modern Jill and Joe are educated into
being frozen frigid,
When it comes to knowing their sex roles,
all some can do is nervously fidget.

The female gender feminists try to be philosophers too, but they get stuck in retaliating because of the emotionally subjective attraction of the rage glue. Thus they react, attacking often without reasonable objective analysis. Philosophers who seem to support much that gender feminists agree with are attacked ad hominem over details encountered with distaste in other areas the feminists find displeasing to their conception of the feminist agenda. So, to align with the feminist agenda: always support women; never publicly show outrage to women; always talk about the unity of purpose for women; don’t get caught defending anything but woman’s advance in society; and continually point to abuse of women, blacks, homosexuals and the disabled. Try to carry it off with the righteousness of a woman who has been abused for centuries.

Its the drive for a feminist utopia by some of the female intellectuals that is holding various notions of females hostage. These are the true believers stuck in the word glue. They are telling the young girls and older women that they are missing out on a full life, that they are slaves, that they are persecuted, that they are victims of a misogynist philosophical tradition.

 

Carl Jung in the twentieth century, the famous psychologist Carl Jung (1875-1961), in Aspects of the Feminine, states that modern women were being given the feeling of missing the boat, made to think that too much of life would not be lived in the traditional role as mother and wife, the “…secretaries, typists, shop-girls, all are agents of this process and through a million subterranean channels creeps the influence that is undermining marriage”.27 But, there is another agenda, as Jung continues: “For the desire of all these women is not to have sexual adventures, – only the stupid would believe that – but to get married. The possessors of that bliss must be ousted, not as a rule by naked force, but by that silent, obstinate desire which, as we know, has magical effects, like the fixed stare of a snake. This was ever the way of women…no woman can escape the secret, compelling atmosphere with which her own sister, perhaps, is enveloping her, the stifling atmosphere of a life that has never been lived.”28 Jung thought this out back in 1927.

Lash – Page 3 of 8

<< page 2 page 4 >>