Monday, 26 June 2017

THE ELEPHANT'S TRUNK: A FEMINIST PARABLE



To understand and evaluate Feminism properly, it is necessary ignore all the balderdash about "empowerment" and "woman's rights," and instead to strike to the essence of what women are as well as how feminism impacts on this. This involves viewing women in the same reductionist way that we tend to view animals, namely as creatures defined by a salient characteristic.

For example, the camel is defined by its hump (and occasionally its toe), the elephant by its trunk, and the giraffe by its extremely long neck. In the same way, Woman – viewed as exotic creature – is defined by her womb (womb > womb-man > woman, geddit?). This is the large and unmistakable physical characteristic that makes her what she truly is – and is also the reason why "chicks with dicks" or even "chicks without dicks" (like 'Caitlyn' Jenner) are simply sick.

Now that we are veering into Aesopian territory, let me make my point with a simple parable. Imagine if you will the trickiest animal in the natural world appearing – a wily fox or cunning snake perhaps. It approaches the elephant as it is going about its business, flapping its ears or walking to the watering hole.
"Why do you allow humans to objectify you?” it hisses sympathetically in the great animal’s ear, pausing between sentences because it is concerned that its target might be a little slow. "They just define you by your trunk... But you are so much more than simply a trunk-using animal... Be equal to them... Empower yourself by not using your trunk."
The elephant can't help thinking there is something in the sly critter's words, and decides to give it a try. Next, the shit-stirrer of the animal kingdom approaches the giraffe.
"Look at you playing right into their hands by stretching your neck to reach the high leaves," it says. "You are just reinforcing the stereotype... That’s all you are to them – a ridiculous long neck... But who can blame them for thinking that about you... All you do is pop food down that long tube of yours... Try to show them how much better you are by not using your neck all the time... In fact, try not to use it at all..."
It is the same story with the camel. Its evil interlocutor persuades it to give up using its humps for water retention, and instead to carry a small bottle of mineral water hung around its neck in a fashionable pouch.

Now imagine if you will that these animals listen to their poisonous persuader with the same gullibility and competitive social signalling that Western women have listened to the siren call of feminism. What do you suppose will happen in a week or two? Yes, that’s right, the camel would have probably died of thirst out there on the desert plains; the giraffe would no longer have the strength to reach the succulent tree tops, even if it decided that being a "walking neck" wasn’t so bad after all; and the elephant would be nearing its end as it struggled to feed and water itself without the use of its defining prehensile proboscis.

In exactly the same way, Feminism – in cahoots with a culture of sexual liberation – has persuaded women in the West to shun the very attribute that has always defined them and which has given them real trans-generational power, in return for a deadly mirage of fake "empowerment."




21 comments:

  1. Whether or not feminists like it, women serve three primary functions. One, they are the gateway into this universe (very important). Two, they are the predominate caretakers of these new entries, at least till they can take care of themselves. Third, they make life as UNNECESSARILY DIFFICULT as possible.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly, and what you are left with after "Feminism" is the last of the 3 without the 2 former, which leaves women as unbearable annoyances with zero utility.

      Delete
    2. .. mind you the 3rd part is also important as it serves Evolution in weeding out the weak men, but without the 2 former it becomes a one way dead end street for the species, or at least the race.

      Delete
  2. The feminist movement- unfortunately came about in a time period when social and economic forces from all sides were converging. So much that even most men went along with it because at the time is was sold as a benefit to them.

    This idea of women having babies with no men- the one sided thing is not going to work all that much.

    There are many moving parts to this problem to be solved and here is one of those parts:
    Part one.

    Men benefited from "feminism" and promoted it too.

    But one of the reasons ( of many) for the later feminist era was that modernity had given many more women the leisure of the upper middle classes women of prior eras. It has taken away much of their functions and daily work and roles that they played in the family.
    Washing machines. prepared food. sliced bread. agri-business. super markets. Refrigerators. Ready made garments. machine made cloth. Schools for the kids. and such. Men, at the same time, still had to go to work and provide for his family. In those days a man took great pride that his wife didn't have to work.

    In eras prior- the average family needed all hands on deck to survive. They needed the woman to work and the kids just to get by. But modernity increasingly eased the life of the woman and children- and men too in many ways ( automobiles and getting children out of the workforce that competed with them more and more as time progressed. (Wages went up for males as a result and his children could go to school). He took pride in this. Now he was providing for his family better than his father and grand father could.

    Because of the GI bill- he had an education that was only available to the upper class one generation earlier. Prior to World War Two- the average Americans held only an 8th Grade education. Enough to read his/her Bible and conduct most business of the day.

    This post-War period coupled also with new and unprecedented cultural trends like James Bond and Rock and Roll guys and 'Angry dudes"..much of this was European or British phenomenon. - who was going through very hard times and identity crisis.- but it influenced my country. And like everything else in my country (USA)- once we get a hold of something- we amplify it- for better or for worse. And Americans tend to have "little country syndrome". We think everyone else is smarter and more sophisticated than we are. And we think that Holland is the same size as USA. We have no sense of proportion at all.

    This cultural movement began to glorify the single man over the married man. The young man over the more mature and experienced older man. The unattached man. The man without a sense of society or familial responsibility. A radically new amorality and social mores. That hadn't happened before. The married man taking care of a family was the Patriarch of the society. Men with no family he was looking after were second class. For example, it was understood in all eras prior that men who had dependents were given first crack at all jobs and promotions. All men had a a gentleman's' agreement with this arrangement- including the single ones.

    During the Great Depression, for example. we know about hobos. Hobos were men who had to go out and travel far and try to find jobs. They lived where they could. But we always think of hobos as being old men. But in reality- they were young men under the age of 25 who were pushed out of their homes and towns by thier fathers- to go find work- or men who left them out of a sense of duty to their family.

    In those days, the foreman who was hiring- would stand on a truck - and the men would gather round. The foreman would call out 'who has a family to take care of?' and the married men would step forward. They would be hired first. and what was left went to unmarred in accordance with who they had to look after. It was as unspoken code among men in our society.And no one lied. It had been so for thousands of years.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In brief, moving part #1- In the culture, the unmarried man began to be glorified over the married man with dependents and responsibilities. The young man over the mature man. This was unprecedented in history.

      Delete
    2. Where i differ from the Manosphere and the Alt Right on this issue is that i believe Patriarchy is always present. It is God's order. I don't believe we are in a gynocracy. So when we talk about this issue i will still know we are always in a Patriarchy. The Patriarchy is allowing this to happen- why is this so? And if we don't like it- how do we change it?

      Delete
    3. I also reject that there is a "war between the sexes". Another concoction of many by "The Snake' and the wrongly guided Patriarchy that go along with the notion put into his ear.

      Delete
    4. So, moving part #1. in the post-War era Men themselves began to undermine the Patriarchal system. Patriarch means Father. Head of household. He became demoted by men themselves in favor of guys with no family and no responsibilities outside themselves..
      And these new-fangled cultural notions, by extension, also changed the situation in relation to with womenfolk.

      Delete
  3. "womb > womb-man > woman, geddit?)"

    A small point, Mr. Liddell, but if you were presenting that as true etymology, you erred. If you weren't being serious, the joke is lost on me.

    PS A camel's hump holds fat, I believe, not water.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You win the prize for the most humorless and pedantic commenter today. The prize - a pubic hair for you to split at your leisure - is in the post.

      Delete
  4. Anonymous said:

    "Men benefited from "feminism" and promoted it too".

    Other than easy sex, how did men benefit from feminism?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It appealed to different men at the time - each for his own reasons. It was fertile soil for those kinds of ideas then. It's difficult to highlight a few when there are so many.

      Women ( and not that long ago- children) always worked. This idea that they didn't is incorrect. But things became out of balance at a certain time period- especially in the post-War era. As men went to work but women stayed home. Modern conveniences took away most of the traditional and previously vital jobs and roles his wife performed for the family. She became more and more a middle or upper middle class lady of leisure. At first this was a source of pride for the man- but over time he felt like things had become lopsided within the family structure. Her role and importance was diminished a result. There was a lot of talk back then about "gold diggers" and the man being a "beast of burden". It became a source of disharmony in the home and family structure.

      While She felt bad sitting at home while the kids were in school and the husband at work. Both Husband and Wife reasoned that her going out and doing work would bring in more money, help the home ( kids were becoming expensive back then as well) and gain them both a sense of fairness and harmony again.
      So "feminism" appealed to many married men ( and women) back then for this reason.

      Another one was psychological. A lot of guys had turmoil on thier heads as they had experienced War. And the hyper- 'masculine' Patriarchal system as a result of World War One and Two had failed them miserably. They had seen and experienced some pretty awful stuff from other guys in an all -guy setting. So it caused a lot of men to be open to new ideas and perspectives. The feminine was welcome to them.

      I could go on but - there's just a couple of things among many at that time period.



      Delete
    2. I am not educated so forgive if i get the grammar and spelling and what have you wrong.

      Delete
    3. I think you are confusing the advertised benefits with the actual benefits. I agree that additional income for the family could be construed as a benefit. But, women could always get a job in the pre-feminist world, so that is not really an actual benefit. Plus, once the female goes to work, she has to have daycare watch her children which is an added expense, among others. Your second "benefit" is fictitious. Men never thought those things until the media began to point them out in the 80's and 90's. That is fictional academic feminism, not reality. So, again, 50 years after the feminist "revolution", what are the actual benefits of feminism for males?

      Delete
    4. I am talking about a time period and thinking of how this all came about and the benefits. The disastrous consequences for all involved were unforeseen.
      I am not interesting in debating or going over old hat territory because i am not giving my opinion- just stating facts as they occurred- not fiction- nor trying to convince anyone of anything. I am an autocrat and don't give a damn.

      Delete
    5. If we don't understand how a problem got started and the thinking involved then we are not serious about rectifying it.
      As for your 'academic feminism" i dont don't give a shit about that. and I wish no one else did either.

      Delete
    6. Well, you certainly couldn't convince me!

      Delete
    7. anonymous, I can see what you're saying. you made some really interesting points.

      Feminism, like every fad in America, seemed cool and interesting at first. it was probably exciting even for some of the men, they may have believed that it was "evolution" and the natural progression of things improving with advancing technology in our society. it's probable that some people inherently rejected it because they had wisdom to see what human nature is. but there are always idealists, and young people are the most idealistic of all. that is why feminism caught on with college students

      Delete
    8. Yes, I like that- a fad that got out of hand.
      It was a confluence of social, cultural and economic factors at the time. I think you are right- it seemed like a good idea to many people for thier own varied reasons. It was thought to be and sold as a solution to problems ( real and imagined- and manufactured.)
      Some people did see down the road where it would lead- but they were shunted aside. Just like you guys can see down the road where all these things are leading.

      George Harrison ( Beatles guy) showed the thinking of the time. They got arrested for taking drugs and contributing to the dishonor of their unmarried female companions.
      And he flipped off the Patriarchy and it's System and said "I am a young man with a young man's morality and I don't have any use for your old man's morality."

      all-righty then...
      Donna Reed out. Ursula Andress in.

      Delete
    9. Excuse me- correction- I am not sure now if it was George Harrison now or a Rolling Stones guy. It's before my time.

      Delete
  5. Hmm, can't you guys figure out that (((feminism))) is a psychological warfare campaign directed at Western civilisation by (((Marxist commie scum))) and that it worked because White American men were dumb enough to take (((feminists))) seriously. In particular; those twits on Capitol Hill.

    kerdasi amaq

    ReplyDelete

PODCAST 54: ADL SENPAI NOTICES US

Following their inclusion on the ADL's list of top movers and shakers in the Alt-Right, Alternative Right Editors Andy "The N...