5.3.11

The Eventual Outcome of Feminism, Part I


Lecture No. 10


"The founders of a new colony, whatever Utopia of human virtue and happiness they might originally project, have invariably recognized it among their earliest practical necessities to allot a portion of the virgin soil as a cemetery, and another portion as the site of a prison." - Nathaniel Hawthorne


It seems sensible, at this stage, to pose the question: why is all this happening? The answer I can offer up, for the purpose of this lecture, is not historical but psychological: it offers explanation through reference to the mental state of feminism's operators. There certainly are historical processes at work, explored elsewhere, but no social movement survives purely for the sake of its history. Nobody is born a feminist. There must be some stimulus, or stimuli, working to remodel formerly non-feminist women and men into activated feminists. But we cannot explain feminist conversion by the agitation of those already existing feminist activists. We can certainly believe that feminist activism plays a role in recruitment, but this is not adequate as an explanation. Why would an individual then commit to feminism, rather than any other particular social movement whose advocates engage in agitation for the purposes of ideological recruitment?

It must be that feminism offers such individuals something that other movements do not. I propose that, by opening up space for perfectly satisfying, collective man-hating, feminism offers a form of catharsis eagerly seized upon by those already predisposed to misandry. There are probably as many rationalizations for misandry as there are individual feminists – we would have to explore the intimate details of an individual feminist's life, particularly her mental culture, to come to a conclusion about when and why she decided to blame an entire sex for each of her inconveniences. What is common to them all is hostility to masculinity, i.e. maleness. When the initial excitement brought about by mutual indulgence in sexual hate has died down, the lines of communication between feminists remain open. Feminism provides more than the opportunity for catharsis. The feminist soon realizes that she need not restrict herself to echo chambers, but might try her hand at real change. A thrill rushes through her at the thought of not just disparaging, but actually hurting men. Backed up by an extensively organized, generously funded and institutionally- connected movement – one that enjoys a rosy reputation as defender of that greatest virtue of our time, equality – she sets to work. Feminism is a misandrist's dream.

Implicit in what I have written above is the corollary that feminism does not create misandry. Feminism promotes, endorses, reinforces, organizes and aggrandizes misandry, but it does not generate it outright. A woman who is not antipathetic towards men will not become so upon exposure to feminist thought. More likely, she will recoil at its odious philosophy. Feminism simply provides a space for women and men who were already misandrically-inclined to congregate and make plans.

The forerunner to feminism was traditional Gynocentrism, a self-sustaining social system which taught women that men should sacrifice on their behalf, and taught men that they were defective women. The female privilege inherent to this sexual ecology was undoubtedly accompanied and reinforced by animosity towards men – the 'flawed' sex – most particularly those men who did not conform to the Gynocentric role expected of them. Feminism departs from this model, not only in the sense that it provides organization for this misandry, but also in the instability of its operations. Feminism relentlessly demands greater male sacrifice for the benefit of women. This is a process to be intensified without an end point. Such a process lacks forward planning or any semblance of equilibrium. Ever greater constraints are placed on the very class of people whose labor and genius sustains the social order in which feminism can thrive. The parasite is killing its host, and will either be purged or die along with it. Feminism is simply not sustainable.

But it is not as though feminists think in these terms. Despite their forays into such recondite subjects as jurisprudence and post-modernism, feminist thought ultimately resolves to the validation of primal emotions. The central tenets of Western-style justice systems, evolving as they did under patriarchy, aspired to impartiality and objectivity in all proceedings. We speak of habeas corpus, the right to trial by jury, the presumption of innocence, punishments which fit rather than exceed corresponding crimes, and so on. That these doctrines of civic freedom have lasted for so many centuries is testament to the integrity of the generations of men who inherited them. Feminists, in their efforts to replace these 'outmoded, patriarchal' institutions, do not engage in anything like the deep thought that begat their careful construction. Much less do they entertain the notion of impartiality. All feminist legal innovation – whether it is introducing the presumption of guilt (for men), advocating an inquisitorial rather than adversarial trial system (for men), or proposing that women should not be punished at all when they commit crimes – flows from the same source: the violent and vindictive emotions of individual feminist operators. Feminism is so dangerous because it exists to validate these emotions, and to assign them a permanent place in discussions over how society might be better organized.


The success of feminism in this regard can be appreciated when we consider the popularity of collective guilt, anathema as it is to the principles of neutrality and impartiality underpinning our liberal justice systems. Collective guilt is an emotional discharge, a visible effect of concentrated class hatred. It is an attack on the verifiable truth of individual moral agency. Under a system of collective guilt, one's actions have no bearing on one's fate. Human beings are sent to the gallows for the circumstances of their birth. There is no purpose for trials, or any institution which exists to ascertain the facts of the case and to assign guilt. Guilt is already assigned; the facts are irrelevant. What follows collective guilt is collective punishment.

Feminists are not yet in a powerful enough position to deliver collective punishment to the entirety of the male sex. Instead, they cast as wide and as deep a net as possible, hoping to snag as many men and boys as they can. Wherever an individually identifiable man appears on their radar, he becomes the latest pariah, even if the accusations against him are weak and unfounded. This is irrelevant; all that matters is that he has been identified. Then, he becomes the target for unbridled angst, a public piñata, an effigy of all men, of maleness itself. He becomes the personification of the entire male sex, and the collective punishment that feminists yearn to deliver unto all men is inflicted onto him. Even after he is proven to be innocent of all accusations, the attacks intensify, as though the reluctance of the world to acknowledge his guilt is an even greater injury than the charges brought against him. In a short while, he will be forgotten, and a new whipping boy will be discovered. Until that time, feminists will try to outdo each other in editorials, speeches, and in the comment sections of newspapers and weblogs, calling for the most grotesque mutilations and acts of violence against him.

An impartial legal system, which treats human beings as individuals, is a barrier against collective punishment. To do away with it altogether would allow for the punishment of many more men, on the basis that they are men, which is why feminists have fought so relentlessly to overturn impartiality. Bit by bit, feminist agents within government, academia and the legal system have replaced individual moral agency and the rule of law with the micro-management of people. As the mantra goes, the personal is political - it is, increasingly, the business of the state. Even when not explicitly framed like this, the underlying principle of all feminist innovation is to bring the state to bear down, ever more closely, on our personal, everyday existences. If the personal really is the same thing as the political, then political correctness must be personal correctness - a perverse and pervasive system of control which scrutinizes an individual's every move, in order to lock him into place. You must be personally correct, in terms of your beliefs, your desires, your pursuits, your tastes – right down to the jokes you are permitted to laugh at – according to their standards. They being the self-declared 'victims' of society, who are nevertheless powerful enough to enjoy lunch with the President and set out the terms on which the government is to run your life.

The idea is not that men should overcome all the obstacles in their struggle to be politically/personally correct. After all, those who are demanding that men run this daily gauntlet are the very same people lining up to beat them with clubs as they try. The idea is that men should, so to speak, die trying. The intention is that men fail. For as long as average men manage to live peacefully, and even successfully, more and greater incursions into their personal space shall be required. It is at the point of failure – when men have failed to live up to the increasingly constrictive rules set out for them – that they can be punished. The ordeal gets tougher by the day and with each passing of new legislation.

At the extreme end of societal micro-management, we find states like North Korea, a brutal, totalitarian dictatorship which controls all forms of media, place severe restrictions upon speech, association, movement and access to information, and detains dissidents and their families in concentration camps where many die from starvation or medical experimentation. Western societies are separated from the continuum of despotism, on which we find North Korea, by a small number of fundamentals, some of which have already been referenced: respect for the autonomy of the individual, the presumption of innocence, the separation of executive, legislative and judicial powers, etc. These doctrines correspond precisely to those which feminism aims to tear down. The violent, vindictive emotions from which feminism springs are, by nature, irrational; there exists no internal, rational boundary, to suggest that enough is enough once a certain benchmark is reached. The furious impulses at the heart of feminism would not stop short of constructing a totalitarian regime which restricts men's speech, their association and movement, and detains them in concentration and labor camps where they are subject to starvation and mutilation.

Are we so far removed from savage regimes like North Korea that this is not a possibility? We should not allow ourselves to be misled by appeals that we live in a democracy, and that the leaders are ultimately accountable to the people. Our democracy is only ostensible, offering little real choice. The bipartisan consensus between leading parties ensures that the state continues to grow, and the feminist agenda is further promoted, whether the new government cloaks itself in red or blue. Facing no serious political opposition, the leaders do not have to bow to the people to secure their mandate. All public pandering is superficial, though highly effective, in the same way that all totalitarians have enjoyed the popularity of the masses. By definition, totalitarians must be populist: the support they must mobilize, in order to remain in power, cannot be that of an armed minority alone. In exchange for the sponsorship of the masses, totalitarians caress their egos, giving enthusiastic praise to them for their courage, declaring them the inspiration of all progress. At least, the greater part of them are praised. Groups which are not in favor are, in contrast, treated with contempt prior to their destruction. It is the majority which becomes tyrannous – as Alexis De Tocqueville warned – when the leaders isolate a particular segment of the population for blame and castigation. Enjoying their glorification on behalf of the leader, the chosen majority will side against the undesirables, and treat them with abominable malice. It is a story that has played out, over and over, throughout history – not least in the populist tyrannies of the twentieth century. Today, our leaders exalt the feminine and malign the masculine – a prejudice running so deep that it has become normalized, to the point where few consider it unusual for the President to bash men on Father's Day. Men – who are, indeed in the minority, making up 49% of the population – are suffering the early stages of the tyranny of the majority. Leaders of all parties pander, first and foremost, to the female majority, and particularly to the pressure groups set up (supposedly) in their interests. More pernicious than this is the entry of women into politics – not because of the fact that they are women, but because almost every female politician, whatever her party allegiance, makes women's issues her priority. In contrast, male politicians swear their allegiance to the principles of their party and to the demands of their constituents, but not to men's issues. There are no politicians who make men's issues a priority, but plenty – male and female – who run on the cross-party, women's issues platform. The world is not so simple that we can say men are over-represented because they are present in greater numbers. Although there is a greater number of men in politics, it is women who are over-represented, because more politicians represent them than they do men. The sex of the politician makes no difference to the legislation that he passes. In courting the female vote, and particularly in his efforts to please feminist groups (organized misandry), he will perpetuate and extend chivalry, he will publicly belittle his own sex, and he will pass ever more anti-male legislation, sanctioning the brutalization of ordinary men.


Systematic destruction follows systematic contempt. The eventual outcome of feminism is nothing less than a Holocaust, the almighty crescendo to mark the success of a century or more of sexual warfare and the demonization/degradation of the masculine. Those men, such as the male politician who has stoked the fires of gender tribalism to win votes and benefit his own career, will become the concentration camp facilitators and the enforcers of population reduction programs. They shall be the Uncle Toms, the Judenräte atop white horses, who will ultimately meet the same fate as the men they have helped exterminate. The anti-male, homicidal and genocidal violence in feminist rhetoric is well documented:

"The male is a domestic animal which, if treated with firmness ... can be trained to do most things" - Jilly Cooper, SCUM (Society For Cutting Up Men)

"I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig" - Andrea Dworkin

"Kill your fathers" - Robin Morgan

"Life in this society being, at best, an utter bore and no aspect of society being at all relevant to women, there remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females only to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation, and destroy the male sex" - Valerie Solanas, SCUM Manifesto

"It is no accident that in the ancient matriarchies men were castrated, sacrificially slaughtered, and excluded from public forms of power; nor is it an accident that some female supremacists now believe men to be a distinct and inferior species or race. Wherever power is accessible or bodily integrity honored on the basis of biological attribute, systematized cruelty permeates the society and murder and mutilation contaminate it. We will not be different" – Andrea Dworkin

"Why have any men at all? … The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately ten percent of the human race" – Sally Miller Gearhart

"If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth.  I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males" – Mary Daly
The stock feminist response is to point out that these quotes are from radical feminists, who have not been active for a long time, and do not represent mainstream feminism. While it is not exactly true that they do not represent mainstream feminism, we can find more recent examples of feminist attitudes:
"It is time that government had a strategy on changing men away from power and oppression as part of its strategy for women and gender justice ... Changing future agendas for women involves changing men; changing men involves deconstructing men and reducing men’s power; and, in the longer term still, this may even involve the abolition of men" – EuroPRO-Fem, a European men's pro-feminist network
The following is extracted from a recent discussion on a feminist weblog:
Allecto: I think there is a very simple solution to the ‘problem’ of the team sport of gang-raping that is so popular as a form of gay male bonding between football players. Mandatory castration of all men who play football and all men who watch football. This would be a quick and easy solution.

bonobobabe: I like your castration idea. I’d take a step further and castrate all male babies at birth.

Mary Sunshine: There is no remedy for this situation other than to halt the emergence of any more human males.
Two caveats must be advanced before we go any further. The first is not a compromise; it is not self-censorship or moderation. It is a statement of fact. The overwhelming majority of women do not, and would not, support the extermination of men. The question of whether all or most or only some feminists support the extermination of men is one that I shall address in a couple of weeks' time. Clearly, there are feminists who do not openly support the extermination of men. Nevertheless, they have a role to play in the process, as do all misandrists. For the time being, it will suffice to say that all feminist self-reflection and self-criticism reaches the verdict that they are not being 'feminist enough,' i.e. it results in further radicalization. I quote from the back cover of Zillah Eisenstein's The Radical Future of Liberal Feminism, a feminist text which arrives at this very conclusion:
Eisenstein shows that liberal feminism is 'self-contradictory' because it 'accepts liberalism and at the same time rejects its patriarchal base.' Yet in truth, feminism is 'potentially subversive', to both liberalism and the capitalist patriarchal state, and it must and can become radicalized as it pushes against the limitations of what can be accomplished within the context of the state … Eisenstein advances the view that liberal feminism contains within itself the seeds of radical change.
The significant point about the above quote is that Eisenstein, the feminist author, rejects the 'patriarchal base' of all liberal institutions; that is, she would happily do away with legal impartiality, equality before the law, presumptive innocence, and so on. Retaining these doctrines, which exist to protect innocent people, is not on the feminist agenda, and Eisenstein comes to the very same conclusion that I have presented in this lecture: that liberal feminism will become radical when it achieves all it can through the liberal state. The violent and vindictive emotions will not be satiated, ever. Once feminism has gone as far as it can go through the liberal state, 'liberal feminists' will turn against it and plot its overthrow.

The second caveat is that the physical destruction of men is not inevitable. It is the logical outcome of feminism, but our future is not set in stone. Given that feminists have explicitly called for forced male labor and the presumption of innocence to be removed when men are accused of rape, and that lawmakers are seriously floating the suggestion that those found guilty of sex offences should be physically castrated, we might conclude that we are already some way down the feminist road to hell. Feminism has no internal brakes; a victory does not temper the feminist's violent emotions, but provides the momentum for her to push for greater results, in the knowledge that she can get away with hurting men. Any barrier to the progress of feminism will therefore have to come from outside feminism. It is up to external agents to build a brick wall in feminism's path.

We are more than sixty years into an organic process that will leave humanity with an irrevocably changed society. The catalyst for the abolition of Gynocentrism is its own radical and unsustainable expression in feminism. Those same social and conceptual changes which made feminism possible prompt the question of why men should put up with any form of Gynocentrism. The critical mass of opposition to Gynocentrism, resulting in its overthrow, will be reached as soon as feminism is exposed to the world. What remains to be seen is whether feminism shall expose itself, or whether it will be exposed by counter-feminists. The former will occur if the movement becomes powerful enough to explicitly launch the physical destruction of men. My own view is that feminists will make this final roll of the dice, and that they will be ultimately unsuccessful, although many men will suffer tortuous deaths. The other possibility is that feminism is exposed in advance of this, preventing much of the violence, and allowing for the repeal of all Gynocentric rule with minimal bloodshed. Whatever the case – whether feminism exposes itself, or is exposed – it is done for. Cast in the disinfecting sunlight of the world's gaze, held to account for its grievous transgressions, never again will feminism be tolerated.

Adam


Further Reading:

Roger F. Gay. Unraveling Feminism in Sweden

Shannon O'Neil. Man Hatred OK at University of New Hampshire

Martin Lehmann. Feminist Zealots Create an Anti-Male World

24 comments:

Anonymous said...

Catharsis.... this is good, begins to answer what are the motivational (psychological) principles of feminist behaviours. My question, which you have already answered is why choose this method of catharsis? Why not projecting (unloading) all one's hatred and violence onto people who pollute the environment, or onto a political party, or something less detrimental to one's *other* psychological desires- desires like getting a boyfreind or getting married which are high up on the list for many women who play the feminist game (Id wager the majority of women who subscribe partially to feminist orientation are not unambiguous man-hating lesbians, but women who deeply desire to be coupled with a male for ever after).

So what else psychological, other than blissful cathersis from the scapegoating all ills onto males, might be driving feminist behaviour? How do you explain the haughtiness, arrogance and exclusive female self-reference/self interest inherent to feminism? How do you explain the "Because I'm worth it" phenomenon of feminism? I suggest the narcissistic drive, as I mentioned previously.

Don't get me wrong here I'm not dismissing the suggestion of catharsis as motivator, which is clearly a correct explanation for the misandric aspect of feminism. Its more that feminism may be better viewed as a 'syndrome' which means a collection of disparate motivations and behaviours - as differentiated from a 'disorder' which typically have more unified drives and behavioral goals. Feminism is a conglomerate of motivations and behaviours. (In all this we are analyzing 'feminism' as if it were an individual or patient).

So to return to my above question; to which powerful drive are feminism-oriented women subordinating thier desire to couple/marry with males, the later being a very powerful drive in itself if we look at the themes of most women's magazines (Magazines which bring together in one editorials primarily about marraige/coupling alongside other articles consisting of feminist messages about empowerment, often at the male's expense). Why are women taking the huge risk to get catharsis by man hating when it risks alienating the men they wish to couple with? This is where narcissism comes in as the irresitable drive behind both marraige and feminist aims and behaviours. Self aggrandizement. To place all feminist bahaviour at the alter of misandry does not quite get there.

I wonder is it possible that enticement to narcissistic gratification is the bait misandric feminists use to get non-misandric women to take up the feminist push for power? Two different motivations (catharsis-by-misandry, and narcissistic gratification) for different women. Now that would be a neat alliance.

Thats all.

Anonymous said...

Actually I just had a new thought, FWIW. Perhaps its possible to place the seemingly different behaviours of misandry and self aggrandizement at the one alter of narcissism?

Here's how that would work; People in the grip of the narcissistic drive can exist in one of two immediate environments- 1. the environment successfully recognises and feeds my narcissistic hunger and I in turn feel suitably inflated and "worth it", or 2. the environment is witholding, does not recognise my worth-it-ness nor feed my sense of entitlement, and therefore I take out my aggression on males and acheive catharsis in that act of hating.

In case 1. women can continue the marraige fantasy. in case 2 the withholding male has become an enemy to be destroyed over and over (referred to in the psych industry as "narcissistic injury & narcissistic rage").

Thinking out loud.....

Anonymous said...

More concise regarding motivating drives of feminism:

Woman 1. Narcissistic drive
woman 2. Narcissistic and aggressive drives

Woman #2 are IMO the main constructors of the feminist idiological and political edifice. Thier drive is aggression, which gives the stamina. Woman #1 would not have seen the project through, as they are already sated.

Fidelbogen said...

"To place all feminist bahaviour at the alter of misandry does not quite get there. "

Anon, your comments are fascinating, although a bit "shrinkish" for my blood.

But I think your statement quoted directly above gets to the nub of the matter pretty well. So, without going into much detail, I would say yes, feminism recruits a mass of female energy which is not directly involved in man-hating.

However, I believe it is meaningful to say that without man-hating as a CORE DRIVE, feminism wouldn't amount to very much as a sociopolitical phenomenon.

Anonymous said...

Fidelbogen,

Thanks for dignifying the above psychobabble with a reply. I'm trying to get past sociological explanations which dont seem to explain the intensity we see with the average feminist. On that point I agree the man-hating is a core drive and feminism would never have been born without it.

However that man-hating appears tied up with narcissistic gratification, and in particular narcissistic injury, with feminism being constructed by a collective of such injured women.

Is the narcissism more primary than the hate/aggression? These two forces are both driving feminism, but I wonder if the hate has been enlisted by an even more primary narcissistic drive?

(BTW, here is the Wikipedia article explaining Narcissistic rage and narcissistic injury: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_rage_and_narcissistic_injury )

For me that explains the female puffery- the grandiosity, adoration, inflation, and sense of entitlement attached to feminism.... which man-hate and catharsis does not explain.

Anonymous said...

Just to make the case a little further, tell me if you see any likenesses between your average feminist's behaviour, and the below DSM-IV definition of narcissism:

A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:

1. Has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)
2. Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
3. Believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)
4. Requires excessive admiration
5. Has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations
6. Is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends
7. Lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others
8. Is often envious of others or believes others are envious of him or her
9. Shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes

Adam Kostakis said...

(Part 1)

Psychological Anon,

Thanks for your comments - they are always appreciated. Let me go through and respond point by point.

"Why not projecting (unloading) all one's hatred and violence onto people who pollute the environment, or onto a political party, or something less detrimental to one's *other* psychological desires- desires like getting a boyfreind or getting married which are high up on the list for many women who play the feminist game (Id wager the majority of women who subscribe partially to feminist orientation are not unambiguous man-hating lesbians, but women who deeply desire to be coupled with a male for ever after)."

I agree that this describes the majority of feminists. Those truly indifferent to men (i.e. actual, not 'political' lesbians) would have no reason at all to hate men - and while generalizations should never be drawn from personal experience, the small number of non-feminist lesbians I have known have displayed not the slightest hint of hostility towards men.

Also, some feminists do display rage and hostility towards people for other reasons - they do not necessarily just loathe men, but they may well despise those people accused of polluting the environment as well. The hatred of men generally seems to be stronger though, corresponding no doubt to the primacy of the psycho-sexual drive, as you stated.

(continued ...)

Adam Kostakis said...

(Part 2)

"So what else psychological, other than blissful cathersis from the scapegoating all ills onto males, might be driving feminist behaviour? How do you explain the haughtiness, arrogance and exclusive female self-reference/self interest inherent to feminism? How do you explain the "Because I'm worth it" phenomenon of feminism?"

Keep in mind I haven't really got onto the topic yet. I am getting there. I made reference to the psychological motivation for misandry in this post, but a fuller explanation has its place in a few weeks time. Your comments, on this post and on previous, have not gone unacknowledged. It's just that I like to be systematic about my writing, and usually plan the shape of these lectures weeks if not months in advance. So, I will get there in due time.

For now, this will suffice: I explain the narcissism by the combination of two factors. First, traditional Gynocentrism (which persists even outside of feminist circles), which elevates women as the protected caste and gives them special status. The cultural 'programming' women receive is favorable to them because it tells them that they are superior to men. Feminism has exacerbated this 'programming' but it did not create the meme. (I dislike the term 'programming', because I reject the view that human beings are automatons whose behavior is determined by social and cultural norms, i.e. I reject structuralism.) Gynocentric and now, feminist cultural memes state that women are the sexual gatekeepers and men exist to serve and impress them. It is shocking how many women, even in this age of supposed equality, still believe this.

The second factor is the advanced consumer economy. Free markets do not just fulfil desires, they create desires too. The ideal consumer is one who is materialistic, narcissistic, competitive, obsessed with social status, and so on. This type of consumer is the most manipulable. What we have found over the last century or so is that women more easily become this type of consumer - I would speculate this is because more women than men are devoid of character, owing to their Gynocentrically privileged status.

I do not believe either of these factors are inevitable or natural. That is, I do not believe that women are essentially or inherently (more) narcissistic or manipulable. They have been made so through Gynocentrism, and advanced consumerism exploits these existing characteristics to boost profit margins. Take a look at some adverts marketed to women - which most are nowadays, along with most TV shows, films, newspaper editorials, etc. There is an almost endless hammering of this idea that women collectively are deserving of more than they currently have (whatever this is), and that women individually are deserving of more than they currently have. This meme is so widespread it has become a droning background noise. Nobody questions that women are disadvantaged because it is on a par with subliminal messaging. The favorable outcome, to the consumer economy, is that women demand more be spent on them. Women control something like 80% of spending in the United States, despite men earning higher income.

(continued ...)

Adam Kostakis said...

(Part 3)

The real problem is that this narcissistic materialism won't go away when women do out-earn men. As Paul Elam has wonderfully stated, when we see men paying for high-income women's dinners from their unemployment checks, we might actually start to see some change here.

In short, I believe these two factors are what produce the princess mentality. One historical, one recent, the latter leaning on the former. Crush Gynocentrism, and there will be nobody prepared to indulge women's materialism. Then women will have to actually grow up and face the hardships of life, developing character along the way - that will be a wonderful thing to see, and will result in most women outright rejecting feminism.

Feminism, you see, depends upon the perception that women need to be provided for, even as it pays lip service to the opposite idea. The independent woman is anathema to the countless legal and welfare reforms put in place by feminists, which make life easier for women because they are women.

"Don't get me wrong here I'm not dismissing the suggestion of catharsis as motivator, which is clearly a correct explanation for the misandric aspect of feminism. Its more that feminism may be better viewed as a 'syndrome' which means a collection of disparate motivations and behaviours - as differentiated from a 'disorder' which typically have more unified drives and behavioral goals. Feminism is a conglomerate of motivations and behaviours."

Feminism could be viewed as a syndrome, but actually, I see it as an expression, namely, the radical expression of Gynocentrism. It is narcissism which I see as a syndrome, of Gynocentrism. Gynocentrism is the social disorder - although (in its historical, non-radical form) it does sustain societies, this is at enormous cost to the men in those societies, and so is quite deserving of the term 'disorder'. Feminism is just Gynocentrism gone nuts. It's a very old idea taken to inconsistent and unsustainable extremes.

(continued ...)

Adam Kostakis said...

(Part 4)

"to which powerful drive are feminism-oriented women subordinating thier desire to couple/marry with males, the later being a very powerful drive in itself if we look at the themes of most women's magazines (Magazines which bring together in one editorials primarily about marraige/coupling alongside other articles consisting of feminist messages about empowerment, often at the male's expense). Why are women taking the huge risk to get catharsis by man hating when it risks alienating the men they wish to couple with?"

This is a great question, and I think the only answer I can give right now is that human beings are not always rational. Particularly not when they are emotional, and given the primacy of the psycho-sexual drive, an emotional response is unavoidable when the drive is stunted. Rejecting, and hating, the inaccessible object of desire is an unfortunate, and irrational, but ultimately very human reaction.

Also keep in mind that a lot of feminist innovation has consisted in making young women out of bounds for men. Please go to The Anti-Feminist - link in the sidebar on the blog - and spend a few hours reading. Feminism - or at least, one aspect of it - is the sexual trade union of women whose objects of desire are inaccessible (in short, men pursue younger women, leaving the less desirable women without men). Schopenbecq's theory that the pill in fact liberated men, and forced women to 'take power back' through feminism, is not only intriguing - I cannot find fault with it.

"This is where narcissism comes in as the irresitable drive behind both marraige and feminist aims and behaviours. Self aggrandizement. To place all feminist bahaviour at the alter of misandry does not quite get there."

Sure, narcissism is mixed up in all this, as I've mentioned above. I would say that hostility is generated when the woman who believes she deserves an object is denied that object. This hostility easily translates into misandry, i.e. hostility towards the object that rejects her ownership of it.

(continued ...)

Adam Kostakis said...

(Part 5)

"I wonder is it possible that enticement to narcissistic gratification is the bait misandric feminists use to get non-misandric women to take up the feminist push for power?"

Interesting idea. However, narcissism is at root of the problem, as a byproduct of Gynocentrism and preliminary to feminism and non-feminist misandry. I think that female narcissism is always going to be a problem, and we are best served by attacking it at root. I mentioned above that I reject structuralism. I don't believe any woman necessarily has to incorporate into her personality any of the social ills so far mentioned (materialism, narcissism, feminism), but always has a choice in the matter. She can reject them all, and in the absence of men willing to provide for her and bail her out (a problem which is currently systemic) she would be forced into independence, and would develop character as a result of dealing with all of life's hardships. I identify character as that which is opposite to narcissism, materialism and dependence. Most men have character because nobody is there to bail them out and they know it; they have to make it on their own. Most women do not experience this, and do not develop character. This is the problem, in my view.

There are many examples of women who do reject narcissism, etc. from their personalities. There are those who do develop character. They can be found in the Men's Rights sphere as well as outside of it. I have known several in real life. They are simply those women who take their responsibilities as seriously as do the majority of men. It is safe to say that no feminist fits this bill.

"Perhaps its possible to place the seemingly different behaviours of misandry and self aggrandizement at the one alter of narcissism?

Here's how that would work; People in the grip of the narcissistic drive can exist in one of two immediate environments- 1. the environment successfully recognises and feeds my narcissistic hunger and I in turn feel suitably inflated and "worth it", or 2. the environment is witholding, does not recognise my worth-it-ness nor feed my sense of entitlement, and therefore I take out my aggression on males and acheive catharsis in that act of hating.

In case 1. women can continue the marraige fantasy. in case 2 the withholding male has become an enemy to be destroyed over and over (referred to in the psych industry as "narcissistic injury & narcissistic rage")."


Yes! This is largely the conclusion I came to, as described above.

I particularly like your description that as the enemy, the man (which soon becomes men, plural) must be destroyed 'over and over'. The narcissistic rage - a great label for it - is never satiated, as I state in this lecture. It is possible that hate has so warped the psyche that even possessing the object (i.e. attaining her ideal man) will not cause the rage to cease. Feminist women may well be 'beyond repair'.

(continued ...)

Adam Kostakis said...

(Part 6)

"More concise regarding motivating drives of feminism:

Woman 1. Narcissistic drive
woman 2. Narcissistic and aggressive drives

Woman #2 are IMO the main constructors of the feminist idiological and political edifice. Thier drive is aggression, which gives the stamina. Woman #1 would not have seen the project through, as they are already sated."


Clearly, a certain amount of aggression is needed for one to become a feminist - in the case of the women, anyway (how many times per post do they need to resort to profanity? I suppose they think it makes the point sound more forceful, like typing in ALLCAPS; as if how an argument is made is more important than its content). So, I would say this is true. The non-feminist misandric women most likely possess the narcissistic drive without the accompanying aggressive drive - or they are simply non-activated, and could become feminists through ideological recruitment - think sleeper cells (in the case that the narcissistic drive does not achieve its object, but the woman does not identify explicitly as feminist, that is, she may be misandric on an individual basis but is not (yet) engaged in a collective project to harm men).

"man-hating appears tied up with narcissistic gratification, and in particular narcissistic injury, with feminism being constructed by a collective of such injured women."

Again, very true. What we need to point out is that these women have not actually been injured, apart from in their own minds: they feel injured only because they possess Gynocentric privilege which makes them feel entitled to the object of their desires without actually having to earn it (they feel naturally entitled, on the basis of bio-essentialism, i.e. because they are women, to the fruits of male labor).

"Is the narcissism more primary than the hate/aggression? These two forces are both driving feminism, but I wonder if the hate has been enlisted by an even more primary narcissistic drive?"

I think this is something of a chicken-and-egg question. Since all human beings begin life as utter narcissists, and needs/wants will naturally go unfulfilled as they grow (which is necessary for the development of character), it's difficult to say which comes first in the Gynocentric/feminist context. It's safe to say that they go hand in hand. Hatred for men will result in increased demands on them to serve women; while hatred of men results from narcissistic demands (male service) going unfulfilled. It's a vicious circle. This is why feminists become even crazier as they get older - or, in a minority of cases, they break out from the circle and become anti-feminists, having become conscious that they are harming themselves even as they harm men. (See: Christina Hoff Sommers, Camille Paglia.)

"Just to make the case a little further, tell me if you see any likenesses between your average feminist's behaviour, and the below DSM-IV definition of narcissism"

I do - absolutely - every point, and what is more, feminists seem proud of possessing these personality traits, as though being anti-social and exploitative are virtues.

Did you not post this list before? Or was that a different Psychological Anon?

Thankyou very much for the interesting points you raised!

Regards,

Adam.

Adam Kostakis said...

Correction:

"It is narcissism which I see as a syndrome, of Gynocentrism."

What I meant here is not syndrome, but symptom.

Adam Kostakis said...

Another correction: in Part 5, I misread your statement as advocating that non-feminists could use the narcissistic drives present in non-feminist women to 'recruit' them to the fight against feminism.

Looking at it again, I am really not sure how I interpreted it this way ...

Anonymous said...

Adam,

Thanks for your replies to the rabble above. You further clarified gynocentrism and your thoughts about the role narcissism in that context.

Yes I was the one who mentioned Narcissism on a previous occasion on your list.

"Free markets do not just fulfil desires, they create desires too. The ideal consumer is one who is materialistic, narcissistic, competitive, obsessed with social status, and so on."

Right on. So could we say that markets have exaggerated the degree of gynocentism in much the same way you say that feminism has exaggerated it- ie. that in we have two powerful 'teasers' stimulate an intensification in gynocentric behaviour?

"I do not believe that women are essentially or inherently (more) narcissistic or manipulable."

Agreed, the exaggerated female narcissism is fed by environmental factors, and could be equally have been males if they were (hypothetically) the targets of similar environmental enticements. As it is today markets are keen to find ways to exploit the largely untapped male buyer markets, and if successful there is a likelihood that they will generate an increase in male narcissism.


"..narcissism is at root of the problem, as a byproduct of Gynocentrism..."

Pairing narcissism and Gynocentrism is sensible, though I'm not sure about the word 'byproduct' here.... we are back to chicken and egg - ie, would a Gynocentrism operate without a prior, albiet latent narcisstic drive? I'd personally prefer to think of this with metaphors from behaviouralism: A drive arousal stimulus (Gynocentrism), releasing a primary psychological drive (narcissism)- ie. the two working in concert.

"There are many examples of women who do reject narcissism, etc. from their personalities. There are those who do develop character."

Important to remind ourselves that women can choose to say no to narcissism and choose instead to think for themselves and to develop character. The importance of self discipline and willpower are all but forgotten arts in the consumer age, but they are so necessary to the development of character.

You summed it up perfectly here:
"Since all human beings begin life as utter narcissists, and needs/wants will naturally go unfulfilled as they grow (which is necessary for the development of character)".

I'll take some time and try reading some of the links you have on your blog, and hopefully get a better appreciation for your work. To date I have been immensely stimulated by your writings on Gynocentrism, and appreciate the intellectual range and attention to detail covered.

Looking forward to your next piece.

Regards

Anon
(suppose I should get a nickname- how about Dionysus !)

Anonymous said...

Clarifying my sentence above, should read;

"Right on. So could we say that markets have exaggerated the degree of gynocentism in much the same way you say that feminism has exaggerated it- ie. that we have two powerful 'teasers' which stimulate an intensification in traditional gynocentric behaviour?


Dionysus

Fidelbogen said...

@PsychologicalAnon:

I was going to respond to your responses, but seeing how Adam has said so much already, I doubt if what I might think to say at this point would not go missing in such an ocean. . so I'm just gonna float and observe...

Anonymous said...

This following feminist revisioning of the definition of narcissism is an excellent example of the word-play Adam has been disecting in his previous essays:

The art of Hannah Wilke: ‘Feminist Narcissism’ and the reclamation of the erotic body. http://jenniferlinton.com/2010/12/31/the-art-of-hannah-wilke-feminist-narcissism-and-the-reclamation-of-the-erotic-body/


The growing problem of female narcissism has been long acknowledged by feminists, who attempt to subvert the usual definitions and place a positive spin on female narcissism- eg. advocating it's necessity to balance out women's traditional selflessness toward men and children:

‘Who put the “Me” in feminism?’
The sexual politics of narcissism
http://fty.sagepub.com/content/6/1/25

I have the full text of the later somewhere.... let me know if you would like an email copy.

Dionysus

Anonymous said...

Quote from The art of Hannah Wilke: ‘Feminist Narcissism’ and the reclamation of the erotic body.

"Rather, the narcissism of [feminist artist] Wilke can be viewed as a shrewd feminist tactic of self-objectification aimed at reclaiming the eroticized female body from the exclusive domain of male sexual desire. The ‘self-love’ of narcissism is a necessary component to this reclaiming of the body and the assertion of a female erotic will as being distinct from that of the male artist. Wilke wielded her narcissistic self-love as a powerful tool of critique, defiantly placing her own image into the hallowed halls of the male-dominated art institution."

"Critics such as Amelia Jones and Joanna Frueh have championed Wilke and proposed, through their respective writings, a new and positive view of narcissism as a legitimately feminist, subversive tactic in the making of art. In her catalogue essay entitled “Intra-Venus and Hannah Wilke’s Feminist Narcissism”, Jones contextualized Wilke’s work within the framework of her “radical narcissism” and argued that the use of her own image throughout her art is far from the conventional or passively ‘feminine’ depiction of women as seen in advertising and other forms of mass media. Joanna Frueh, in her essay that accompanied the 1989 Wilke retrospective in Missouri, equated Wilke’s “positive narcissism” with a form of feminist self-exploration and an assertion of a female erotic will. Both Frueh and Jones cogently argue for a “positive narcissism” that expunges itself of the negative connotations [and] actively and unapologetically engages in self-love. Wilke enacts an aggressive form of narcissistic self-imaging that defiantly solicits the patriarchal gaze..."


Dionysis

Fidelbogen said...

"I have the full text of the later somewhere.... let me know if you would like an email copy."

Eh..yes indeed, if you would. :)

Click through my name to get to my blog, and look for the mail link at the upper right.

Anonymous said...

Apologies Fidelbogen, I seem to have deleted it from my database. However it can be purchased online, or may obtained for free if you have authorisation with a state library.

From memory the article provides another example of twisting word meanings and applications ('narcissism') into new shapes to fit with feminist idiology.

Fidelbogen said...

@Dionyius:

Yes,I am acquainted with Sage Publications, having read tons and tons of stuff from their website.

Rookh Kshatriya said...

A beautiful lecture. My only complaint is the focus on 'contemporary' feminism as the principal source of 'narcissistic misandry', for want of a better term. However, the Anglo-Saxon countries have, since the Reformation, harbored an informal animus against sensual pleasure in general, sex in particular (and against men as sexualized beings in especial). This agenda was most active in the Victorian era amongst Christian socialists, suffragettes and other 'reformers' and its echoes are still felt today, not least in the United States. In sum, these themes are not really 'new' as such; they can be tracked to the Reformation and the cultural isolationism that has sundered the Anglo-American world from Continental life and thought since that momentous event.

The resulting misandry and 'woman worship' that characterizes the contemporary Anglosphere coheres with many of the 'modern' factors listed here (consumerism, multi-national corporatism and media-driven narcissism) to produce a distinctly 'anti-male' contemporary culture, but it would be mistaken to consider this agenda entirely 'new', as such. It is, in fact, as old as the proverbial hills and well-embedded in Anglo-Saxon culture.

The commentators' queries about the reason-confounding 'out of Nature' underpinnings of contemporary feminism are extremely interesting in this regard. Indeed, many contemporary middle-class women (about a third) forgo reproducing altogether, rejecting what has to be considered their primary biological purpose. Only a 'sick' female animal would reject her intrinsic purpose in this manner. Is, then, feminism a product of biological dysfunction: perhaps modern societies allow too many 'unfit' and anomalous humans to survive into adulthood? Possibly, but we must not forget that puritanism too, is 'out of Nature' (to quote Yeats), since its primary focus is the suppression of natural drives. This religious link goes some way to explaining the biological dysfunction at the root of modern feminism, which we can consider for all practical purposes as a kind of Manichaean, secular puritanism.

Jennifer said...

My God, the words against mutilating male babies..this is terrorism, pure and simple. I will remember this site in future if anyone denies that femmies hate men.