When I wrote my post Victory or Defeat I was expecting that there would be some strong disagreement with a few of the arguments that I made. In particular I was expecting opposition to this statement of mine:
The “Women Against Feminism” are, despite thinking otherwise, still actually feminists. They just don’t realize it. They are rebelling against the more visible and extreme “strains” of feminism right now, but fail to realize that they are still believers in the older, less virulent strains.
However, there was far less disagreement than I expected. Commenter Denise went the furthest with this comment, but even that was more of a round about attack on some assumptions I was (apparently) making. I suspect the lack of disagreement is because my blog is a low-traffic one that collects relatively few trolls or individuals opposed to my views.
But enough of that. I wanted to expect on a relatively short but important comment left by Lovelyleblanc7, who is clearly wiser than her years would suggest. Here is what she said in response to a comment of mine:
WAF, MRAs, and feminists are all the same. They shoot themselves in the foot. These days, MRAs are starting to become worse than feminists, which is saying a lot.
The part in bold is what it important to understand. More than important, vital, to understand what is going on and why our culture is in its present condition. LLB7 has correctly diagnosed that (radical) feminists, WAF and MRAs are all essentially the same, although they may not realize it. They are just different flavors of the same thing. You see, they are all proponents of the same societal outcome, despite being, on paper, vehemently opposed to one other.
MRAs and WAFs are Egalitarians- they argue for equal treatment of men and women by society.
Radical feminists (as opposed to the more mundane types) are Female Supremacists- they argue for superior treatment of women by society (although they sometimes try and disguise that fact).
Totally different, right? Wrong. Here is the catch: Egalitarianism inevitably leads towards the outcome of Female Supremacy. Egalitarian philosophy, when applied to society and culture, creates conditions that will naturally push society towards the outcomes and views espoused by radical feminists.
Egalitarians argue for a society where everything is balanced. Where men and women have equal power and rights. In their minds a society organized this way is the fairest, most stable and the most likely to succeed. WAFs and MRAs oppose radical feminism because they see it as unbalanced, and unfair to men. They oppose patriarchy because they see it as unbalanced, and unfair to women. It is their earnest belief that an Egalitarian society is one that is best for everyone. Here is what a graphical representation of it might look like:
The equality point is balanced, and hence, optimal. Power is distributed in society equally between men and women. Society is stable and everyone benefits. Feminism and Patriarchy, on the other hand, are unbalanced. When a society reaches those states it quickly slides into oppression of one sex or the other. Hence the need for the balance point of Egalitarianism- it keeps that oppression from happening.
This is a nice, neat picture. Everything has a place, and it shows that Egalitarians are smart, reasonable people with the best interests of everyone in mind. Too bad this picture is misleading. And not just misleading, but flat out wrong.
It is wrong because the balance point, the optimal distribution of power between men and women is not at the center point, the point of equality. Rather, the balance point is off to the right, towards the male side of power distribution. Here is a graphical representation of how civilizational stability really works:
This graphic demonstrates why Egalitarianism will ultimately, and always, lead towards the radical feminist position. You see, at the point of equality society the slope of social progression is already turned downwards. A society that reaches this point is already on the slide towards the oppression of men and social instability. Egalitarianism is just a stop on the path towards radical feminism and the oppression of men.
Why is the balance point towards the right side of the equation? The Feminine Imperative, of course. For those not quite sure what that is, here is my attempt to define it:
A biological impulse within all human beings which causes us to favor female interests over male interests within the overall social group.
The FI is not all powerful. Social condition, aka Culture, can override it to some degree. Individual men can be especially selfish and oppose efforts to divert resources towards women. But even when there are forces acting to suppress it, the FI yet remains, always pushing, always asserting itself. Unless active efforts are put in place to restrain it, it will insert itself into all aspects of human endeavors.
Now, the Feminine Imperative is not an evil thing. It has served a valuable biological purpose in the early stages of human history, by ensuring that resources and protection were afforded to women to the degree necessary to ensure the survival of the species. But outside that context of day-to-day survival, the Feminine Imperative is dangerous, as it unbalances the overall equation. Favoring female interests over male interests on a massive, organized scale, which is what civilization is all about, means that you will get a system where men are marginalized and ultimately oppressed. Kind of like the present system.
Only by having the overall distribution of power favor men can you ensure that the Feminine Imperative be sufficiently restrained that it won’t lead civilization into oblivion. A number of bloggers have addressed this before. Here is one piece by Free Northerner. What he, and many others, refer to as patriarchy is merely a balanced equation- a system where the distribution of power favors men so that the FI is restrained, yet women are protected from abuse and oppression at the hands of men.
The WAF don’t realize this. They think that they are being fair, reasonable and just women. Sadly, they don’t realize that their push for “equality” is a well-intentioned but misguided effort to keep in place a system which will, if not checked, bring about the very things they claim to be against. Those who oppose “setting back the clock” because they don’t want to give up what they’ve gained from feminism and Egalitarianism don’t appreciate that they cannot keep those powers and yet have a harmonious society. Culture and societies are dynamic, not static. They are ever moving. Either they give up those rights, privileges and powers and restore balance, or they accept that our culture and society will continue to slide towards a despotism of the petticoat.
For those of my readers who are Christians, you should be able to make the connection between this graphic and [accurate, proper] Christian teaching and doctrine. Various powers granted to men but not to women aim to stifle the worst of the Feminine Imperative, as well as other negative aspects of female behavior. Various protections and guarantees granted to women mean to protect them from the worst aspects of male behavior.
Oh, and for those women (or even men) who don’t care if men suffer as a result of women’s new-found power… understand that the new gravy train is of a limited duration. Once a civilization veers too far from the balance point and ends up in oppressive territory, it starts to collapse. The Balance point is also the point of the greatest stability for a civilization. The further away you get from it, the less stable a civilization becomes. Where does it all lead? Just ask Thomas Hobbes:
In such condition, there is no place for Industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain; and consequently no Culture of the Earth; no Navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by Sea; no commodious Building; no Instruments of moving, and removing such things as require much force; no Knowledge of the face of the Earth; no account of Time; no Arts; no Letters; no Society; and which is worst of all, continuall feare, and danger of violent death; And the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short.”
[I lost some of what I wrote on this post. I’ve recovered what I can for now, but I know I’m still missing a few things. I’m uploading this post as is, but expect it to be altered and updated when/if I remember what was lost.]