Last week Free Northern replied to my post Unbalanced Equation with his own post: Women Have No Power. Novaseeker replied with The Varieties of Power. Free Northerner replied in turn with his follow-up post, Private and Public Spheres. I recommend that folks take the time to read all of them (and if you have extra time, the comments) to understand my own post.
With this post I’m going to try to reply to FN some, add on to what Novaseeker said in his post, and then contribute some additional thoughts. Now, its not going to be so neat and orderly as that- rather, I’m going to address certain ideas and theories in turn, which may or may not have been covered by either or both of them. Because of time restrictions this post is going to be straight-forward and less coherent than most of my others. You’ve been warned.
First off, I disagree with FN that women as a “class” have “no power.” And yes, that even includes political power, which does ultimately rest on violence, or the capacity for it. There are two things about female political/active power, however. It is much, much weaker than male political power. Female capacity and aptitude for violence and violent action is significantly less than that possessed by men. By whole orders of magnitude, in fact. Also, women cannot coordinate violent action as well as men, who are bred to that task. On the other hand, modern technology has greatly amplified female political power, far more than has been the case for male political power. Modern fire-arms and other instruments of destruction give women more violent potential than they have ever enjoyed before. Of course, physical capacity reduces the scope of weaponry that women can use, and their effectiveness with them, but the difference in violent capacity now and in the age of sword and spear is huge. All of which is to say that I might be able to best a female 5’4″ cop in hand-to-hand combat, but if we both have guns then the playing field is far and away more level than it would have been a few centuries before.
Second, I think that FN is right that White Knights are in many ways more dangerous than their feminist masters. They have all the male traits and potential for violence and coordinated action that their controllers lack. Even worse, many are convinced that they are doing the right thing, and many could even “good men” who have been duped into serving the Feminine Imperative. There are few things more dangerous than a good man who thinks he is doing the right thing. While women, even the most virulent feminists, might be cowed by a unified display of male strength, I would not expect the same from White Knights. Instead I would expect them to live up to their name and good down “fighting the good fight.”
Speaking of unified displays of male strength, I think that it should be noted that men rarely act together as a “class.” It isn’t how we are wired. There isn’t really a Team Man counterpart to Team Woman. So any argument founded on a notion that men can overcome women “as a class” fails as a foundational matter. While FN’s point might make sense from a theoretical perspective, it just down work in reality. Men don’t act or organize as a class, and never have. Much of what made patriarchy possible was an extensive system of educating young men and imprinting on them the importance of maintaining male structural power, as well as functions to punish those who transgressed. Building up this culture was necessary to overcome the FI. The relative ease with which that system fell apart shows how essential it was for men to be formed into patriarchs- it isn’t a natural thing. Men only amassed control of political power through deliberate effort and will- I would go so far as to say it was an essential component of civilization.
Oh, and another thing: the personal is the political, at least in the sense that political power is heavily influence by personal and private spheres of power. As anyone who has worked in the political field knows, politics is largely about managing personal connections and networks of like-minded people. This has always been the case. The best warlords in history were not the ones who were the greatest warriors, but those who could manage and lead a team of other leaders of warriors. All of which is to say that you cannot divorce the personal and political spheres. It just isn’t how the world works. They constantly interact in ways that are difficult for those without experience in politics to understand.
In closing, I wanted to express my agreement with Novaseeker that purging feminism from our system will require some radical action. It isn’t a quick fix, as the conditions which will bring about its return are baked into our present ideology and core beliefs. Notions of Freedom and Equality inevitably lead us towards feminism. This is because those ideas undermine the social instruments necessary to keep the FI in check. Individualism, Modernism, Liberalism… all will need to be excised from our culture in order for matters to be set aright.
I have more ideas that are still swirling about in my head. I may add them to this post, or write a follow-up. This one has taken far longer than it should have to write, and I’m still not happy with the finished product. But if I don’t get it out now I never will. So don’t be surprised to see this post updated over time.