Feminism Isn’t About Equality — It’s About Insecurity (Part II)


— WARNING: Plain Talk about Feminism and Women in the Workplace Follows — 

In this post (here) we illustrated how feminism has nothing to do with equality or, really, any of the other goals feminists claim for the movement. Feminism is really about the insecurity of the movement’s founders, leadership and adherents.

Feminism’s about women’s insecurity concerning their value as people, and about their value to society as other than vessels to nurture future generations of humans. This is the fault of the secular Left, which told women that the very things that make them the most indescribably remarkable, the most jaw-droppingly, astonishingly, magnificently valuable — their ability to nurture future generations of humans — is worthless.

In this post, though, we’ll tell you why feminism isn’t about equality — in fact why it can’t be about equality.

First some background: The Left has indoctrinated generations of feminists — and the women who “drank the Kool-Aid” — with the moronic idea that the only value a person has is in his or her ability to wield the various means of production extant and produce things — things like wealth, cars, pipes, tools, bridges, ceiling tiles, fans, baseball gloves — but not healthy humans.

Oh, fine, insists the Left, we have to bow to Nature — for the moment — and women can produce kids, but that‘s not what they’re good for, not what gives them value… a woman — really any person — is really valuable only to the extent that he or she produces things for society. And if he or she does that, then he or she has worth as a person.

If, however, you produce only children, no matter how good, well-rounded, intelligent or fine those children are, then you’re far less valuable. Because those people, those children, are good only to the extent that they produce things for society as well. In other words, as a woman you’re expected to produce children — that’s the minimum — but if you want to have value, then you need to get back into the work force and resume working for the collective ASAP.

Needless to say, this state-of-mind is a perfect, in fact the inevitable, accompaniment to the idea that we need to distance God from our lives, a notion that’s also the brain-dead brainchild of the Left. Without God, there’s no need to value anything… except that which we decide to value ourselves. And, if we choose to value things over children — though we’d never dare to admit it — then we have only ourselves to blame when we produce ever greater, more wondrous, shiny, impressive new things… and a lot fewer children.

The Left chose long ago to value things over children. I remember as a small child hearing about the “overpopulation crisis.” We were all going to be overrun by people, who would be living in crowded, cramped, dirty, polluted squalor in just a few years, if we didn’t engage in population control immediately!

Now, when the Left chose to value things over children, they began to work toward implementing that vision, and they succeeded in bringing it about in many places on earth. Now, in a great triumph for the Left, none of the civilized, developed countries of the world are producing new humans at replacement rate.

Brief Digression:  The population of the world is still growing though. See if you can guess where all the new babies are coming from. Yep. From impoverished, squalor-ridden, Third World hellholes, where they grow into young adults who can’t wait to get out of their Third World hellhole and go to guess where. End of Brief Digression.

Still, why is Feminism not about equality? Easy: if we value things over people, then men are better. And men are, simply, a lot more valuable. Consider the following bullet points:

Men:

  • Are much stronger.
  • Are much more durable.
  • Recover from injury better.
  • Withstand harsh conditions much better.
  • Withstand abuse and stress much better.
  • Are just as smart as women.
  • Do way, way more work in any given amount of time (as measured in foot-pounds).(1)
  • Complain less.
  • Are out sick less often, and for far less time.
  • Are more willing to travel.
  • Are more willing to take on hazardous assignments.
  • Work longer hours.
  • Require and ask for less time off.
  • Are nearly always ready to do double-duty as required(2).(3)

So why is Feminism not about equality? Because women know they can’t be of equal value in society… if, that is, you measure value in purely economic terms. And the political Left — of which Feminism is a big component — values everything in purely economic terms. Simply put: if we value everything in economic terms, then women will never be viewed as equal to men.

The point is that women know all this, and when they put their generalized understanding of their value — in monetary terms — with how they perceive themselves in their workplaces, they have no choice but to experience insecurity — if, that is, they’ve bought into feminist codswallop. Women then have no choice but to transform men, in the collective perception, into defective beings… harassers, brutes, wannabe rapists barely able to control their basest urges. Beings who despite the overwhelming evidence of their economic value to women and society, nonetheless have a negative impact on society at large.

The point, though, is that women are absolutely indispensable to society. And, I’m going to be brutally honest here — not because they’re as valuable in the workplace as men, because they aren’t. Oh, women are valuable in the workplace, but not nearly as valuable — in a purely economic sense — as men.

And that’s why Feminism is not about equality for women, and it never was. However, Feminism got it all very, very wrong.

Women are completely indispensable to society for the very reasons the Left insists are absolutely meaningless and insignificant:

  • Women do control the future of any society, by virtue of doing the greater part of raising children in their most formative years. Raising children is the most important part of the crucial work — in which we all participate — involved in building the “civil” part of “civilization.”
  • Women represent a natural, vital foil to masculinity. Masculinity is interpreted as “toxic” by today’s feminists, precisely because it’s not feminine, and therefore, not as controllable by women. However, this is deeply, tragically wrong. Masculinity is one necessary half of humanity. Femininity is the other, equally necessary half.
  • Women represent a natural, essential, counter-balancing other perspective for children, and for society as a whole.
  • Women domesticate, organize, corral, herd… they gentle (a wonderful verb!) men, demanding that men control their natural instincts to carouse and break things.
  • Women have brought needed civility, decorum, gentleness… civilization to the workplace.

Understanding, and valuing deeply, the above bullet list of non-utilitarian components of womanhood and  femininity are not optional for society. Furthermore, contra the Left, the utilitarian characteristics of women, their ability to contribute economically to society, while valuable, are their least valuable attributes, in any truly meaningful sense.

The non-utilitarian characteristics of women are their most valuable, because they’re the things that all men need to make them fully human. I listed a bunch of attributes for men further up in this essay, but those — as for women — are also the least important characteristics men possess.

The truly important characteristics men have are the ones that Feminism insists don’t even exist — the states of mind and feelings that all men have at the deepest level of their being, that require that they protect and serve the women who haunt their dreams and fill their hearts with — at the same time — dread, fear, adoration and their deepest longing.

Society could continue on with just  men — if women weren’t needed to help produce future generations — but it would be no life worth living. Likewise, if men were no longer around, society would continue, but progress would stop. I presume to say that, likewise, a world without men wouldn’t be worth living in for women either.

Whether anyone wishes to admit it or not, men are the boundaries pushers, and women are the consolidators. Each frequently finds the other insubstantial, or dumb, or primitive, or emotional, or irrational, or brutish, or cruel, or hysterical, or ridiculous, or deeply, viscerally annoying. But each, deep down, adores and reveres the other. What’s more, each deeply needs the other. Not even a million years of wishful feminist thinking will change that.

— xPraetorius

Notes:


(1) There’s an old expression from days gone by when there was something called a “division of labor,” which was a fancy term to say that men went to work each day, while — generally — women stayed home and managed the home front. The expression — you almost never hear it anymore — was: “Man works from sun-to-sun, but woman’s work is never done.” The idea was that the man’s workday would come to a close each day, while the woman — stuck at home tending to the chores and the children — never saw her workday end. The implication was that because she worked more hours per day, then she did more work. However, that’s not how work is measured. After the man had completed his workday, he had — generally — done many, many times more hard, heavy labor, more foot-pounds, more… work than the woman. And along comes the Left telling the woman that her long hours spent tending to the interests of her family were… worthless, and made her less valuable. No wonder women poured into the workplace causing a radical, ongoing transformation of that once man-heavy locale… not always and not necessarily for the better.

(2) Think about it at your workplace. When, some big thing needs to be moved, or some big thing tips over and needs to be righted, or a piece of furniture needs to be moved for some reason, who gets the call. It’s not a trick question. You call the nearest Big Dude. Among other things, I’ve been a white-collar technology worker for a long time. I’m 6’4″ tall, and some 280 pounds. See if you can guess whom all the women call to install their Varidesks, and to get the file off the top of the filing cabinet, and to move the boxes of files, and so on. These activities are, not even remotely connected with my job. They’re, respectively, the responsibility  of the facilities department, of the person needing the file, and of the person needing the boxes moved… but I always do it. Don’t worry… I’m not complaining about it, just observing. Don’t get me wrong, I think also that it’s right that I do those tasks, because I’m massively strong, and tall. I tend to complete such tasks well before the time it would take even to call the Facilities Department. In that way, I get a necessary task done, while minimizing the cost to complete that task, and at the same time, injecting only minimal interruption into my activities, which are both highly-paid and supposed to be saving the company time and money. Oh, and I help to make the women at my workplace happier.

(3) Conversely, women tend to be more reliable and more loyal to an employer.

 

 

2 thoughts on “Feminism Isn’t About Equality — It’s About Insecurity (Part II)

  1. One of your best posts, X.
    It views feminism from an angle I have not seen before.
    Very enlightening.
    Marxist materialism can never truly explain the true value of womanhood or the true value of manhood for that matter.
    The true value cannot be expressed in purely materialist and naturalist terms.
    That and marxism’s lack of any moral fundament explains why marxism cannot ascribe intrinsic value to any human being, male or female.
    That’s why human life is dirt cheap in leftist regimes and why those regimes often end up killing millions of people

    1. Many thanks, ar! And thanks so much for your very kind words.

      I concur 100% with the rest of what you said too.

      And, you said: “That and marxism’s lack of any moral fundament explains why marxism cannot ascribe intrinsic value to any human being, male or female.

      I believe you are 100% on the nose with this. It’s one of the two pathologies — Marxism/Socialism and Islam that are the mirror images of each other.

      Marxism etc lacks any moral prohibition against the worst atrocities, while Islam explicitly permits them.

      One is the lack of prohibition, while the other is overt permission for atrocity.

      Put the two together — as Islam does (our coinage was “Fascislam” and “Socialislam.“) — and you have a real threat to life and limb around the world… and you have what we see around the world: Not one single, solitary Socialist country, and not one single, solitary Islamist country is a successful society.

      To bring this back around to this particular topic, Feminism is, of course, an important component of Socialism, if incompatible with Islam.

      Not one.

      Best,

      — x

Please Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s