Bad feminist! Papa spank!


LTC Kratman's latest column is up at EveryJoe.com, and as usual he takes no (feminist) prisoners this time either:
You see, it is the greatest mark of the intellectual inadequacy of the modern feminist that she, all intellectual-like, forgets or ignores that there is a real world out there, stronger and infinitely more effective than the fantasies that can only exist in safe spaces, to include the safe space of her diseased mind. It is a corollary to the intellectual inadequacy of being unable to distinguish between very different things. She forgets, for example, that there are two possible patriarchies; that, or she simply lacks the brain power to distinguish between them. One patriarchy is composed of her father, her husband or her boyfriend, her brothers, if they’ve not all been made into moral castrati, and even her sons, if she hasn’t cut their balls off. They care about her and will defend her. The other is composed of someone else’s husband, father, brothers, and sons, to whom she is a potentially profitable but completely expendable piece of salable [sic] meat. You have to be very stupid indeed, not to be able to see the difference, as the feminist cannot see the difference. You have to be a total idiot to think you can escape patriarchy, too. It flows from force. Properly raised men can apply that force. Improperly raised men cannot resist it. Women, as a sex, with very few exceptions, are incompetent in violence, hence cannot resist it, no, not even if they’re given unearned Ranger tabs and the records burned to hide the truth.
Genghis Tom is, of course, entirely right. In his column, he noted the very significant differences between the increasingly feminised and castrated West, and the decidedly un-feminised and rather more virile immigrants invaders who are now moving into once-proud nations that built continent-spanning empires.

It is worth looking more closely at this notion of "two patriarchies", though. There is much that can be learned from expanding upon this idea.

There are, indeed, at least two different kinds of patriarchy. I want to look at two in particular, because they are germane to current events in Europe and the USA.

The first is, of course, Islamic-style patriarchy. Now, as I've pointed out before, within Islam there is a very clear and distinct hierarchy of who has what rights and value within society. Islam being the totalitarian, highly prescriptive, political ideology that it is, there is indeed a carefully defined system of ranks and privileges that apply therein.

Free-born Islamic men have absolutely higher status than any free-born Islamic woman. From the source materials of Islam, it is made very clear that women are to be placed under the guardianship of men. The idea of "female autonomy" within canonical Islam simply does not exist. And if you understand anything much about the actual obscure origins of the Islamic system, you will understand very quickly why this is so. Islam takes as canonical and accepts completely the Old Testament's laws and proscriptions concerning the roles of men and women in society- specifically, the books of Leviticus and Numbers, in which Mosaic Law made it very clear that men hold a station above women.

The natural consequence of this is that, in truly traditional Islamic societies, women are always under the thumbs of men within their lives. They live, and die, at the whims of those same men. At the beginning of their lives, they are controlled and kept in line by their fathers, and their brothers- doesn't matter if those brothers are younger or older. As they reach the age of womanhood, they are placed under the care and watch of their husbands, with the clear expectation that they will produce sons to carry on this tradition.

Interestingly enough, however, if you actually take the time to listen to women in these societies, you will realise that they actually don't seem too terribly unhappy with that state of affairs.

Orthodox Jewish women in Israel- who are on balance far more free than their counterparts in Saudi Arabia or within territories currently held by ISIS and the Taliban- are reportedly far happier with their marriages and sex lives than their Gentile counterparts.

And in Saudi Arabia, the stereotypical Western image of Arab women being oppressed doormats comes as news to, y'know, actual Arab women, who evidently are not terribly unhappy about how things have worked out for them under Islamic law.

Could it be that- shock! horror! gasp!- patriarchy is actually GOOD FOR WOMEN?!?! Say it ain't so!

... Except, of course, that it is so. And no amount of feminist nonsense in the world can change the fact that having a man in charge is the single best guarantor of a woman's safety, welfare, and happiness. This has not changed since Adam and Eve first chowed down on that funny-tasting apple, and it doesn't look to be changing anytime soon.

Now, if she were rational and not a feminist, the enlightened and modern Western woman would look upon such a system and culture with absolute shock and horror. That system would refuse to provide her with equal rights before the law. She would not be allowed to inherit property. She would not be allowed to live and love as she pleases. She would not be allowed to think for herself. Her freedom of movement and association would be extremely limited, perhaps even non-existent. Even her body itself would not be hers to control.

Yet the deranged feminists of the West look upon the invasion of their lands by a culture utterly alien and opposed to their own, not with fear and distrust, but with delight and celebration. At last, the feminists claim, they have natural allies in bringing down and smashing the patriarchy!!!

Except, of course, that all they are really doing is allowing another, and much stronger, patriarchy to move in and replace the one that they have done so much to destroy themselves.

Like LTC Kratman, I have spent time in foreign lands where women are not given anywhere near as many freedoms as they are here. Like him, I rather prefer life here in the "decadent" West, where I can be confident that my little sister or my future daughter could go out at night by herself and return to me safe and sound. And like him, I have no patience for these idiot feminists and their white-knight Beta male supporters who insist on doing so much to tear down the very civilisation that was strong, powerful, and masculine enough to create an environment where they can express such wanton stupidity in safety.

Which brings us to another kind of patriarchy- the Christian kind that the West once practiced and eventually got around to exporting to other lands.

The fact remains that Christianity was, and in many ways still is, shockingly enlightened when it comes to the subject of women's rights. From the moment that Jesus prevented a crowd from stoning an adulteress, all the way through to the Victorian age, Christian tradition firmly held that a man has responsibilities to women that come along with his rights. Under Christian religious tradition, it was no longer enough simply to marry a woman and thereby have reproductive rights guaranteed; she was also to be cherished and cared for. This was emphasised to a degree rarely seen before or since; you'd have to go back to ancient Sparta to find a culture that actually gave women more influence and power in the household.

Yet Christian culture, too, was a patriarchy. Authority started with the Father, passed on through the Son, and on down through the husband as the head of the household.

And, interestingly enough, that same patriarchical system was so successful that the cultures that subscribed to it eventually went on to form the greatest empires ever seen in human history.

The feminist is therefore left with little choice beyond these two options: a backward, totalitarian patriarchy from the 7th Century that still basically treats women as not-very-intelligent property, or a rather more enlightened and considerably gentler patriarchy informed by nearly thirty centuries of Graeco-Roman philosophy and Judaeo-Christian morality on the extraordinary value of women in a free society.

But in the end, each option amounts to the use of force.

That is the reality of power. Patriarchy is power, and like all power, it can be used for good or evil. Such power, when properly restrained and leavened by experience, temperance, and faith, can make the lives of women immeasurably better- or, when loosened unchecked with nothing to balance out Man's baser urges, can turn women's lives into Hell on Earth.

In the end, feminists would do well to heed the words of a book that is near and dear to the hearts of both the redoubtable LTC Kratman and my own good self:
Anyone who clings to the historically untrue- and thoroughly immoral- doctrine that "violence never settles anything" I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and of the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler could referee, and the jury might well be the Dodo, the Great Auk, and the Passenger Pigeon. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms.
-- LTC Nathan Jean V. Dubois, MI (Ret.), from Starship Troopers by Robert A. Heinlein
To vote is to wield authority; it is the supreme authority form which all other authority derives... Force, if you will!- the franchise is force, naked and raw, the Power of the Rods and the Ax. Whether it is exerted by ten men or by ten billion, political authority is force.
-- Maj. Reid, from Starship Troopers by Robert A Heinlein 
The real question for feminists is, which particular kind of force do they wish to live under? The kind that wants to essentially enslave them? Or the kind that wants to protect and nurture them?

One would think that the choice would be a no-brainer. But we're talking about feminists here; brains are not their strong suit. 

Comments

  1. Loved the end of the paragraph before the one you quoted...

    Moreover, and closely related, Kurdish women still remember the lesson Western women have forgotten, that women who fail to raise their men to believe themselves to be superior orders of being become the property of women who do…and of their sons.”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Indeed. Strong husbands and fathers who raise strong sons are the single best guarantor of a strong culture that believes in protecting its women. Of course, the precise form of that protection varies from culture to culture. Islamic culture believes that its treatment of women amounts to "exalted respect", whereas those of us without multi-culti blinders on see that they treat their women more or less like cattle.

      Delete
  2. Jean V. Dubois.

    It's actually a good catch there, that Islam isn't reform Christianity. I think the ignorant west (Lord, forgive us our redundancies) presumes that, since it came after Christ it must be reform Christianity but, of course, to anyone who actually looks, it's really reform Judaism.

    Still, eliminate both Islam and Christianity, Judaism, too, and the calc remains, "Your own patriarchy is going to be better for you, girl, than some other girl's patriarchy will be."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dammit. Can't believe I made such a rookie mistake with Mr. Dubois's name.

      Still, eliminate both Islam and Christianity, Judaism, too, and the calc remains, "Your own patriarchy is going to be better for you, girl, than some other girl's patriarchy will be."

      Indeed, sir. Doesn't matter whether it's Christian or Judaic or Chinese or Zulu patriarchy- ultimately, a woman is better off under the patriarchy she was born in than within any other.

      Delete

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Popular Posts