Feb 092012
 

The reason why there is so much written in the manosphere about socons, conservatives, etc. is because it is recognized that feminism is not purely a left wing ideology.  It has infected both the left AND the right, and TDOM explains this and how feminism transcends both the left and the right:

That’s an interesting way of framing the discussion. I’ve often viewed feminism as neither left nor right by nature. Instead it is as many feminists freely admit, a gender issue and there are members of both genders on either side of the political spectrum.

I think early feminists adopted the leftist view as a matter of strategy and for recruitment purposes. The Marxist approach to economics was easily adaptable to cultural practices. All it took to draw in membership was to convince people that women are disadvantaged. With societal structures predominantly populated with men, this was easy enough to do. The term “patriarchy” was redefined and used for this purpose. first wave feminists laid the groundwork and second wave feminists became the footsoldiers.

Aligning themselves with cultural Marxist idealism served another purpose as well. The communist witch hunts of the McCarthy era resulted in a popularization of Marxism during which time, it became chic to be openly Marxist and difficult, if not destructive, for opponents of Marxism to speak out against them. the fear of being identified as a “hatemonger” keeping opponents in line.

At first, feminism was only a part of the liberal movement of the 60s but by the mid-80s it had eclipsed the movement itself and liberalism had become more or less synonymous with feminism to the point that one could not be leftist and not be feminist.

On the right, the movement was more subtle. Women were already being pedastalized by white knight chivalry as standard practice. The leftist acceptance of the women as victim model was simmply transferred to the right. One did not have to adopt the value system to accept the model. In fact, on the right women were already seen as helpless. all that was needed was to turn “helpless” into “victim.”

The second wave feminist could fight the battles and the conservative feminist would move out of the way and then reap the rewards.

The chivalrist ideal was prevalent on the left as well. For more liberal chivalrists it was easy to accept feminists because of their Marxist position. They simply incorporated feminism into their own leftist idealism and became collaborationists (manginas as they are sometimes called). The right wing chivalrist (the white knight) picked up on the woman as victim mantra and rushed to her rescue.

Feminism transcends left and right. It is neither and it is both. It favors wealth and cultural redistribution from male to female while seeking to establish a totalitarian police state to control the “oppressor class.” To that end it has abandoned the liberal ideal of personal freedom and liberty for all, in favor of personal freedom and liberty for the new feminist oppressor class while restricting liberty and freedom for the new oppressed class (male). It seeks to replace what it calls patriarchy with matriarchy (which can now be equated with female supremacism). thus while claiming to hold the liberal ideal of “equality” feminism has in reality adopted the conservative ideal of a ruling class superior to that of the working class and with more rights and privilege and the full force of the state to enforce that privilege.

  7 Responses to “TDOM On How Feminism Transcends Both The Left And The Right”

  1. PM/AFT :

    Check out this white nationalist Ryu who admires Stalin, merely because Stalin kept out the colored people :

    http://glpiggy.net/2012/01/27/did-capitalism-coopt-feminism/#comment-32151

    But didn’t Stalin KILL more white people than anyone else?

    White Nationalists are so dumb that they are a parody of themselves.

    Also, don’t forget that the other WhiteKnight, PA, says that you have ‘the lamest handle on the Internet’.

  2. Feminism and communism have been two peas in a pod from the beginning.
    Communism is about taking from those who work and giving to those that don’t.
    Is it any wonder it would find ear with females?

    • Communism is about taking from those who work and giving to those that don’t.
      Is it any wonder it would find ear with females?

      Communist countries tried feminism, but very quickly got rid of it when they realized how destructive it was. Yes, feminism has an association with communism, but it also has an association with anti-communism. “Taking from those who work to give to those who don’t” doesn’t just apply to communism, but it also applies to socons and tradcons trying to shame men into marriage (because marriage 2.0 ends up being nothing but a transfer from men to women). The entire argument between women on the left and women on the right is just about how to best transfer from those who work (men) to those who don’t (women). Leftist women advocate state transfers while rightist women advocate marriage 2.0. For men it’s all the same thing. This is because feminism has infected almost everything. It’s not just on the left. Feminism is everywhere, even among those who think they are anti-feminist.

      • Yes, when it gets right down to it, females on the right are really no better than those on the left. (That whenever ‘anti-feminist’ females speak out for men the argument is invariably “don’t hate men they’re useful” speaks volumes about them.)

        “Yes, feminism has an association with communism, but it also has an association with anti-communism.”

        Feminism has an association with nearly all things parasitic. I was simply pointing out that communism had some core features that would make it attractive to parasites.
        Of course there are other ways to be parasitic.

        And, I suspect, that for attractive females conservatism is the way to go since they are better able to compete for wealthy men. While the fuglies gravitate toward communism and leftism since it advocates being parasitic without having to compete.

        Perhaps I should have worded my argument this way: Communism is about getting stuff from those that work without having to compete with other parasites to get it. Is it any wonder it would find ear with unattractive (the majority) females?

  3. Nicely said.

    One thing we need to remember is that patriarchy was actually a early attempt at equalizing the sexes.

    There is only one thing that can really be said to be a social construct and that thing is fatherhood.

    Patriarchy, in all its forms, was about equalizing the fundamental differences between the sexes.

    Women have more social value in general terms. Men have more utilitarian value in general terms. How do you reconcile this? Give men more social value through a social based system, re: society, and give women more utilitarian value through a system, re:babymakers or the home.

    Women know who their children are, they birth them. Men don’t. So we created paternity and patrilineal and patrifocal systems to offset this. By doing so we gave men a role in society, or a anchor.

    The tradcon/socon agenda is simply a manifestation of what has been lost. The leftist ideals of individualism is also a manifestation of what has been lost.

    The real problem comes about trying to figure out a better role for men.

    We can Go Our Own Way. Or we can go back to how things were.

    Or?????

    This is where I keep getting stuck. Both systems, feminism and socons, treat men at utility devices and basically make men into slaves of women. The only difference is whether you want to be a field worker or a house worker.

    No matter whether or not you are on the conservative side, the religious, the MGTOW, the hardcore Equalists, PUA, or whatever….we still haven’t found a solution to men not being slaves.

    Atleast I haven’t. I understand and sometime even want the desire for fatherhood but that, in every incarnation I have seen, makes men into slaves to women. Either on a individual basis, re:socons, or on a collective basis, re:feminism.

    I truly think that the thing that will save men will be the artificial uterus. Women provide little value. Their value is summed up as about 15 minutes of thrusting and often, in my experience, you end up doing more work for her than she does for you during sex. How sad is that, that I have loved women and been head over heals and been fucking them and I got bored because it was too mechanical. I had to put more effort into satisfying her than she put into our entire relationshit and that was only during about a hour.

    The only benefit I have ever found from women has been sex. And they expected me to give them a orgasm and for me to give me a orgasm too. WTF?

    The only other benefit I can see from women is their reproductive role. Once that is gone then they will truly be obsolete. Imagine if men who want children could simply jerk it and give a sample and 40 weeks later you have a child that is genetically yours. Combine that with sexbots or prostitutes or 3d porn(have you guys seen that shit, fuck yea) and what the fuck are women worth?

    They don’t provide any net benefit. Most are ugly and filthy and fat. Around 80% of the adult female population has atleast one STD, usually HPV, and most have been fucked so much that there is no reason to be a socon.

    Why pay for what she gave away for free? Who the fuck wants to be the sloppy 50ths????

    It doesn’t matter if she is some born again virgin or a purity ring wearer. BTW. I saw your posts on that the other day PMAFT and damn, that reminds me of my highschool experience so much. We called them trick or treaters, cause even if you couldn’t get pussy from them they gave out blowjobs and anal like candy on halloween. I think I might need to start going to church again, that sunday morning nightclub(love the name btw) is someting I need to get back into. I used to practice that type of game before I even knew what game was, and damn, with what I know today I am sure I could clean up.

    Anyways. Great article.

    Should we simply remember what patriarchy is and how it evolved or should we try to embrace it? One way or another you end up as a slave to womyn.

Cheap Jerseys Wholesale Jerseys Cheap Jerseys Wholesale Jerseys Cheap Jerseys Cheap NFL Jerseys Wholesale Jerseys Wholesale Football Jerseys Wholesale Jerseys Wholesale NFL Jerseys Cheap NFL Jerseys Wholesale NFL Jerseys Cheap NHL Jerseys Wholesale NHL Jerseys Cheap NBA Jerseys Wholesale NBA Jerseys Cheap MLB Jerseys Wholesale MLB Jerseys Cheap College Jerseys Cheap NCAA Jerseys Wholesale College Jerseys Wholesale NCAA Jerseys Cheap Soccer Jerseys Wholesale Soccer Jerseys Cheap Soccer Jerseys Wholesale Soccer Jerseys
Translate »
%d bloggers like this:
Cheap Jerseys Wholesale Jerseys Cheap Jerseys Wholesale Jerseys Cheap Jerseys Cheap NFL Jerseys Wholesale Jerseys Wholesale Football Jerseys Wholesale Jerseys Wholesale NFL Jerseys Cheap NFL Jerseys Wholesale NFL Jerseys Cheap NHL Jerseys Wholesale NHL Jerseys Cheap NBA Jerseys Wholesale NBA Jerseys Cheap MLB Jerseys Wholesale MLB Jerseys Cheap College Jerseys Cheap NCAA Jerseys Wholesale College Jerseys Wholesale NCAA Jerseys Cheap Soccer Jerseys Wholesale Soccer Jerseys Cheap Soccer Jerseys Wholesale Soccer Jerseys