Introduction
We live in time when promoters of political correctness go as far as suggesting that the millennia of humankind’s history, before the emergence of neo-Liberalism in sixties, must be discussed within a context of process of evolution taking a wrong turn, since this history appears as being “racist”, “sexist” and “intolerant”. These self-appointed guardians of public morality never get tired of instilling Americans with the sense of historical guilt, over the fact that American society remained euro-centric, in its very essence, until the time when degenerative socio-political doctrines, associated with the rise of Liberal obscurantism, began to affect existential mode of more and more Americans.
The countless “experts on gender and race relations” strive to adjust surrounding reality to their ideological dogmas and when they fail in doing this, we get to hear them screaming “bloody murder” over the fact that majority of Americans are still not being tolerant enough to accept people’s physical and mental inadequacy as something that deservers to be “celebrated”.
Main body
Gail Bederman is a good example of historian, who while posing as “progressive intellectual”, is being ignorant enough to suggest in her book “Manliness and Civilization” that, throughout America’s history, White men acted as agents of metaphysical evil, despite the fact that it was they who pushed forward a scientific and cultural progress in this country. One glance at Bederman’s photo, leave no doubt as to the fact that she would not be able to survive for long, outside of what she refers to as “Western civilization of racial and sexual biasness”, yet – she was able to turn pouring dirt on Western mentality into her full time occupation, while being praised by mainstream Medias (90% of which are owned by Bederman’s brethrens) as “highly acclaimed historian”.
We do not necessarily subscribe to this point of view, which why we will discuss gender dynamics of American society of 19th and early 20th centuries as such that reflected the process of men becoming more feminine and women becoming more masculine. Nowadays, this process was being brought to its logical conclusion, with male office workers attending beauticians to get a nicely done manicure and with women working as police officers.
When we take a closer look at most famous advocates of feminism, such as Leonora O’Reily, Charlotte Gilman, Kate Chopin and Ida Wells, it will reveal them as individuals suffering from psychological inadequacy, as even their external appearance radiates masculinity – rough facial features, short haircuts, fat stubby fingers, fascination with men’s clothing etc. Therefore, we cannot discuss American feminism other then within a context of analysing people’s psychiatric deviations.
Feminists promote the concept of “gender equality”, without being able to understand that such concept if utterly unscientific in its very core, as equality implies the absence of flow of energy, therefore it is nothing but nicely sounding euphemism for words “entropy” and “death”. They oppose both genders as enemies, with the thought that men and women simply cannot exist without each other, never occurring to them. The original goal of early American feminists was to equalise women with men socially, just as today’s promoters of “multiculturalism” strive to equalise Whites and non-Whites in America.
However, after having realised that genders’ legal equality (insured by legislative acts) does not result in establishment of factual equality, feminists began to blame “male sexism” for the fact that men and women’s biological functionality varies to a significant degree. In the same way, Liberal “social engineers” blame “White racism” over Blacks’ inability to score higher then 100, during the course of IQ tests, which is why they had no option but to design a policy of “affirmative action”, in order to enforce “equality”, which is nothing but an attempt to defy the laws of nature, on their part.
Bederman’s book serves as a good example of how history can be revised for the purpose of becoming a tool of political indoctrination. In it, author suggests that, at the turn of 20th century, White Americans had nothing better to do then trying to ideologically substantiate their dominance: “During the decades around the turn of the century, Americans were obsessed with the connection between manhood and racial dominance. This obsession was expressed in a profusion of issues, from debates over lynching, to concern about white man’s imperialistic burden oversees” (Bederman, p. 4).
Despite her possession of “academic credentials”, Bederman proved herself as being incapable of understanding a simple fact that, during the course of discussed historical period, it would never even occur to American men to dissociate themselves from women, in the way feminists distance themselves from men. Of course, they had never doubted their existential superiority, as representatives of White race, simply because at this time, the empirical sciences were not being subjected to politically correct censorship, which is why many prominent biologists of the era used to come up with theories that contained referrals to Blacks as being at least 300.000 years behind Whites, in terms of evolutionary development, without the fear of being branded as “racists”.
The fact that Bederman appears to be an individual who has no understanding of basics of biology and of the laws of thermo-dynamics, causes her to wonder as to why, throughout the history of mankind, women enjoyed lesser social significance, as compared to men’s. However, the reason for this is very simple – women cannot fully disassociate themselves from their sexuality, because their physiology prevents them from living their lives other then in the state of constant sexual tension.
This is the reason why majority of women become sexually aroused, as a result of simply being touched, for example. On the other hand, sexual arousal for men can be compared to a rush, which goes away, after being scratched. Unlike women, men can mentally detach from their genitals with ease, which allows them to excel in abstract theorising, thus creating natural preconditions for men to be more socially active.
If we look at women who were able to leave a mark in history, it will appear that their existential mode was not significantly affected by their sexuality, as it is the case with majority of ordinary females, which in its turn, allowed them to act as men – the examples of Joan of Arc and Margaret Thatcher substantiate the validity of this statement. In other words – women were always able to gain social prominence, even before “women’s liberation movement” started to gain a momentum, for as long as they were able to prove themselves as having mentality of a man. This continues to be the case even today.
Of course, we only talk of White women, because representatives of other races often do not even think of their females as beings entitled with a soul. The difference between truly prominent women and feminists is the fact that feminists are incapable of exercising a control over their animalistic urges, despite their ability of operating with highly abstract categories. However, instead of recognizing such their inability as having purely biological essence, they discuss it in terms of “artificially created gender inequality”.
Therefore, the most important existential problem, with which feminists have to deal on daily basis, is the fact that their physiology causes them to chose in favour of behavioural irrationality, despite their strive to adjust their behaviour to rational reasoning. In its turn, it often causes feminists to suffer from split personality disorder. In her book, Bederman spends a great deal of time, discussing the figure of Ida Wells, for example, while forgetting to mention that it was not Well’s stance on the matters of socio-political importance, which allowed her to gain a social fame, during her lifetime, but the fact that she had a taste for participating in sex orgies.
We can come up with the similar thesis, in regards to other famous feminists of 19th and early 20th centuries – men could not care less about the political ideas promoted by “politicians in skirts”; nevertheless, they were getting intrigued by feminists’ “open mindedness”, as they rightfully regarded it as an indication of these women’s strong sexual appetite.
In relationship between genders, there can be no long-lasting “balance of equality”. When men grow increasingly feminine, women grow increasingly masculine and vice versa. In fact, it is wrong to refer to genders as entitled with distinctively defined behavioural traits – it is the proportional ratio of “manhood”, as opposed to “womanhood”, which corresponds to every individual’s existential mode. Every man has some womanly qualities about him and every woman has a little bit of a man, inside of her. However, when man, for example, has too much womanhood, about him, it is only the matter of time, before he will become a homosexual.
The same applies to women – if they have too much of testosterone in their veins, this will not only result in such women having a hard time, while trying to deal with rapid growth of hair on their legs, but also in such women becoming mentally deviated. This is the reason why overwhelming majority of prominent feminists were lesbians.
At the time when “women’s liberation movement” was gaining popularity, many American men of high social standing used to indulge in variety of decadent practices, which was depriving them of their manliness. For example, some of them even used to swallow small amounts of poison, in order to have a very pale skin, which was considered as fashionable at the time. In “Manliness and Civilization”, Bederman quotes Henry James, who in his 1886 book “The Bostonians” was pointing out at contemporary American society being excessively feminized: “The whole generation is womanized, the masculine tone is passing out of the world; it’s a feminine, nervous, hysterical chattering canting age, an age of hollow phrases and false delicacy” (Bederman, p. 16).
Nevertheless, the early feminists were not allowed to promote socially degenerate ideas for too long – the outbreaks of WW1 and WW2 have resulted in women putting up their aprons back on and starting to do what they do best – raising children and taking care of the household. Given the fact that history often repeats itself, it appears to be only the matter of time, before the next economic or natural cataclysm will result in overly effeminate men being reduced by Darwinian laws back to their natural status of buffoons, with conceptual inconsistency of feminist ideology being exposed to public by Medias, as it had happened before.
Bibliography
Bederman, Gail “Manliness and Civilization”. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995.
Foner, Eric “The Story of American Freedom”. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1999.