I haven’t updated over Christmas, partly because I was off visiting family and couldn’t be arsed, and partly because my usual piss-and-vinegar posting is a tad sacrilegious. I also got a Twitter, which shouldn’t be hard for you to find, for low-effort shitposting and throwing peanuts at people more popular and influential than I. Anyway…
All of the public debate (and much of even the dissident right debate) in the West today, as far as it concerns women, is not a debate between a feminist and an antifeminist worldview, it is a debate between two competing feminist worldviews.
I say two, and not one, because if there was only one feminist ideology, its controlled opposition would be both laughably ineffectual and further right than it, whereas today the more extreme feminism has not yet permeated the entire public consciousness, and is not yet written policy in each and every case, though it has captured certain institutions. The fact that one feminism controls some institutions while the other controls different institutions is evidence of a real ongoing battle within the Left, and I consider these as two different feminisms rather than one Feminism because they have different memetic evolutionary lines and fundamentally opposing assumptions at their centers.
The two have not been named, so I will give them names. They are Whig Feminism and Sacral Feminism. The central premise of Whig Feminism is that women are the equals of men. The central premise of Sacral Feminism is that women are not only the moral superiors of men, but that women are categorically incapable of evil.
Now, this last assertion is stupid, and saying it out loud makes it laughable, so Sacral feminists will engage in rhetoric that claims the premise of Whig feminism, while acting and writing literature in ways where the mask slips and their actual beliefs are evidenced.
For the details of how Sacral feminism evolved, read Dalrock. Sacral feminism came out of Christian theology to eventually permeate the entirety of Western culture. Originally, the actual effects of Sacral feminism appeared conservative, and indeed modern conservatives still stick to primitive Sacral feminism. Sacral feminism in its earliest stage is the Victorian view of women and what leftist academics have termed “the cult of domesticity”. In it, women were believed to be inherently spiritually pure, that if a woman did something evil, harmful, or immoral, she had been corrupted or induced by a man into doing it. The result is that women were to be isolated from the world of men, as “angels of the household” and spiritual/moral guides to their husbands and families. Dalrock gives a very good account of the details of this belief, and it had a hold from at least the early 1800’s, because Queen Caroline was given the benefit of the doubt for her adultery and George IV could not have her confined and whipped but had to settle for writing letters begging her to act more properly.
Naturally, it’s very hard to explain why a spiritually pure being must remain subservient to a fallen, evil being, so the superficial “woman’s sphere is the home” material of the ideology fell away as its spiritual core “women are inherently good” asserted itself in ever more drastic ways. You can read early feminist “utopian” literature of this bent, in which nations run by women have no wars, no crime, are always clean, etc. This version of feminism actually suffered serious defeats in the early 20th century in Soviet Russia and Anglo countries at the hands of Whig Feminism, and was resurrected by the Frankfurt school in a more radical form to subvert the dominant Whig Feminism. In its less leftist forms, which survive today, you can see Evangelical Southern Christians say of their wives “she’s the boss”, even when they believe that women are less suited to the world of male work. In its most radical form, it reverses from “women have no inherent evil in them” to “everything a woman does is categorically good”. One can see this attitude everywhere in modern culture.
Whig Feminism, on the other hand, is the feminism of the French Revolution, of Rosie the Riveter, of Ayn Rand, etc. Its principal basis is in Locke, in the tabula rasa, and its victories were the victories of the suffrage movement, of Soviet female liberation, and the reigning feeling through the 50’s in Anglo nations and the 90’s (and partially to today) in Russia, that legal equality was sufficient and that after that, women ruled their own choices. More rightist (i.e. less leftist) Whig feminisms will acknowledge biological differences between the sexes, and one can see this in moderate Whig feminist Christina Hoff Sommers’ rebuke of radical feminism and Sacral feminism. This type sees, not a literal physical equality between men and women, but a spiritual equality between them. In other words, that women have the same rights as men, that they should not be coerced into marriage, have decisions made for them, etc- even if women do not end up being as successful as men, as wealthy, as influential. This is the J Peterson position on women, the gamergate position on women, and too common among “rightists”. But I’ll get to that.
In Whig feminism’s more radical state, it believes in actual “hard” equality between the sexes, just as political Whigs morphed from believing in spiritual equality transcending class to believing that this spiritual equality necessitated physical, economic, and social equality. This, of course, is a purity spiral that, like communism, is being implemented today and will unleash more and worse horrors if allowed to continue. Today, Whig feminism is the written law of the land, and Sacral feminism is the unwritten law of the culture, which is attempting to change the laws of the land. The Sacral feminist rules the kangaroo courts of the University, where presumption of guilt is the rule for men, where an intoxicated man and a sober woman can have sex in a woman’s room that she invited the man into, and the man is found guilty of rape despite continuing to have sex with the girl on multiple occasions afterward.
Whereas in the real courts, where Whig feminism rules and sex is only legitimate when bound by a verbal contract, such a claim is usually thrown out because of the presumption of innocence. Which makes Sacral feminists furious, because a dirty sinful man gets off and a woman who can tell no lie is disbelieved. Whig feminism in culture is Princess Leia, who needs to be saved but is a sassy little thing who doesn’t need protection. Sacral feminism is that old dyke general in The Last Jedi whose gross stupidity caused her soldiers to mutiny, and is treated as a martyr by the film because “evil men soldiers no trust woman leader”. Whig feminism is Brienne of Tarth. Sacral feminism is Daenerys Targaryen. But Sacral and Whig feminism are actually in conflict today, because Sheryl Sandberg will say that we need more women in big business, and get shrieked at by Sacral feminists who insist that business is inherently male and sinful, and without a trace of irony recommend that we return to polyamorous gardening communes.
The only two beliefs that are high-status in the West today are radical Sacral feminism and radical Whig feminism, but the less-radical versions of these are tolerated and employed as rhetorical weapons and strawmen by the radicals. I.e. “We’re just for equality. You care about equality, right?” and “I believe women”. But radical Sacral feminism has managed to actually rewrite the law in Sweden, and feminism is mostly Sacral in the media-academia-NGO complex. These places represent the actual power center of the West, so in 20 years get ready for your kids to go to school learning about the inherent superiority of women as an explicit and not just implicit part of the curriculum. In terms of the pagan communes run by lesbian occultists, I wouldn’t hold my breath. Without old patriarchal institutions as eunuch slave soldiers, the Cathedral is far less effective at projecting power. If radical feminists actually managed to abolish the army, the cops, and dissolved large corporations, all of my right-wing buddies and I would be out the door with our rifles before you could blink, and we’d be sitting on piles of war brides that’d put Ghengis Khan to shame by the end of the month. Cause Moldbuggian passivism doesn’t apply when the Cathedral can’t actually enforce the Brown Scare. Then it’s just plain anarchy.
But I digress.
In 1840, you had Whig feminists asking for the vote, and admission to college, and the right to own businesses, and you had Sacral feminists telling them that all of these were fallen-world male things that would sully woman’s natural purity and goodness. Now, in 2018, you have Sacral feminists lobbying for the destruction of all fallen-world male institutions of business and politics and the powers of pater familias over men, and Whig feminists telling them that they should be content with 51% representation in all of these institutions and economic equality, when both of them aren’t busy uniting against the fake opposition of “The Patriarchy”, which has been a toothless beta cuck since George IV, probably a fag, wrote his wife a letter begging her to stop fucking the ministers of his Cabinet instead of having her beheaded or at least sent down to the Thames to be ducked.
I will be very clear in that every permutation of feminism is the enemy. Old Sacral feminism is the enemy. Once it was believed that unwed mothers giving birth in alleys is the fault of evil men, and not because said unwed mother is a silly little slut, people subsidized these unwed mothers and the number of unwed mothers giving birth in the rain exploded. In Old Whig feminism, you get TS Eliot and young married women sitting in bars circa 1919 chatting about the abortions they were keeping secret from their husbands.
There is no better way of weeding out entryists than by stating that women should be subject to their fathers’ approval in marriage decisions, that the 19th should be repealed, that women are generally incapable of leadership, that despite women having comparable IQ to men, their exercise of it is hampered by contextual and emotional logic, that women are very prone to sexual immorality as an inherent feature of their biology, that even a very intelligent and well-spoken woman with kids is still at heart a goofy little slut who fantasizes about being raped and likes to get slapped and choked in the sack.
Some will complain that this drives women away from “the movement”, but wanting them to participate is itself a part of Whig feminism. Women bet on the strong horse and rationalize the Why later. If the Patriarchy wins, a hundred million feminists will suddenly and inexplicably rediscover their love and respect for it, just like they love and respect Islam today. If you want a wife today, before we’ve won, and you should, your task is to make a woman care more about your approval than Harvard’s. A tall order, but it can be done. And if you can’t do that, do you think you’ll stand a chance against Harvard itself?