Skip to main content

Define Your Terms, Part 9000

Politics is about power. We need to frankly acknowledge this. This sphere of human life is about the acquisition of power for oneself or others. It need not be a negative; it may often be necessary, and depending on the ends and the means, even conducive to the good of all. If you align yourself with a political movement, you align yourself not only with the ends of that movement, but with the means of its achievement.

Feminism is a political movement. It has transparently secular ends, for one thing. And what is the end of feminism or feminisms? The replacement of a perceived patriarchy with a matriarchy. It is women in power over men. It isn't hard to find or see. If we forget that all political movements are about power, we can easily delude ourselves, aligning ourselves with various secondary effects, or in opposition to numerous injustices against women. But if we say we are feminists, we get more than we likely intend. There is no doubt of it.

Don't say, "I'm a feminist" when you mean, "I intend to affirm the full personhood and dignity of women, in opposition to x, y, and z." Feminism does not aim to achieve harmony or balance; it aims to achieve power and dominance over men. This is the frank reason why heterosexual feminist women struggle to find husbands, or whatever we are calling it now. And this is why the men of those feminists are weak; it's a power relationship, and they've chosen to submit. Submission is not inherently bad, but if one submits to a poor leader, or for an end that is degrading to one's dignity, it's obvious. And that's why women who are not entirely intent on dominating men end up resenting those men.

Camille Paglia is on her way to being something other than a feminist, if she hasn't been exiled already, because she is beginning to see that its goals are not desirable. Would it be that we all did!

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

We Don't Need No Magisterium: (Jason's Version) (But Actually, We Do)

Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con...

Dear Alyse

 Today, you’re 35. Or at least you would be, in this place. You probably know this, but we’re OK. Not great, but OK. We know you wouldn’t want us moping around and weeping all the time. We try not to. Actually, I guess part of the problem is that you didn’t know how much we loved you. And that you didn’t know how to love yourself. I hope you have gotten to Love by now. Not a place, but fills everything in every way. I’m not Him, but he probably said, “Dear daughter/sister, you have been terribly hard on yourself. Rest now, and be at peace.” Anyway, teaching is going well, and I tell the kids all about you. They all say you are pretty. I usually can keep the boys from saying something gross for a few seconds. Mom and I are going to the game tonight. And like 6 more times, before I go back to South Carolina. I have seen Nicky twice, but I myself haven’t seen your younger kids. Bob took pictures of the day we said goodbye, and we did a family picture at the Abbey. I literally almost a...

Who Is Out Here Having Sex And Children With People They Don’t Like?

 And look, I’m not married. I’ve never been married. I have no children. I didn’t choose that; things just worked out that way. If you must know, I haven’t had sexual intercourse either. I probably should say “coitus,” so I am not arguing with some progressive activist about what “sexual intercourse” means. But I figured out from influencer videos or something what a “dead bedroom” was. Unless a couple mutually agrees that they don’t want to have sex/coitus anymore (hopefully to pray and serve) this is usually bad. I’ve known enough couples that it’s probably an indicator of trouble, especially for couples who are still able to have children. Is it really that wild to at least hope that Mr. and Mrs. Vance love each other? That a fourth child yet born at least might indicate that they enjoy each other?  Children are definitely not responsible for their parents’ happiness. That’s absolutely true. But wouldn’t any child hope their parents were happy, when they came into being? As...