The Roots of Feminism

Over on Dalrock, one of our fellow sociologists opines:

Screen Shot 2017-06-02 at 14.53.02.png

(link)

The social movement, to which Brother Oscar is no doubt referring, is feminism.

Feminism is certainly part of the constellation that includes plummeting birth rates, increased divorce rates, and general social problems. Even so, is that really the root cause?

I love to mock feminists. They’re easy targets and their lunacy is generally so transparent as to be endlessly entertaining. Even so, I think we give the feminist movement far too much credit, by dignifying them as socio-political movers-and-shakers. Most of them seem to be atomized, pathetic people. The typical feminist is poor/in debt, physically unhealthy and repulsive, with no friends. Feminist organizations don’t really exist any longer.

Feminism’s popularity spike happened, not coincidentally, at the same time that the era of mass migration was really taking off. Urbanization, moving across the continent to chase employment and marriage, and general loss of community (which are really extended-family) bonds had preceded its arrival.

I’m partial to the idea that broader social and economic changes made individuals and families more vulnerable to craziness like feminism. By the same metric, feminism arose at the same time widespread drug abuse, membership in gangs and armed cults, and crazy political movements (revolutionary communism, the KKK, etc.) were also becoming chic.

This is a particularly painful truth that men need to internalize, if we’re to realistically plot a return to a more sane social order. Defeating feminists isn’t going to do the trick. Reformers need to imagine a world in which nearly every institution is deconstructed and built back up, with strong incentives for maintaining social bonds, at the expense of “do your own thing” liberalism and libertarianism.

Screen Shot 2017-06-02 at 15.33.53

Quantum Intersectionality

Credit goes to Anon (part of the award winning Dalrock Research Team) for finding this hilarious piece of lunacy. Show him some love here.

Screen Shot 2017-05-30 at 11.19.34 AM

From page (no, not kidding) 69:

Quantum physics disrupts the stagnancies of typically humanly recognized bodies. In quantum understandings, particles (classically understood as stagnant objects) also have wavelike properties, di ract, leap, and are quantumly entangled.

It will doubtless come as a shock to learn of the author’s credentials.

Screen Shot 2017-05-30 at 11.19.51 AM

If anyone decides to converse with Mizz Whitney via email, please be respectful, and make sure to screenshot her response for publication.

More on Pietka’s Article

This is an alternate take on my analysis of Rachel Pietka’s Relevant article (posted here) by commenter Mich. Show him some love…

She didn’t say that abstinence leads to divorce or that modern Christianity should let up on premarital sex restrictions to avoid divorce. She cited one woman who believed she could have avoided divorce by engaging in premarital sex and mentioned that the benefits of waiting are exaggerated (they are). But, it seems the author attributes the divorce to the dishonesty surrounding no-sex-before-marriage ministries rather than to abstinence itself, which it looks like you both agree does not inherently result in happy marriages or bedrooms.

I agree with that. Young people in particular are being fed the lie that great sex is a reward for following the rules, and godless heathens will never really be able to have this transcendent sexual and marital experience that awaits pious virgins. That’s bunk, as I’m sure you know firsthand.

She explicitly states that bad sex is no reason to divorce or reduce martial investment. Great! But her notion of the “proper place” for sex in marriage is presumptuous. Sex is not icing on the cake; marriage and sex cannot be separated, and sex should never be relegated to the status of “gift” that some couples get and some just don’t. The loss of sex through mental or physical incapacitation is worth mourning.

Her musings about the “place” for sex is a far cry from an endorsement of premarital sex or divorce, but it’s just as far from being a practical solution for “incompatable” couples and provides no viable options for couples who really are suffering. She identified a problem, but took the easy way out on fixing it.

Why I Am Not A Christian #2

Over at Relevant (link) Rachel Pietka has published an article entitled “Christians Are Not Called to Have Amazing Sex” (link). She opens her diatribe by citing the story of a non-Christian, Elizabeth Smart, and the fallout from her abduction. While the authoress feels that Elizabeth Smart’s kidnapping was somehow the fault of Mormon abstinence education, and while Mizz Pietka admits that Christians have learned from this tragedy — specifically to allow their young girls to slut it up in their preteen and teenage years — the authoress declares that Christians must go further in encouraging young Christian kids to indulge in irresponsible sexual behavior.

Although these conversations are evidence that Christians are forming a more candid, holistic and theologically sound discourse about sex, an area that still needs more attention is the far-reaching effects of abstinence rhetoric on marriage.

Jessica Ciencin Henriquez recently detailed how the abstinence movement affected her sex life and marriage in a revealing article titled, “My Virginity Mistake.” Henriquez relays how she pledged herself to Jesus at a purity ceremony at age 14, remained a virgin until she married six years later, and wound up divorced after she and her husband could not make things work in the bedroom.

Are you all following this nonsense?

Despite the title of her article, the authoress clearly feels that Christians are entitled to have amazing sex. She illustrates the problem of chastity, encouraging her readers to have amazing premarital sex, beginning in childhood, and then to divorce their spouses if the sex isn’t amazing after the wedding. Like most contemporary Christians, she doesn’t bother to cite any part of the text of the bible, nor any original sources from commentary by church fathers, in making her arguments.

Thanks to Rollo (visit his blog here) for finding this nonsensical article, and posting it on Dalrock (visit that blog here).