So I have noticed a very tragic discrepancy to my responses, which is that most of my criticisms are generally from old middle class guys.
I write a lot about philosophy, and foreign policy, and history and stuff that is generally tinted with a patriarchal lean. And that seems very unfair. I’m sure I can be just as good at angering women as I can any other demographic of society. I wish they would sometimes read my stuff and call me a paid agent of China or something. And I think the reason why is because of the algorithm.
But I know for a fact that women find this stuff interesting as well, so I’m going to massage the algorithm here a little bit. Because I do have some understanding of women. For instance that’s why I demystify this article by disclosing my entirely self-serving motives in writing it right from the start.
Women often appreciate when you’re being honest and upfront about your sneaky underhanded motives at the beginning instead of tricking them into thinking you’re some sort of considerate person, they find that refreshing.
All that knight in shining armour nonsense just doesn’t work anymore. It was a good scheme for about 400 years or so but the cat’s out of the bag by now.
So for starters, one thing I notice about women’s liberation and the philosophy of women’s liberation, sometimes called feminism, sometimes called suffrage, sometimes called being allowed to read, etc. It has varied scopes and schools of thought throughout history. I am very self-aware of contemporary things, so if my writing seems a bit displaced as far as time and chronology goes then don’t worry, that’s normal.
If I seem like I am writing this both from the future and the past, then I’ve done some of my best work.
So where to begin? Anthropology seems like the sensible beginning, because it sort of sets the table for this magical journey of history that women were invited into joining.
Assuming the invitation is a bit like getting dragged into a van by a group of masked assailants, but in any case, a journey began.
And you can speculate a little bit about the early anthropology of gender roles. I think pregnancy played a bigger part back then since people wanted large tribal families. If you have a family with 12 kids in it, then that means you’re spending a decade of your life being pregnant, and over several generations, this kind of pattern and habit will shape the way things are done.
So I think that’s how it started. People needed big families, and that required a significant amount of gestation. So when for instance sewing or medicine is seen as a feminine activity then yes, in modern times that is more tradition than practicality, but I can also see how it would be a nice way to pass the time if you had to spend a decade sitting around indoors and growing people all day. I think many feminine activities seem to share this common pattern of being stuff you can do indoors. So I reckon that’s the cause of what happened next.
Because then of course things got a bit bad. Some of this was the innocence of intuition, but then things got a bit bad. Because each generation of men had that missing decade, so suddenly they were out and about, women were at home, and before you know it we had feudalism and concubine systems and arranged marriages and all manner of madness.
Politics, wars, brokerage of power and economics, for most of history as society had this gender division, men got more time and more access to the development of such things, and eventually became the gatekeepers.
So this to me is the primary narrative, this is sort of what happened, it is not entirely what happened, it is oversimplified, but I think it is a big cause to explain why it is so universal among expansionist and imperial cultures.
These kinds of patterns can be very powerful in their effects of development.
Obviously now we live in modern day, and that has its benefits and drawbacks, because now the role of women is sort of undefined. And I think that is a struggle of feminism. That is probably the core challenge I think. Because obviously women are defined. Women have a history, a struggle, a pattern of society and politics. There’s lodes to be said about women, and to be studied and examined and understood. There is of course a defined reality to the nature of the circumstance which we refer to as womanhood.
And in many ways, this is crashing in on the world. In everything from gender politics to LGBT politics, to labour politics and even political politics. It confronts society with this undefined nature, and offers many interesting answers, as well as one stupid answer.
The stupid one is of course the postmodern answer, that women are supposed to be undefined. That’s just bad and wrong and lazy thinking that is nakedly apologetic to the present day powers that be, so I won’t even dignify it with a meaningful response. To strip people of identity and community and belonging is what slave traders do.
It’s a dehumanising and miserable propaganda and it is the equivalent of giving all women a shirt that reads “I spent 20.000 years of history as downtrodden chattel and all I got was this stupid T-shirt.” NO. That’s what I say. Resoundingly NO.
The real answer is more complicated, and that’s fine, complicated things are good because they alienate vapid people, I like that about complicated things. It’s like a deflector shield for people who spend their lives tediously stating the obvious.
Because I hate to tell you, but in the life of women, the obvious statement is rarely your friend. For most of recorded history, the obvious statement was that women were stupid, that they were weak, that they were nagging, and inscrutable, and hopelessly dependent. That they could not fight their way out of a wet paper bag. That they were so hideously incompetent at even the most rudimentary of basic reason, that in matters of intelligence and culture, they were like about as useful as a woolen bucket without a handle.
People said terrible things, and they were considered obvious. The real friend of women has been the radical notions of inquiry, the sophisticated things that were not so very obvious.
And just like the gestation gap, this too has been a characteristic which has shaped womanhood. Women are very sophisticated, because they have to be. Obviousness was an enemy to women, and so everything required careful study and examination.
And this actually produces an interesting predicament as cultures were shaped, because women were also forbidden from formal studies and literacy. So it created a fascinating tradition of women being able to study precisely everything except for that which was designed to be studied.
Hence the idea of “Women’s intuition.” It is precisely this. The habits of active and intelligent minds who have to make sense of the world through careful and habitual investigation. I find that fascinating.
Is it any wonder that, as soon as women had access to literacy, they took the world of writing by storm? They had spent thousands of years carefully observing things, and now they finally got to record their findings. I am not surprised women took to authorship and literature in such a revolutionary way. It was as though floodgates had been released.
And that I think is a flaw in feminism, because it is the idea that women should be equal to men, but I believe in some regards, perhaps men should be equal to women. I’d hate for women to stop being sophisticated, and to only understand things after someone writes it down for them. I’d like there to be more of an exchange of traditions.
In fact that is one of the hopes of mine in writing this and angering women, it’s because I think it would give me some better and more interesting critics.
The ones I have right now just quote things at me with little to no critical thinking, and I get tired of having to always click the “About” section on their favourite publications and explain how maybe my criticisms of NATO can’t be refuted by studies that were funded by NATO.
It gets tedious, and I think this intuitive tradition of women might make for better criticisms that are more fun and interesting to respond to.
Maybe. Or maybe you’re all just as hopeless as the rest of the huddled masses and I’m just being optimistic here. Maybe the tragedy of patriarchal equality has already been put into enactment, and women are already too equal to men, without men being all that equal to women. That wouldn’t be very good, so I hope not. I hope there is still time for a mutual exchange of virtues.
And speaking of virtues and traditions, this might be a good time to explain why I take an observer’s approach to feminism. Truth is, I agree with feminists on pretty much 100% of everything, the only thing which differs is my frame of reference. I prefer classical philosophy, and feminism is modern.
It uses a different frame of reference. So in many ways I am a feminist. In the functional ways of it. I would certainly side with feminists in most matters concerning women’s rights like abortion or the terrible situation of violence against women. It’s the metaphysics I disagree with. Feminism is very shaped by especially the enlightenment and sociology. Both of these I fear are works of the devil. They are hokus pokus nonsense invented by slave traders and eugenicists.
Sociology especially is a perverse pseudoscience that is used by politicians and corporations to create propaganda built on scientific pretense. It abuses statistics and flawed data in order to justify poverty, war, capitalism, gun control, and similar bad ideas.
It’s a very evil and immoral thing that is used to persecute homeless people, workers and foreigners and I think its dark practitioners belong in prison. In fact there’s studies to suggest that society is 68% less callously detached from the suffering of the underclass when you put all the sociologists in prison.
So I do think feminism will be like suffrage, it will be a contemporary thing. Just like how suffragettes were in many ways shaped by the racism of its time, so is feminism shaped by sociology, and will evolve into something else.
And that’s fine, because that’s what good things do. They improve and become shaped by the world as it unfolds. I think only good ideas aim to become redundant, and I think the basis of every chapter of women’s liberation history has done precisely this.
To say that feminism is the end of history is to say that sociology makes sense, and I simply cannot have that.
And that’s why I stick to the classical frame of reference, because sociology comes with a kind of ugly premise to it. Which is that if we find empirical data to suggest that society would universally benefit from oppressing women and treating them like second class citizens, then we should do it.
That’s why I can’t get on board with sociology. Because even if that empirical data was true, even if that somehow, by some weird twist or turn, all of it checked out, then the classics afford me with honour, and virture, and justice.
There is no honour or virtue or justice in oppressing others, whether women, or some other category of people that is pertinent to political discussion. Sociology aims to take all of these words out of the vocabulary of human reason. To turn everything into a game of projections and estimates and numbers. But the problem here is that this is pure utopian thinking.
Obviously we’ll never have such data, and until then, the data is gathered selectively and without context. In fact there’s a bit of a paradox there, because imagine precisely what kind of society we’d live in where they did have all that kind of data. How would they be able to collect so much data in realtime? The answer is not a fun one to contemplate.
And I suppose most feminists would agree with me in a sense and say “Obviously feminism should at some point be redundant, obviously we strive to achieve what we set out to do.”
Yes, but I’ve already seen the writing on the wall is my point. I’ve already seen the fatal contradiction. The next stage of women’s liberation I believe is one of reconstruction. Women were excluded from the classical era of philosophy, and that is precisely where we shall find some of the most interesting schools of thought regarding women’s liberation within the next two centuries or so.
And I don’t just mean individual authors, obviously there’s women out there who’s picked up Plato and read him. I know this for a fact since it was a woman who convinced me to read Plato. So the evidence speaks for itself really. That’s proper empiricism unlike that smoke and mirror nonsense that sociologists do.
And to all you women out there who is still willing to die on the sociology hill, then I remind you that the BMI chart; the Body-Mass Index, that pseudoscientific thing that adverts, doctors, and all your horrible relatives have used to make you feel bad about yourself whenever you eat something other than raw vegetables, was invented by Adolphe Quetelet, a Belgian sociologist.
So I’ll just leave you with that thought. How the architect of the 9/11 of women was a sociologist.
But my point is, I think when institutions of learning, when proper schools and dedicated places of study begin to take classical philosophy seriously and abandon this sociological madness, then we will see the next stage of women’s liberation. The next stage of what follows feminism. I want to know what the feminine approach to honour, and virtue, and justice is. I want to see what comes out of these roots of philosophy when they are permitted to grow with the nurture and resources which men took for granted.
I think this will be brilliant, and I hope I won’t die prior to its proliferation.
Or, perhaps, that somehow in the afterlife I can still read human books. Either one is fine, I’m not some fussbudget.