Monday, August 06, 2007

[misandry] as destructive as misogyny

My heart is lifted.

There are some, not a majority, of truly excellent rhetorical writers and a few who are truly unsung. Cassandra is shut away in the high white tower of her Lighthouse and though she's radiant in her style, sadly, not many will share her convictions.

I do.

It is glaringly obvious to many by now that I am opposed to radical feminism, among other things, for reasons outlined here and here.

However, the feminist construct placed upon me as a closet misogynist you can judge for yourself as I acknowledge Cassandra, on bended knee, as my master [or perhaps mistress] in the field of rhetoric and in general, am overawed by the power of intellect and beauty combined in so many women, to which there is no masculine defence.

To the point. Commenting on Virginia Woolf, Cassandra posts:

Theodore Dalrymple decries the icon of women's literature Three Guineas as the locus classicus of self-pity and victimhood and suggests an alternative title: "How to be Privileged and Yet Feel Extremely Aggrieved".

Current Postmoderns (Pomos) must have taken several leaves out of the Woolf book, as she is no doubt the uncrowned queen of the ludicrous equation and false analogy; of logic so bent it could put the kitchen plumbing to shame.

Unrestrained emotions and high strung aesthetics notwithstanding, Woolf leaves our contemporary Pomos far behind in the use of false analogies and the inability to distinguish metaphor from literal truth. Dalrymple: She "... collapse[s] all relevant moral distinctions, a technique vital to all schools of resentment ...

Ruth Malhotra - pro-reason, anti-feminist

I throw misandry into the same pit of ordure as misogyny and quote a little Woolf:

- There is no real difference between a university degree convocation and a Nuremberg rally;

- A club not admitting women members is the same as Nazi death camp Treblinka.

- Both the British policeman and the Nazi stormtrooper wore a uniform", rendering them both brutes.

It's not that there is zero value in the sentiment but it is the "all or nothing" generalizations which are so galling. For example, there is a certain amount to be said for this one:

Were men to see the error of their ways and consider women their equals (you see what feats of logic can be accomplished once you set your mind to it), the will to war would vanish as by miracle.

War is caused by those who finance it, who suggest then enable it, whilst grooming leaders in their image over the centuries to be amenable to their persuasion. In this group are women. I won't name her but the ex-head of Tesco is one of these. Sutherland, Kaletsky and Balls are three of the men.

These groups are dominated by men but the women are right in there doing their worst as well. Felicia Cavasse, Veronique Morali, Birgit Breuel, Virginia Rogononi are just some of the names of those who've sold their souls.

Would there be war without men in charge? Of course there would - the finance needs war. But Woolf, who from her privileged background must have had some inkling of this, ignores it in her misandropic rantings.

It was Germaine Greer who said:

'Bitter women will call you to rebellion but you have too much to do. What will you do?" [The Female Eunuch]

It is the same bitterness as the misogynist who says all women want is money; it's no different in its mindset, this virulent feminism. It's a form of socialism in that it readily leaps to draconian legislative solutions and compulsion.

Minette Marrin [herself a CFR but let's not hold that against her here], put it succinctly:

…when I recently wanted to write a book called The Misandrist my publisher told me the title would be incomprehensible. This is odd, because there is misandry all around us, even if it is a feeling that dares not speak its name. It is misandry that has so muddied the waters of the current debate about rape and date-rape, and led to so much wilful misunderstanding.

There is a terrible danger that these attitudes are going to alienate men from women even more tragically than nature did in the first place ... Of course it is not difficult to understand misandry. But it would be a tragic mistake to be as unjust to men as they have traditionally been to us. Yet that is what women seem constantly tempted to do...

Over many articles she has quoted many instances, of which this is one:

Misunderstanding is the word for it - last year Cosmopolitan reported that hundreds of women wrote in to say that until they read the magazine's article on date-rape, they had not realised they had been raped. And if they did not know it at the time, how could their unfortunate assailants?

To the feminist - a plea - don't you understand that being "anti-bitterness" between the genders - being against anything which contrives to drive a wedge between men and women, through a one-sided misunderstanding and indifference to the other side's sensitivities, does not necessarily constitute being "anti-women"?

What gives the feminist the monopoly on speaking for women any more than this man speaks for men? [I just picked one at random from the net].

It's the old story - the sane and rational rarely get a look in and when they do speak, they're drowned out by the radical.

10 comments:

UBERMOUTH said...

From this post is one to assume that you are a lesbian who has an issue with ballsy women? :)
Kidding.

Cassandra said...

Thanks for all the glory and attention, James. The watershed between men and women is supported by pomo (feminism), so that the mythical dualism of the Oppressed versus the Oppressor can be continued: the White Patriach embodies all that's in power, supposedly wealthy, Christian, white and male (with authority and dogmatism thrown in for good measure), versus everybody else, cut up in minority groups of which women are the largest chunk. Once women get the message that they are being used to further the Marxist revolution, this artificial construct will collapse. Don't forget, the latest in this heap of devil's dung is the exploitation of Evangelical Christians in the 'Emergent Church', and the 'redistribution' of free speech (!!!) among the Oppressed, needless to say - since it's a zero sum game - at the expense of the Oppressor (I've written about both disasters only last week: I thought it was quite a revelation).
Cheers, James.

Lord Trafalgar Rock Pigeon said...

...I acknowledge Cassandra, on bended knee, as my master...

Just a bit of S&M, Uber, nothing dire. You need some?

Cassandra ... er ... er ... what can I add to your comment?

UBERMOUTH said...

LOl need some what?S& M or balls?

Welshcakes Limoncello said...

Ummm - without extremes we would never achieve the middle ground in anything, though.

jmb said...

I'm trying not to get sucked into this debate again but I thought this statement most thought provoking.

Misunderstanding is the word for it - last year Cosmopolitan reported that hundreds of women wrote in to say that until they read the magazine's article on date-rape, they had not realised they had been raped. And if they did not know it at the time, how could their unfortunate assailants?



Your statement below is what I was trying to convey before.

It's the old story - the sane and rational rarely get a look in and when they do speak, they're drowned out by the radical.

Just don't just lump all feminists
into the radical camp. I like to think I belong to the sane and rational group.
regards
jmb

Cassandra said...

The point was actually that postmodern speech is all about rhetoric designed to work on an emotional level, without having to come up with rational arguments to score a point: demagoguery really. The underlying thought is that in the good cause, everything is allowed, including lies and intimidation, as long as it works. In Woolf's case: irrational equation and false analogy.

Wolfie said...

Cassandra - You rock!

(my wife would really like you too)

Judge Rufus Peckham said...

Ms. Marrin's quote, "But it would be a tragic mistake to be as unjust to men as they have traditionally been to us," is a manifestation of radical feminist revisionist history. Try telling my great-grandmother that my great-grandfather was "unjust" to women when he was risking his life working long hours in a dehumanizing mill to support her and their children. This was, of course, common until relatively recently, and the vast majority of WOMEN in my great-grandmother's time would have scoffed at the notion that their men were "unjust" to them. They would have told you, quite accurately in many cases, that the men had it tougher, by far. It was the economic explosion following WWII freed both men and women to be more "fully human," not the rantings of radical gender feminists.

Bretwalda Edwin-Higham said...

Well spotted, Judge. It certainly needs to be considered.