A New Aristocracy

The extent of female desire for involvement in the political process is directly proportionate to the threat that women feel in a free sexual market.

 

And as that threat grows, so the ostensible power of feminism grows.

 

The history of feminism is the history of a female sexual trade union, growing in political power in exact correspondence with the steady loss of female sexual power caused by the continual widening of the sexual market. The opening up of the sex market, the ever increasing opportunities for men to gain access to cheap and anonymous sex, is the result of constantly emerging new technology, and itself completely out of the hands of feminists, or anybody else, to control or put a stop to.

ahistoryoffeminism.com

https://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/a-new-aristocracy/

April 28, 2018 By  6 Comments

 

When Marxist activist Rudi Dutschke looked at ways to stage a neo-Marxist revolution he hit on the plan of “a long march through the institutions of power to create radical change from within government and society by becoming an integral part of the machinery.” His strategy was to work against the established institutions while working surreptitiously within them. Evidence of the attempt to implement his plan can be seen today through many levels of society – especially in universities.

Marxists however are not the only ones to use this strategy. In fact when we look at the numerous political forces attempting to infiltrate and influence our cultural institutions we see that another, much more influential candidate, has twisted its tendrils through every layer of society – and it existed long before Marx and Marxism was born. That force is political feminism,1 whose culture project has been in play now for several hundred years.

Protofeminists like Lucrezia Marinella, Mary Wollstoncraft, Margaret Cavendish, Modesta Pozzo, or Christine de Pizan were advocating a ‘long march’ through institutions for centuries before Marxism emerged and began its tragic experiment. Pizan’s main book for example titled A City of Ladies sketched an imaginary city whose institutions were controlled completely by women, and each of the protofeminists advanced some theory of female rule or ‘integration’ of women into governing institutions. Later feminists followed suit, such as Charlotte Perkins Gillman wrote the famed book HerLand (1915) envisioning a society run entirely by women who reproduce by parthenogenesis (asexual reproduction), resulting in an ideal (utopic) social order free from war, conflict, and male domination.

A survey of protofeminist writings reveals consistent advocacy for the superior abilities of women as functionaries: women’s greater compassion, virtue, nonviolence, intelligence, patience, superior morality and so on, combined with a concomitant descriptions of male destructiveness, insensitivity and inferiority as we see continued in the rhetoric of modern feminists.

Via that polarizing narrative feminists sought to grab not just a big slice of the governance pie; as contemporary feminists have shown they would stop at nothing but the whole pie. Nothing but complete dominance of the gendered landscape would satisfy their lust for control, and it appears they have succeeded.

We see that dominance in women’s occupation of pivotal bureaucratic positions throughout the world, from the UN and World Bank all the way down through national governments, schools and universities, and HR departments in most medium to large workplaces. Feminists not only govern the world via these roles, but as surveyed in Janet Halley’s recent book Governance Feminism: An Introduction, that governance is far from the utopia early feminist promised.

The long feminist tradition underlines the danger of viewing ‘the march through the institutions’ as a Cultural Marxism project, because it deflects us from the historically longer, more powerful, more dangerous and ultimately more successful project that is political feminism.

Moreover, the protagonists of Marxist and feminist worldviews are not one and the same; the former aims to dismantle social-class oppression, and the latter gender oppression. While there are some individuals working to amalgamate these two contrary theories into a hybrid of Frankenstein proportions, their basic theoretical aims remain distinct.

Like Marxism, feminism too can be imagined as a socio-political ideology, in this case modelling itself on a medieval feudalism which was structured with two social classes: 1. A noble class of aristocrats, priests, princes and princesses, and 2. a peasant class of serfs and slaves overseen by indentured vassals.

Stripped of its medieval context we see the purveyors of political feminism working to institute a new sex-stratified version of feudalism which serves to maximize the power of women. With this move we have seen an increased tendency to emphasize women’s “power,” “dignity,” “honor,” “esteem” and “respect” – descriptors historically reserved for dignitaries.

As in medieval times, the assets and wealth generated by the labour class – predominately men – are taxed and redistributed to the new quasi-aristocratic class via a plethora of social spending programs of governments, or alternatively via asset transfers like alimony, child support, divorce settlements and other court mandated conventions. Children themselves form part of that asset portfolio which men are often forced to relinquish to women in the event of divorce. In the face of such practices men are reminded that women’s “dignity” is very much at stake, and their acquiescence mandatory.

The push to establish a female aristocratic class has long been recognized, as mentioned by the following writer from more than a century ago (1896), who in his ‘Letter To The editor’ observed the granting of unequal social privileges to female prisoners;

A paragraph in your issue of the week before last stated that oakum-picking as a prison task had been abolished for women and the amusement of dressing dolls substituted. This is an interesting illustration of the way we are going at present, and gives cause to some reflection as to the rate at which a sex aristocracy is being established in our midst. While the inhumanity of our English prison system, in so far as it affects men, stands out as a disgrace to the age in the eyes of all Europe, houses of correction for female convicts are being converted into agreeable boudoirs and pleasant lounges…

I am personally in favour of the abolition of corporal punishment, as I am of existing prison inhumanities, for both sexes, but the snivelling sentiment which exempts females on the ground of sex from every disagreeable consequence of their actions, only strengthens on the one side every abuse which it touches on the other. Yet we are continuously having the din of the “women’s rights” agitation in our ears. I think it is time we gave a little attention to men’s rights, and equality between the sexes from the male point of view.–YoursYours, &c.,, A MANLY PROTESTOR.”2

Another comes from a 1910 Kalgoorlie Miner which reported a push to set up a female aristocracy in America. It was entitled The New Aristocracy:

A question of deep human interest has been raised by The Independent.

“To be successful in the cultivation of culture a country must have a leisure class,” says the editor. “We Americans recognise this fact, but we are going about the getting of this leisure class in a new way.

In Europe the aristocracy is largely relieved from drudgery in order that they may cultivate the graces of life. In America the attempt is being made to relieve the women of all classes from drudgery, and we are glad to see that some of them at least are making good use of the leisure thus afforded them. It is a project involving unprecedented daring and self-sacrifice on the part of American men, this making an aristocracy of half the race. That it is possible yet remains to be proved. Whether it is desirable depends upon whether this new feminine aristocracy avoids the faults of the aristocracy of the Old World, such as frivolousness and snobbishness.”3

Lastly a comment from Adam Kostakis who gives an eloquent summary of feminism’s preference for a neo-feudal society in his Gynocentrism Theory Lectures:

It would not be inappropriate to call such a system sexual feudalism, and every time I read a feminist article, this is the impression that I get: that they aim to construct a new aristocracy, comprised only of women, while men stand at the gate, till in the fields, fight in their armies, and grovel at their feet for starvation wages. All feminist innovation and legislation creates new rights for women and new duties for men; thus it tends towards the creation of a male underclass.”4

By many accounts what we’ve achieved today under feminist modelling is the establishment of a neo-feudal society with women representing an aristocratic class and men the labour class of serfs, slaves and peasants who too often spend their lives looking up from the proverbial glass cellar. When men do rule, it is usually not with a life “free of drudgery” as mentioned above, but with hard-work as CEOs, executives and prime ministers in service of the ruling female class who are busy with little more than lifting their lattes.

This gendered enterprise is now several hundred years in the making, enjoying further consolidations with every passing year of feminist governance. That a widespread female aristocracy now exists is undeniable, at least in the Western world, although we remain reluctant to name it as such for fear of offending our moral betters. We can only hope that the recent petition to abolish the House of Lords becomes infectious and begins to tackle the unearned privileges of those new aristocrats who serve nobody but themselves.

Sources:

[1]. Ernest Belfort Bax coined the phrase ‘political feminism’ in his book The Fraud of Feminism. London: Grant Richards Ltd, 1913
[2] New Feminine Aristocracy; Narrowly Trained Men, Kalgoorlie Miner, Wednesday 5 January 1910, page 2
[3]. A Privileged and Pampered Sex, Letter to the Editor, Reynolds Newspaper, 1896
[4]. Adam Kostakis, Lecture 11: The Eventual Outcome of Feminism –II, Gynocentrism Theory Lectures, 2011

*An earlier version of the above article published in Feminism And The Creation of a Female Aristocracy.

Leaving The Democratic Plantation

Earlier this week I wrote an article for FrontPage Mag about rap superstar Kanye West’s controversial endorsement of black conservative commentator Candace Owens. Owens had recently issued a clarion call for a black exodus from the Democratic Party, urging blacks to abandon the victim mentality encouraged by the Party and embrace a victor mentality instead. Kanye, whose degree of fame puts him in a rather unique position to have a powerful cultural impact among young voters, tweeted a startling defense of her message. In desperate response, a panicked left unleashed a social media and news media assault on Kanye, questioning not only his allegiance to the black community but even his sanity.

Since that article, the controversy has grown exponentially, with many conservative pundits celebrating (and many others doubting) Kanye’s apparent political revelation, and with many progressive pundits smearing Kanye in an effort to minimize his potentially devastating influence.

But not all of Kanye’s supporters are necessarily conservative. One unusual voice in defense of Kanye’s independent-minded tweetstorm was that of “atonement activist” Shaka Senghor, who went to prison in Michigan for second-degree murder at the age of 19 and served a 19-year sentence, five of them in solitary. He went on to write a memoir titled Writing My Wrongs and to create The Atonement Project “as a means for beginning conversations about reconciliation among those who have committed crimes and those who have felt the impact of crimes.” Part of his work is dedicated to helping young people break out of “self-imposed prisons,” “get out of prison and stay out,” and “avoid the snares of imprisonment.”

Though not a supporter of President Trump, whom Kanye embraces as a friend and a brother in “Dragon Energy,” Senghor posted a short article at Medium.com titled, “Why the Denigration of Kanye West is Bad For Us!” which succinctly sums up why the rapper’s defense of Candace Owens’ message for black Americans is so important, and why the attacks on him are counter-productive for blacks. They are, he writes,

a slap in the face of those who fight daily for the freedom of all people. To call him a coon or question his sanity without employing critical thinking is reckless and irresponsible. To propagate the idea that black people can only think one way is dangerous. A singular narrative that says that we are only allowed to think or say things that make people comfortable impedes our intellectual growth and stymies us emotionally. The belief that we can only align ourselves with one party has left us powerless and without the ability to make politicians work in our best interest, because they take our votes for granted.

There is a social media rush to judgment without about Kanye without engaging in a constructive conversation to see how he arrived at his conclusions. I personally am not a Trump supporter nor do I have blind allegiance to the Democratic Party, that has continued to ignore some of our most pressing issues. I am an advocate of freedom of speech even if I don’t like what you have to say. There are some things I agree with Kanye on like not playing the role of victims when we have an opportunity to be victors.

Senghor goes on to criticize “liberals” who “don’t fight for my liberation” and “social media demagogues” who “snuff out freedom of speech just because they disagree. Instead of bashing Kanye or questioning his mental health, we should be questioning why we go along to get along.”

Senghor urges black Americans to quit “whining and complaining” about Kanye and Trump and to ask these critical questions instead: “What are we doing to empower ourselves, what are we doing to employ ourselves, what are we doing to protect ourselves, what are doing to be fully free?”

Shaka Senghor – and Kanye West, for that matter – may or may not be intentionally urging black Democrats to convert to conservatism, but the fact remains that the very process of answering those questions for themselves will prompt black Democrats to examine what their Party is doing – or more precisely not doing – to empower and protect them. And that is the first step toward abandoning the Democrat plantation.

Read Senghor’s whole short article here.

 

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/270014/leaving-democrat-plantation-mark-tapson

Liberal Democrat Wealthy White Manhattan parents angrily rant against plan to bring more black kids to their schools

https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/num…l-primary-nyc/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United…New_York,_2012

A new effort to diversify schools in the Upper West Side of Manhattan — one of the richest neighborhoods in the city — has drawn an angry reaction from many parents.

Local news station Spectrum News NY 1 has posted a video that shows white parents furiously attacking a plan to require all local middle schools to reserve 25 percent of their seats for students who score below grade level on state English and Math exams.

The plan is an effort to make schools on the Upper West Side more diverse to reflect the demographics of New York as a whole, as the schools in the area now are predominantly white.

“You’re talking about an 11-year-old, you worked your butt off, and you didn’t get that, what you needed or wanted,” one angry woman said during the meeting. “You’re telling them that you’re not going to go to a school that’s going to educate them the same way you’ve been educated. Life sucks!”

Kristen Burger, an elected member of the Upper West Side Parent Council, tells NY 1 that the plan is intended to address diversity problems in the area’s middle schools, which she describes as “very segregated.”

And NY-1’s video shows middle school principal Henry Zymeck telling many of the parents that he feels hurt by some of their comments.

“There are kids that are tremendously disadvantaged,” he said. “And to compare these students and say, ‘My already advantaged kid needs more advantage, they need to be kept away from those kids,’ is tremendously offensive to me.”

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/04/wat…6SaPVw.twitter

“Queen bees” hinder women in the workplace | Up to 58% of workplace bullies are women and they target other women 90% of the time.

 

Queen Bee Syndrome hinders the advancement of women in the workplace, as well as damaging productivity, profit and progress

 

Queen Bees are women in the workplace that treat colleagues in a demoralising, undermining or bullying manner. They should NOT be confused with strong, ambitious women in the workplace (which we applaud). Queen Bees are adult versions of the mean girls from school – but now they have grown up and are more calculating.

So why should we care?

Queen Bee mischief manifests in ways that can have lasting negative effects on individual careers and entire organisations. Since women have “attained a critical mass in the professional and managerial ranks of a significant percentage of companies, especially financial and services organisations,” management should be particularly concerned about issues of abusive conduct by and toward women, Lesley Levin Mary Mattis wrote in their research on corporate response to gender diversity. Hence, Queen Bee Syndrome can be the biggest hindrance to women advancing in the workplace because:

  1. Queen Bees often lack the sponsorship or support necessary to get promoted due to their negative behaviour. Poor leadership negatively impacts organisational performance and profitability.
  2. Queen Bees often prevent other talented, up-and-coming women from advancing in the workplace. Research from the Workplace Bullying Institute has suggested that, as many as 58% of bullies in the workplace are women, and these individuals most often victimise other women. The study found that Queen Bees choose other females as targets nearly 90% of the time.

I recently conducted a survey focused on women in the workplace, and found that approximately 70% had been the victim of either workplace bullying or covert undermining by a female boss. Along with the approximately 70% who had endured “the sting” of the Queen Bee boss, 33% had been on the receiving end of a woman on the same level or below being unhelpful, holding them back or undermining them.

Nicki Crick et al’s research on relational victimisation (2002) proposes that females are not often overtly aggressive with one another, but instead they use their social intelligence to manipulate relationships or damage the reputations of others. These socially aggressive behaviours include gossiping, social exclusion, social isolation, social alienation, talking about someone, and stealing friends or romantic partners. The jury is still out on exactly why Queen Bees exhibit such behaviour. Nearly 75% of the survey respondents thought that Queen Bee behaviour might stem from insecurity, whilst other possible causes include feeling the need to be aggressive in order to be taken seriously, or even Queen Bees desiring to be the only “top” woman.

Queen Bee Syndrome can have a negative impact on organisational performance and bottom line results which can include:

● Reduced productivity
● Reduced employee satisfaction
● Grievances and lawsuits
● Lower profitability

Addressing Queen Bee Syndrome will help companies to improve efforts to advance women in the workplace by (a) allowing women to identify and eliminate behaviours that keep them from obtaining senior positions in the workplace; (b) encouraging women to support each other in the workplace at all levels and leverage one another as allies; and (c) empower managers who are aware of Queen Bee Syndrome to intervene and stop the behaviour.

Management must develop a more complex and realistic image of women that includes recognition of their aggressive tendencies and the form of victimisation females are more likely to use. Addressing Queen Bee Syndrome can result in positive organisational outcomes such as:

● Reducing attrition of strong female talent
● Strengthening the talent pipeline of future leaders
● Improving recruitment efforts due to the supportive environment
● Improved employee morale
● Increased productivity

Cecilia Harvey is an advocate for women in tech and women in leadership. She is the founder and chair of global showcase platform Tech Women Today and the founder of app WalkingRed

https://economia.icaew.com/en/opinion/april-2018/queen-bees-hinder-women-in-the-workplace