Wednesday, 9 December 2009

Feminism: Anglobitch Creation or Autonomous Product?


Who is to blame for feminism and its cataclysmic effects? This is one of the great conundrums within the field of Men's Studies. As well as being of intrinsic interest, it is also of great practical importance: for if we cannot identify where the problem lies, how can we possibly correct it? Some say it is men, others women. However, a third possibility exists: society itself. This is because laws and language are systems of information that transcend any individual consciousness.

The Anglobitch Thesis is in many ways far ahead of other MRA concepts, since it stresses the structural aspects of feminism: that is, the cultural aspects. How can we change things? If society is a vast information programme, then it is possible to change it by introducing new data, as one changes software output by inserting different variables. MRA sites, blogs and so forth are already having an impressive effect in this regard.

In our view, Anglo American feminism has become institutionalized via complex, non-linear feedback loops that accentuate behavioural trends implicit in human behavior by virtue of our evolutionary heritage. These have become embedded as socio-cultural memes in law, language and politics as immutable ‘norms’. A good example would be the offhand deference shown to women by the Anglo-American media. This originated in the biological need to safeguard young women in order to expand early hunter-gatherer societies, the first societies in the crudest sense. Then, this tendency was accentuated by non-linear feedback loops to become embedded in communal life.

Beyond this, as true institutions emerged, these norms became embedded in the social nexus at a primal level. These persist as ‘fossil values’ in modern culture, unaccountable 'transparencies' that legitimate offhand devaluation of the male. Anglo American culture above all others promotes female advantage in this manner, because its archaic puritanical assumptions persist as fossils in contemporary, post feminist culture, promoting women on pedestals and vilifying all males as sexualized creatures.

Robert Wright of Harvard: expert Evolutionary Psychologist

Lower class Anglo-American populist culture gives a perfect example of this pernicious process in operation. As Robert Wright of Harvard has shown, lower class families value girls more because a lower class girl can still find a sexual partner despite her poverty - and thus still manage to reproduce. For a lower class male, this is much less likely. This is why lower class women have another child as soon as possible after a boy is born: a boy born in poverty is a biological liability, a waste of time and resources.

Now, it is obvious that contemporary lower class populist culture is deeply misandrist, assuming all males to be rapists, paedophiles and so on. A cursory glance at any lower-class media product will prove this. Now, the lower class media’s owners/managers do not sit arounge their offices saying, “Hey – let’s hate men today!” Rather, the customs and working methods they have developed by trial and error achieve exactly the same result as a carefully-engineered misandrist social programme, albeit unconsciously. In short, the misandrist agenda is amplified by nonlinear feedbacks, becoming embedded in organizational procedures to produce convergent results. At no point, however, did anyone ever consciously plan any of this: it arose entirely by spontaneous, self-organising social processes. In our view, exactly the same process occurs in law, politics and the 'highbrow' media - albeit in a more complex, multi-tiered and symbiotic manner. Indeed, the German scholar Niklas Luhmann claims that the law and other complex institutions are actually self-organising entities in their own right, which spontaneously adapt to (and embody) socio-cultural shifts. It is inviting to think that, in practice, Anglo-American law also embodies unconscious misandry for the same reason.

Niklas Luhmann: expert in complexity-driven social systems

Indeed, if we consider the foregoing discussion carefully, the Anglo-American MRA fixation on ‘conservatism’ to reverse the ills of feminism is entirely mistaken, in that Anglo-Saxon 'conservatism' merely reprises the core values of Anglo culture, which inherently exalt women while denigrating men. Simply calling on that culture for salvation from Anglo feminism is hopeless, since puritanical Anglo-Saxon culture is inherently loaded with vicious misandry in the first place!

Obviously, reprogramming the culture will be no simple task – however, the more difficult path is invariably the most rewarding. Indeed, some of the articles and essays on this blog and our associated Anglobitch site serve as a good foundation for this unqiue conceptual enterprise. A new language of equitable gender relations must be formulated by MRAs from all over the Anglophone nations if the Anglosphere is to survive the depredations of Anglobitch feminism. American pragmatism, British objectivity, Canadian conscience, Anzac verve and Indian spiritual depth must all be mobilized against the fossilized, catastrophically misandrist memes embedded within Anglo culture.


In conclusion, no one party is ‘to blame’ for Anglo feminism. No one is ‘to blame’ for the inherent misandry of Anglo-American institutions. There is no conscious misandrist agenda, only non-linear recursive feedbacks that produce exactly the same effect – giving observers the impression that such a conscious agenda exists, when in fact it does not. The main challenge for Anglo-American MRAs lies in deconstructing the hegemonic memes of the existing culture to challenge its ubiquitous rhetoric of anti-male oppression.

12 comments:

  1. Rookh,

    Brilliant piece! As all you write! I have another thesis you can consider. What about this? Feminism in the Anglo sphere evolved in a misandrist agenda due to the incompatibility between a latent misandrist Anglo-Saxon pussyfied society (embodied in the USA) and the world wide spectacular economic growth and urbanization process after WWII. The change was so fast, the richness of resources was so vast, and the cultural new opportunities so wide and potentially open that a decrepit latent misandrist society like America couldn’t match the pace of changing. So, the reshaping of society was at the expense of males and masculine roles. Look at the experiences of other regions. The Arab Monarchies Street: Since the 70s that area has been flooded with oil-dollars? Did this fact make any difference in the cultural background of those heavy patriarchal societies? No! Look at China: The spectacular industrialization of the country has created new economic conditions and open a complete universe of social changes. Is this changing the environment in the male-female relationships? Yes! The new generation of alpha Chinese males are openly becoming more “manly” (for example, having mistresses) and Chinese women (after decades of Communist sexless egalitarism) are willingly and happily returning to more traditional roles (for example, becoming full time housewives and mistresses of married men). If a society doesn’t have the wisdom neither the cultural flexibility to deal with speedy challenges, it falls apart.

    Yours,

    MCG

    ReplyDelete
  2. no one to blame??

    its in the communist manifesto by karl marx how to destroy a civilised society and do a coup on the existing ruling classes..

    or the rockerfellers and their grants and subsidies on womens rights issues and the countless studies in the travistock institute where all social engineering studies first appear before implimentation in some un treay of the convention of the rights of the child...

    this is war and we are losing by institutionalised cretin teachers failing to point the finger at the illuminatis new world order aganda. no one to blame indeed...

    what a pathetic cop out for continual tenureship of professordom in an institution funded by the same "people" who fund feminism and womens studies...

    you wouldnt expect the keepers to be kept.

    and who guards the guardians of curricular content.

    Robert Wright of Harvard: expert Evolutionary Psychologist Indeed....

    ReplyDelete
  3. This guy has no concept of evolution...

    the graduates of institutionalised studies of social engineers are funded by a legacy of cecil rhodes et al.

    they join think tanks like travistock

    they write studies on human behaviour.

    some United Nations think tank reviews the studies

    they write some international treaty or convention and get most of the countries in the world to be a signatory of the "treaty" which by definition is "terms of surrender"

    when a country becomes a signatory to this UN treaty suplimentary to this treaty is acts of parliment, legislation and other documents ready to be introduced into Congress or other such names for a conglomeration of elected dictators.

    then the news media select all news and events that this treaty exposes and there is a blanket mass media reporting of the problem... after about 6 months to a year the people are conditioned to expect their elected dictators to introduce laws to solve the problem created by the media which the UN had manufactured and supplied the solution in advance..

    NOW THATS PSYCHOLOGY ON AN EVOLUTIONARY PATH

    Robert Wright of Harvard has a trained parrot etched on his mirrors.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Sir,

    An interesting counter-perspective. And yes, there is an international power-elite, the global superclass, with enormous levels of power to push through any agenda they want. Also, to some extent the professional intelligentsia are indeed 'shoe-shine boys' for this elite, along with the media (Ezra Pound's 'liars for hire').

    What I don't get is how/why you link that elite to Marxism. People like Rockefeller were not Marxists, but capitalists. There is an interesting tradition in British Men's Studies that links feminism to capitalism, in that 'emancipated' women means more consumers to buy commodity goods (usually garbage that no one needs). In short, Anglo-feminism was partly devised to sustain the growth of post-War capitalism, and exported as an ideology into other countries to maximize profits. However, Marxism broadly argues against such economic imperialism, so linking feminism to Marxism is ridiculous.

    Further, the thrust of the Anglobitch Thesis is that pernicious Anglo-American feminism has its true roots in the puritanical Anglo-Saxon culture that existed long before Marxism, or even consumer capitalism. As the previous poster argued, this has mutated in recent years into 'anti-male' agendas across the Anglosphere. And it is that original puritanical, anti-male meme I am trying to explain by self-organizing social processes, not the complex (and consciously engineered) feminism that rules the modern Anglosphere.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I like (and agree!) with what you said about conservatism; this has always been my position, and it's something I intend to write about soon.

    MRAs though, even if nominally arguing for conservatism, aren't really. A new gender paradigm, which rejects both feminism AND chivalry, seems to be what is advocated. The majority of MRAs seem to be seeking a new social order along libertarian lines, which in itself is inherently progressive, marking a fundamental break from the statism of the past. 'Libertarianism' can be associated with conservatism (as in the case of neoliberalism: ostensibly, libertarian economics and hardline social authoritarianism) but it by no means has to be. The MRA movement, from what I have seen, is more in favour of libertarianism than conservatism, but many MRAs are social conservatives on a personal basis. The society they have in mind is one in which they would be free to live in the ways they choose without interference from others - be this traditional or more 'progressive'. What they oppose is infringements on their rights to live as they see fit - e.g. by feminism.

    I have used the word 'they' almost subconsciously, because I don't share the conservative background of most MRAs. Nevertheless, I'm on board with the libertarianism. The large, or regulating state, is the tool of feminism. If we can shrink the state, feminism is destroyed; it becomes reduced to a small group of emotionally stunted, whining old ladies and their cats. At present, said group of whiners can only affect change by getting powerful men to bully other men. The size of the state then, is a fundamental issue for the Men's Rights Movement. And given that most would rather reduce its size to absolutely minimal, you are quite correct to suggest that conservatism does not provide solutions to feminism, in the wider sense.

    ReplyDelete
  6. @SNARK: ...it becomes reduced to a small group of emotionally stunted, whining old ladies and their cats.

    LMFAO! Excellent!!!

    Truer words were never spoken.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Great blog! Have you seen my Happier Abroad site yet? It's the only expat site that talks about all this stuff too. We could use you on our forum!

    http://www.happierabroad.com

    ReplyDelete
  8. "The majority of MRAs seem to be seeking a new social order along libertarian lines, which in itself is inherently progressive, marking a fundamental break from the statism of the past."

    "Libertarianism" and "Anti-Statism", sigh.

    Libertarianism is kind of an ideology that negates itself. It says you can't have any opinions on anything, or can't take decisive action towards particular problems.

    Libertarianism says let things evolve without intervention and leave them to their own devices. In terms of the Anglobitch Thesis I think this is problematic, because it means that the shadow values of Feminism/Misandry deeply embedded into Anglo-Saxon society are left unaddressed. It cannot be simply hoped that Feminism/Misandry will cease to be the primary characteristic of our culture if we simply leave things as is, with minimum intervention.

    "Anti-Statism" (complaining about "The State" and "Statism") is nonsensical because it's basically impossible not to have a state in a modern, advanced society.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "If we can shrink the state, feminism is destroyed"

    Non sequitur. Not that simple, I am afraid.

    "The size of the state then, is a fundamental issue for the Men's Rights Movement."

    No.
    Who decides how much "shrinkage" is needed, or what the "right size" for the state is? These are subjective calls.

    "Anti-Statism" is a red-herring.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Consider for example the case of Eastern European countries.

    In the Communist era the State had a hand in everything. Childcare, hospitals, education, goods and services, employment. Everyone was an employee of the state. Yet feminist lamented (in latter years, if not in the early days of the Communist system) that things didn't turn out as pro-feminist as they might wish.

    Men held onto their position as head of the household, men and women still married in large numbers (the institution of marriage remained intact), "gender" wasn't a mainstream concept or subject of study, men held most of the positions of authority. Culture, law, and societal values were not skewed blatantly in favour of women in the Communist system. Feminists weren't the ones who framed issues and decided how things can be discussed. They did not control the discourse as they would like to, as they do in Western Capitalist society today.

    All of this feminists were rather unhappy with. Some feminist remarked that "Breaking Capitalism was easy [Soviet system, etc.], break Patriarchy is the real challenge."

    Fast forward to 1989 when the Communist system fell apart. All of the sudden the State went from being omnipotent to being a much smaller player. State enterprises and assets were sold off (privatisation). State price controls were abolished. The US in particular pushed this "shock therapy" doctrine of free markets and a small state.

    Yet we go to Eastern European countries today and we see the rise of feminist memes and trends that did not exist in the Communist era. It is reasonable to suggest that the "smaller government" free market reforms introduced post-USSR have a significantly role to play in this.

    I think the case of Communist Eastern Europe and Russia alone refutes the claim that "shrinking the state" will destroy feminism.

    If you want to "shrink the state" or reduce the reach of the state fine, go and do that. However let's not suggest an automatic link between a "small state" and "no feminism". Because this is simply not the case.

    If "size of state" directly correlated with "degree of feminism", then we would expect the Communist systems to be throughly feminist, which they were not.

    ReplyDelete
  11. *Yet we go to Eastern European countries today and we see the rise of feminist memes and trends that did not exist in the Communist era. It is reasonable to suggest that the "smaller government" free market reforms introduced post-USSR have a significantly role to play in this. I think the case of Communist Eastern Europe and Russia alone refutes the claim that "shrinking the state" will destroy feminism.*

    Sir

    I think you are right. It is simplistic to link the power/size of the state to feminism (although there may be some correlation). Many other factors have to be considered, such as national culture. Slavic culture in general seems patriarchal to me, (certainly compared to Anglo-Saxon culture with its underlying puritanical ethos that gifts women 'ready made' status as 'owners' of sex). Perhaps the rise of feminist, misandrist memes in former Soviet nations owes more to cultural infiltration (via markets and media-led Anglo 'lifestyle promotion') of Slavic culture by Anglo-Saxon matriarchies such as the US, rather than the size/influence of the post-Soviet State.

    Shifting to the Anglosphere, the 1980s witnessed the steady rise of feminism (and the emergence of feminist-led misandry in the media and academia), yet that decade in both Britain and the USA was characterized by a sharp and conscious REDUCTION in the power/role of the state. This further tends to support your interpretation, that the nature of the state is tangential to the rise of feminism.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Bharatiya Nari1 June 2014 at 12:47

    "Lower class Anglo-American populist culture gives a perfect example of this pernicious process in operation. As Robert Wright of Harvard has shown, lower class families value girls more because a lower class girl can still find a sexual partner despite her poverty - and thus still manage to reproduce. For a lower class male, this is much less likely. This is why lower class women have another child as soon as possible after a boy is born: a boy born in poverty is a biological liability, a waste of time and resources. "

    Completely culture specific. In South Asia the poor desire male offspring because then they can get dowry from the brides family. Poor South Asian males have no problems marrying and reproducing - beyond their means.

    There is no such thing as "universalism". Everything is culturally relative.

    ReplyDelete