In the last post, the theory of feminism was laid out via its origins in traditional Churchianity. This tradcon or traditional feminism also is referred to as the Feminine Imperative by some bloggers. Foundational feminism looks like this:
In summarizing Part 1, I realized that I described this exact dynamic in my blog post on Marxist influence on marriage. The feminism we have today isn’t much different than what happened in the past. The only change is that the State replaced Christ in the model. This results in the State enforcing the general principles of feminism, allowing the women a greater freedom to act, and making the effects more prominent.
Three principles can be distilled from the theoretical model, in which all feminist thought and action can be described. They are presented in order of natural consequence. However, they can exist in any combination. It is hard to settle on a single concrete example since there are many of them. Even within this blog, there are numerous posts on the topic, so it will be hard to be comprehensive.
Women have absolute moral authority.
Men have absolute moral depravity.
The principle of absolute female moral authority stems from a woman’s assigned status as holy and blameless. This principle centers itself in the morality of thought and judgment. What a woman judges and discerns becomes right and holy, because they are the vicars of Christ. The common phrases “If mama ain’t happy, ain’t nobody happy” and “happy wife, happy life” come from this principle.
As the truth becomes evident that both men and women have absolute moral depravity outside of Christ, it becomes necessary for rationalizations to be made by women to justify their behavior. This justification must immediately be accepted by all men involved – they must heed to women to be in the right.
This explains the popularity of female writers and bloggers in male-centric environments. It explains the propensity for women to be listened to when it comes to problems involving men, while men are dismissed as childish whiners when it comes to their problems with women. Sunshine Mary describes this principle:
One of the core pillars of feminism seems to be trying to control how men think about women. We want to be seen as smart, so by fiat order we’ll command men to see us as equally intelligent. We want to be seen as having the ability to be sexually promiscuous, so we’ll command men to hold a positive opinion of sluttery. We want to be seen as beautiful at 200 pounds, so we’ll command men to find us hot despite our obesity.
The absolute moral depravity of men brings a couple of very common rationalizations. It was considered that the worst behavior of any individual man would be representative of all men. The justification that a woman was pushed into doing something bad by a man is used as well. When all else fails, new doctrine is invented like the born-again virgin to make what all women do to be holy and right.
This principle, by placing men in a position of absolute depravity leads to:
Women have absolute female masterhood over men.
Men owe absolute male servanthood to disposability to women.
This principle stems from the perceived need of the man to perform continual penance for being born a man. They are to affirm and serve women unconditionally and without complaint. They are trained as children for the roles they are to take. They are to give up everything they have and even themselves at the whim and pleasure of a woman. A man is to be the perfect compliment of his wife, and then all women. He is to absorb all the consequences of the woman’s own actions – bear the sins of the woman.
This comes out in the entitlement mentality towards both the provision and protection of men. These entitled women feel they are entitled by birthright to a
husband personal man-slave and all that he is and can provide.
Any man who does not man-up and marry a slut, and then give up all his hopes, dreams, fantasies and resources to her is a perpetual child, who is being completely selfish. He is a Peter-Pan manboy who has failed to grow up (and all the other feminist shaming memes), because he isn’t following out the plan. The opposition to professed MGTOWs, who are almost always self-sufficient, proves this principle.
As well, the way people reacted to the events of the Costa Concordia drives this point home. The grumbling and furor over why it wasn’t women and children first illustrates that the gift of loving self-sacrifice has been turned into an absolute obligation of men because their wickedness renders them into chattel.
Women are infantilized.
Men provide apologetic rationalization.
This facet is the hardest to describe, because this is the part of traditional feminism that the secular feminists have opposed and largely eliminated. It also happens to be a very lightly touched topic on this blog. This isn’t a deliberate goal of feminism, but a natural consequence of it. When you allow a young woman to remain undisciplined and shield her from the consequences of her own wrong actions, rationalizing them to be right, you get a feral woman. When you raise a young woman to feel entitled to have men shoulder all her responsibilities for her, you get a woman that hasn’t grown up. When girls aren’t trained up in the way they should go before God by doting fathers worshiping their daughters, you get the perpetuation of feminism.
In how the secular feminists address the infantilization of women, they recognize the danger of an adult who can not fend for themselves (2:30-3:15). This is where the false definition that feminism has to do with “equality” comes from – essentially that women can’t play the same games as men due to their own demand of total male sacrifice.
However, the secular feminist answer socializes the responsibilities of women onto all men through government. The State is used to intensify the practice of the first two principles. We get the farce of the “strong, powerful and independent woman” who needs a husband, government assistance, discriminatory laws, alimony, child support, and a host of other things in order to maintain that status. These things enable the independent woman to not take responsibility for herself by doing things the same way men have always had to do. As a result, opportunities are taken away from men and given to women. In a fascinating turn, the secular feminists have chosen to openly embrace childhood and immaturity in themselves.
Instead of rejecting the results of these things as a failure to discipline these women, men rationalize away the consequences as the natural and innate qualities of women. They rationalize that women have reduced or no moral agency whatsoever. In doing so, they fulfill the purpose behind Principle #1, leaving women unchallenged to grow up. Men then bear the consequences for the wicked actions of women. Men do not recognize that these women never had to be tried and shaped by fire in fulfilling responsibility, and never have had to feel the fire in touching The Hot Stove of Life.