home polity my creed contact info books links sitemap
related articles
print email save save as pdf

Lien of OZ
Artificial Reproduction
Bible Study
Family issues
One World Government
Church Order
Sunday School
Free Will
December 25
Church & State
Body Mods

The Enemy Within II

by Alan Barron
1st September 2007.

Recently, I became embroiled in a heated discussion about `patriarchy' on an online menís forum. A spokesman from a men's group attacked patriarchy defining it as a "social and cultural organisation that has ruled most of the world for centuries." He then went on to say, "...feminists, and those of us with insight and knowing, have rightly seen how patriarchal male dominance is both oppressive and abusive (my emphasis) of the feminine (and masculine), in so doing, we males have not made our connection with "Eros", the feminine side of the human equation Ė love, relatedness and gentleness..."

This perfunctory comment got my hackles up. I wrote a response to saying that I was disappointed to read these comments. Patriarchy is not, I said, some malevolent movement, some universal conspiracy, to keep women in their place.

Rather patriarchy had evolved over centuries as societies around the globe - without exception - realised that it was the best way to structure male - female relationships and all that entails, including marriage and family life. From a religious perspective, the Bible makes it plain male dominance is God's idea, and it is therefore `good'.

Overall patriarchy is beneficial to society and should be defended and embraced by all community minded and civil citizens. It is pure humbug to say that patriarchy is "both oppressive and abusive of the feminine (and masculine)". This sweeping statement is not qualified, and is breath taking in its ignorance. The gender feminist position is ridiculous, patronising, and way off the mark.

It's this sort of insipid feminist inspired nonsense which causes problems for men and women. I concluded by saying that feminism is the enemy of all that is good because it opposes fatherhood and family values, and sees no intrinsic value in masculinity.

I copped flak for saying this. I was told that I had a "closed, biased, and narrow view of the world" and that I was "an embarrassment to the men's movement."

I couldn't believe the strength of these attacks. They were nasty, rude and made no effort to engage in a rational, sensible debate - just let me have it with both barrels. And I would bet that the persons who wrote them would pride themselves on being in touch with their feminine side, and who believe males should show compassion and tenderness - that is except to those men who stand up for men and who believe patriarchy is generally a positive thing for both men and women.

Alas, the men's movement then has many men within its ranks who are operating from a gender feminist perspective. And as long as they do so, it will only further erode male status and power. In effect these men who purport to be championing the cause of men, are in fact, sleeping with the enemy. Men who believe the basic philosophical framework of gender feminists are Fifth columnists, the white ants of the men's movement, who are sucking the life and goodness out of it.

Make no mistake, feminism is not about gender equality, it is about power. Feminism - in all its manifestations - is the enemy of all that is good. But some might object and say that gender feminists are the culprits, and that equity feminists - the good guys - are very sympathetic to men.

Let me respond by saying that most of the legislative reforms have been won by the gender feminists. If you are a careerist woman, then of course you will think it is "good." On the other hand, if I lived in a country where they practise female genital mutilation, I too might be labelled an equity feminist for opposing this barbaric practise. There are legitimate issues which every right thinking person should oppose.

To those who are not clear on the differences between gender feminists and equity feminists, the former group are a particularly humourless group that has no room for open debate. The label gender feminist is appropriate because they are obsessed with three fundamental theories.

First, they believe that there are no real differences between the sexes. This is why they have pushed the term "gender" on us. Gender is actually something that is assigned by society and is therefore not innate. According to them, society and culture have assigned the male and female "genders". I n other words, if it werenít for the "evils" of our patriarchal culture, we would all be walking around - as if it were - as eunuchs in a genderless equal society.

The second belief that characterizes gender feminists is their obsession with the badness of patriarchy. The patriarchy, according to their distorted view of reality is that there is indeed a universal conspiracy of men to keep women in their place - which makes victims of all women. Whatís worse, they believe that all men are innately violent due to their socialization within the patriarchy. Thus, they believe that the patriarchy needs to be destroyed at all costs, even if that means converting our government to a totalitarian form of socialism that rewrites the supposed gender script. This view throws tried and true social conventions and political freedoms out the window.

Finally, gender feminists believe that the most important characteristic of all women is their shared victim. All government policies should therefore be oriented around alleviating the victim status of women. This, of course, is principally achieved through attacking the patriarchy. Gender feminists are the most often courted by the politically correct media. And as you look on many `men's sites' you see this thinking coming though, both in blatant and subtle forms. To sum up, gender feminists exist in a solipsistic vacuum in which any suggestion of a worldview that contradicts their own is considered heresy.

Most second wave feminists are gender feminists. The newer generation of feminists are mostly equity feminists. Their interest is in advancing and protecting the opportunities that women have fought for over the decades since World War II. But, they have a decidedly more optimistic view of the world but never-the-less still fail to see anything substantially wrong with the political and social reforms achieved by gender feminists.

Of course equity feminists are a more balanced group, no question. They believe that the revolution of opportunities for women has been successful. But, at the same time, most of them would say that family and motherhood are acceptable lifestyle choices for women and as being a honourable and fulfilling option for at least some women, and not a conspiracy of the patriarchy.

Equity feminists also believe in an open debate of ideas. However, it's easy to be open about others ideas when gender feminists, have won all the major battles and have effectively silenced the male voice, particular of traditionally minded men - and women. They have captured the moral high ground and are defending it to the death. Until such time as gender feminists are removed from the gender moral high ground, men will effectively be neutralised and denied a genuine free voice. Gender feminism has effectively killed meaningful debate about gender, men and family life by manipulating the meaning of key concepts and words that it is virtually impossible to free one's self from their strictures.

Not surprisingly, gender feminists consider equity feminists as traitors to the cause of the sisterhood. The big weakness of equity feminist is that they do not tackle the systemic problems facing males such as affirmative action and the negative portrayal of masculinity in our culture.

I've been around the men's movement for some twenty-five odd years and in that time I have seen no real progress in the rights of men. At the same time I have seen their status and influence wane under the onslaught of the gender feminist tsunami.

Of course I live in hope. I'm ever hopeful that one-day feminism will collapse under its own weight, break-up and then just slowly fade into oblivion. Unfortunately this hope is undermined by the extent to which feminism has already won the day. The process of societal disintegration has been under way for some decades now but male apathy to the dangers facing them, is still strong. And while the dyke wall is developing minute cracks, it's still along way from collapse. The long dark night of feminist domination is along way from being broken.

And even if the feminist ideology was shown up tomorrow to the greatest hoax since Piltdown Man, it wouldn't make any difference, people would still go on believing in it anyway because it sounds so plausible and besides, itís the "progressive" thing to do.

From an early age, males are programmed to please women. Men are becoming more feminised every generation due to the female dominated socialisation process. And also coupled with the widespread use of female hormones in food production and processing which causes female characteristics to develop in men, who knows, the androgynous being may not be too far away.

Over the past few years gender feminists have persuaded men - especially male politicians that the system of 'patriarchy' is so biased against women that they need special consideration such as The Office of the Status of Women and legislative measures such as affirmative action etc. And politicians thought that seeing women are the majority of voters, there's some value in pursuing what they perceived as the female vote, so they went along with it. They genuinely thought (naively) that the feminists were right about the claims they made.

At the back of the male mind is this thing of looking after women, to please them, and this twin notion of female vulnerability and male dominance and aggression. The perception is that men can look after themselves while conversely women may be `equal' in status, but on a practical level it's quite in order to render assistance to them directly or indirectly.

Even now after two decades of affirmative action it is obvious that women have not only made up considerable ground but are actually forging ahead to the detriment of male rights and jobs. But it is anathema to male decision makers to stop the equal outcomes juggernaut as the perception is that this would be to turn back the clock to the `bad old days' of alleged male privilege and dominance.

So what, they argue, if men are getting their comeuppance? Women must not be disadvantaged in any way, even if men have to be disadvantaged! And so what if the system favours women! Better this than having a system which allegedly exploits women and denies them this thing euphemistically called `equal opportunity' in employment and education. So then it matters not a tinkers hoot if the Family Court is biased against men, or that modern education favours girls, or that women are taking two out of every three new jobs - this is perfectly acceptable - the price society has to pay to `liberate' women.

So then what is the answer to feminism in all its manifestations? To me it makes little difference if we are taking about gender or equity feminism. Are they not coming from the same place and pursuing the same social goals? The only real difference is that gender feminists are in much more of a hurry to achieve their objectives.

We cannot argue on the basis of reason because it seems to me that what is construed as gender debate is highly emotive and subjective - certainly not rational for the most part. Gender thinking women control the emotional world and as long as they do, then men are never going to win the battle of the sexes on rational grounds.

So then what chance have men got (as a class) in today's matriarchal society? The political system while male dominated in terms of numbers, is in reality dominated - held in an emotional straightjacket - by gender feminism. It's no use racing off to the Courts either, they are hopelessly besotted by gender mainstreamers. Ditto the educational system and the Trade Union movement. What about the mainstream churches? A big disappointment, they are too busy forsaking their own constitution - The Bible - by ordaining women and introducing `non sexist' liturgy.

Now that Pandoraís box of `sexual equality' has been opened, and women having tasted self-determination, are unlikely to surrender it meekly - if at all. So when it comes to sorting out gender roles, it's a futile exercise to argue over what should be gender specific or what should be gender inclusive. On a rational level, the argument for equality is very hard to refute, darned near impossible in fact to in the context of a swift and emotive gender debate.

Much has changed over the past forty years. Consider this statement: `A woman without her man is nothing.' What does it mean?

In the 1950's it meant: `A woman without her man, is nothing.'

However by the time the 1980s had arrived it came to mean:

`A woman, without her, man is nothing.'

By changing the position of the comma and by inserting another one, I changed completely the meaning on the sentence - I reversed the meaning in fact. And this is exactly what has happened to society. Small, but very significant changes have been made which has resulted in the creation of a new gender paradigm, a paradigm constructed by the white ants of civilisation, the male and female gender feminists.

We men must construct our own paradigm if we are to address the systemic problems facing men today. When one looks at human psychology it is interesting to note how the mind works. People act and think on the basis of belief - not reason. Modern society believes that men and women are equal therefore outcomes should be equal. This is not primarily a social justice argument but a statement of belief and emotional attachment. So then, if we are to turn the tide against feminism we need a get away from reason for a while.

People need something which transcends human frailty, selfishness and subjectivity. The human psyche longs for a philosophy of life which transcends the bounds of human wisdom - one which is above human origin. If men are to stop the `monstrous regiment of women' (John Knox) and to regain control of the situation and their own personal lives, then a religious revival is exactly what's needed.

What I am calling for is that reinstatement of `the old time religion'. Most, if not all major religions are patriarchal in nature. In Christianity and Orthodox Judaism, God is seen in male terms and traditional roles of the sexes upheld. We need therefore to encourage religion and the conservative values which flow from them. The Bible, rightly understood, teaches that while men and women are equal in value, the sexes should have an interdependent relationship where sex roles are complementary.

The secular educational system is dominated by gender feminists. This is why gender feminism grew so strong so quickly. Having gained control of education, feminism began to undermine parental authority and campaigned incessantly against traditional roles for men and women. To counter this we need an alternative to the educational system that upholds the complementary relationship and the interdependence of the sexes - undergirded by a strong religious base.

In addition we must restore to families the authority that they once had. Too often today parents abrogate the teaching of values to secular education which is dominated by special interest groups determined to undermine parental authority and traditional sex roles. Crucial to the inculcation of values in the home are the roles of fathers and mothers. While all mothers have the desire to inculcate values in their children, a mother can only inculcate values if she has the time and energy to do so. By definition a working mother simply does not have the time or often the energy to inculcate values, despite spending brief periods of `quality time' with her children. To children quantity of time is more important than `quality time'.

A son would rather his dad spend half an hour with him having a kick of the football rather than receiving the latest flashy Play-station and only speaking to him for less than 30 seconds per day.

It is true to say I believe, that when religion is strong, feminism is weak. When feminism is strong religion is weak. Feminism only became popular when mainstream religion waned - weakened by liberal theology and strong feminist women taking weak-willed men captive as they pleased. Simply put, feminism took on organised religion and won. So now people, especially men, flock to feminism as being victorious it is seen as victorious. Men eschew religion because itís perceived as having a `loser' status. Men don't like being identified as losers, as being vacillating and conquered.

What then is the answer? But the answer lies in a wholesale return to religious fundamentalism. If there can be a spiritual revival in the Churches then once again the Churches will come alive and stand against the evils in our midst and act as an antidote to feminism.

But until society once again embraces the tenants of Biblical Christianity, feminism will reign supreme. Let us heartily pray for a revival to sweep this land once again so that the menace of feminism will be consigned to the scrape heap of history.