"Men provide everything women take for granted, electricity, running water, construction, gas, everything is provided by Men"
Oh really ... then why do I have to pay for them? They say they are 'providing' all of these - just like women 'provide' cleaning, cooking, babysitting services at home without ever getting paid for those essential services. We should not be paying for electricity, water, gas etc either because they are being 'provided' to us just like the free cleaning, cooking. nursing, babysitting services routinely provided by mothers. If a woman's labor is not valuable then neither is a man's.
I'm so glad someone responded, Nonya, who's living in the same world I am and seeing what's happening in family court. That is only the most egregious element of control over women but it's been the means of imposing hierarchy for 5000 years. Thank you for stating the obvious, which can never be emphasized enough, since the hardest thing to see is what is in front of your face ;-)
• “chronicled in the Torah, which the Aryans wrote”
I am sure that’s not the case but I look forward to perusing the bibliography in your second book, now in progress. I am sure you have come to that conclusion very analytically and thoughtfully. However, I will take some convincing.
I refer here to the work by Daniel Kristos (Ba’al Busters), and his book “Priestcraft: Beyond Babylon”
I think it more likely that those who wrote the Torah stole other peoples’ (eg the Aryans’) folklores and oral legends and manipulated and corrupted them to suit themselves, including the ‘deification’ of genuinely noble and heroic mortal leaders such as Thor (?aka Ar-Thor / Arthur …). Then, as the ‘tales’ were handed down, certain historical figures were mythicised, and the supernatural elements added.
What a fascinating topic – I am only just getting into ‘The British Edda’ by L A Waddell
My bibliography will have facts, mostly from the internet, but the conclusions are my own so I'm not sure they'll provide anyone else who's reached the same answer. Here's the question: "Where, when, how and who started the system of power over others?"
Power over others = hierarchy/ One Heir over other rulers or archons.
A huge clue was finding out that the original spelling of the Ar in Aryan was heir or heiro.
The earliest example of heir-archy that I can find is Egypt around 3000 BCE. The first dynasty came from Hieropolis and we call their written language hieroglyphs.
They set up the archon system in Greece at the Areopagus, and wrote the mythologies, making their god Dyeus Pitr into Zeus and Jupiter. Their war god is Ares/ Mars.
They wrote the Rig Vedas in Sanskrit, language of the gods. Which have 432,000 syllables, I was just reading, in relationship to 72 and 432 as sacred numbers.
They made Iran, whose name means Land of the Aryans, their stomping ground.
All the languages that replaced the mother tongues of old Europe and later the world, are now said to come from PIE--proto Indo-European. But around WWI they were known as Aryan root languages, used for administering territories of conquest--slave languages.
We now retrofit our understanding of Aryan to be the original population that diversified into 72 languages after the tower of Babel. But they were the rulers who enslaved those populations, destroying their languages so they couldn't think as free people.
Daniel doesn't go far enough back. Ba'al is a corruption of the feminine cow goddess Bat, which I spell Ba'at for pronunciation and comparison. Ba'al is a projection of the Aryan thunder Sky God who demanded blood sacrifice to bend his will to the ruler's. The goddess Ba'at was a conduit to the divine realm in order to listen and understand, not boss god around--that's what the Heiros did.
" I don’t think it’s been a benefit to men for women to be dependent on them, so they have to serve The Man in order to raise a family. Women who are free to choose will also free men to prioritize children."
There's a lot to think about there, especially with the word "dependent". I can only go by my experience with being married and having kids. Was my wife dependent on me? It certainly seems so. I was the primary money maker, which freed her up to do most of the childrearing. I was involved in that too, but only as much as was possible given that I was away from home each day at the job.
I'd appreciate some clarification on this. Thanks in advance!
I think it's difficult to start fresh on how we'd like things to be when we're in the messy day-to-day of 200 generations of hierarchy. What I'd suggest is imagining what you'd want for a great-granddaughter, who's not yet born. Then work backwards to how you could encourage the world you'd want for her when she has kids.
The major way in which we could 'lower the fence' instead of building boxes is by reducing the cost of housing. For a commodity that everyone had already when they were born, housing has been made overly precious--especially being fooled into thinking it should be an investment that substitutes for retirement savings and pensions.
That means every generation is being forced by the previous into a life of debt servitude at a multiple of the cost of the house they grew up in. It's a trap.
As you know, my system favors long term residents and those born there. If your great granddaughter wants to buy a house where she grows up, you could set the required income at 5X the monthly mortgage debt. That would keep it low enough that she might buy it on her own, or maybe with her husband. Maybe there would be property tax exemptions for homes put into irrevocable trusts for the children, so they and their mother couldn't lose their home in a divorce. Maybe she would take over her parents' property and build on, getting an equity loan for that.
The cost of housing puts a high stakes and contentious pressure on relationships. I don't think it needs to be that way.
I just made lunch for a friend who had an in-vitro baby on her own. As hard as it is, she doesn't have to fear that someone could take her baby away. She's the second woman I know of who's done that. There's another reader who's a new mom and having severe partner difficulties, but is afraid of what he might do in revenge if she leaves, in terms of the baby. The Women's Coalition News & Views has a picture of three little girls--which particularly gets to me--who were killed by the dad to get back at the mom. Much more common are the mothers who kill themselves after being alienated from their children by a vengeful spouse.
Unless you research these trends in divorce courts, you have no idea how scary it is to be a mom. I welcome your ideas on how to fix this before either of us have great-grandkids.
I was depending on you for ideas on how to fix this! I am not terribly imaginitive, despite having read many utopian AND dystopian science fiction novels in my youth. Maybe I should reread Le Guin's "Always Coming Home".
I have no doubt about what you say about divorce courts and mothers. My personal experience with divorce has to do with abusive relationships. My conclusion is that in that context, men who are abused by women are treated much less seriously than the other way around. So there are unfair biases around divorce that go both ways.
My experience in HR is that when you do something for someone, they will just complain about how it's done. If you force someone to take responsibility for finding a solution, they'll appreciate any help you give them. That's why my economic system lays out the framework of what tools a community has, but leaves it to them to solve their own problems--with empirical measures of whether those goals have been achieved.
It's interesting that you and Guy both have experience with a reversal of the usual roles. I've wondered before if my blog attracts that. Was your ex sexually or physically abusive to your sons? Would she threaten to harm your sons and not let you see them if you left her? That's the leverage that courts are giving to fathers. And I really suggest you look at the Women's Coalition site to understand the severity. I was lying awake last night thinking about the three little girls killed by the dad in the woods and the one he killed second or last, who watched their sisters killed first. That's an extreme but there are many contenders for the worst.
If a mother can't keep and protect her child, the man has complete and total power over what she loves more than her own life. There's no comparison to that. All heir-archy starts at home.
My second marriage (the abusive one) was much later in life, when I was in my late 50s/early 60s. My sons were grown and 3000 miles away from my ex. She did use threats, but not against my family. She threatened to smash my piano, and threatened to lock me out of the house a couple of times. No physical threats against me personally, except for an implied one where she shook her fists at me and said, "This is what violence would look like." (This was after I complained about her violence when she threw all my books on the floor and kicked them.)
Excellent! Thank you for researching this so thoroughly and describing what I have felt and been unable to put into coherant concepts, words nor did I understand the history and potential solution! 🙏
I have a question... I have never fit in with women my age or even a generation older. I'm an outcast. I think, much like the meeting you attended, people still see "privilege." I read that in the time of witch burning it was sometimes women who were jealous, insecure, or dark triad type that accused other women of being witches to get rid of them. How does one prevent this from happening...even in a society with women who rule their own bodies and have 100% custody of children? Are there accounts of women of ancient times, targeting, tearing down, casting out or killing other women?
Thanks for reading/ watching, Heidi! I'm with you on that. I say often that I don't have friends--I have people with whom I share an agenda, whether that's dancing, aerial or figuring out what's really going on.
The German I wrote about, Gottfried Feder, said that Marxism was a politics of envy. That really stuck with me. What I see with all of this 'privilege' is a politics of envy. It's not someone saying 'Love your house but love mine better because I made it!' Or 'how can I do that too?' Instead, it's tearing down what others have, at least in this town, or apologizing for what you've created because not everyone had that chance.
To go back to pre-patriarchy means pre-historic times, so accounts are speculative. We know that there are no images of weapons, and that burial sites are egalitarian, and except for communal temple grounds, homes are roughly the same. When women have no power over anyone else, and no one to enforce power, they need other women to like them. The danger was roving bands of men looking to steal women. It doesn't seem like they would turn against their own but who knows?
I’ve been catching up and binge listening on YouTube. This episode really meant a lot to me. I’m going to have to listen again.
I can now see better how the women’s lib movement got usurped and turned into a joke. The Substack Liberating Motherhood makes a lot of valuable points.
I tried to leave my situation but the post separation abuse was too intense and the threats of a custody battle scared me. I’m now back in a slightly improved situation but still not ideal….
I was hoping that there would be a few more comments, especially from Rhonda and LoWa….
I'm glad that this episode spoke to you, Anneke. I'm afraid that LoWa and I fell out over the no-virus thing. I haven't seen her back since.
I was just thinking of you because I was telling my daughter and my Apocaloptimist women stackers that I seem to only be talking about the plight of mothers to men. I just checked out Zawn and her latest is https://zawn.substack.com/p/but-women-can-be-abusive-too-gaslighting. If you look at this thread, it has two of the three men responding saying exactly that. Mark had a very abusive ex-wife and Guy had a mother so abusive he'll only refer to her by name (which happens to be the same as mine.)
Guy has devoted three of his own posts to rebutting my comments and giving examples of women saying other women are abusive--a trope that men just eat up. His final comment was " it is clarifying to me because you do not see how your 'solution' is a sophisticated appeal to emotion and a debasement of men. you may not be calling men names, directly, and yet your tenor in the essay and within the other comments and comments you approve of certainly is. ... that really had me laughing, thank you, as an example of your calling men names without calling them names."
So Guy is thanking me for laughing at me. Doc Malik just posted the interview we did, although it's behind the paywall. The first hour was me entirely talking about these issues, and how patriarchy was first imposed. I talked about the covert agenda of family court, but he said courts were biased towards mothers--something men are being told as part of the psyop. I realized that, unless you're affected by it or are looking for it, you wouldn't know what's going on.
I'm sorry for your situation, Anneke. I wish I could say your fears are unfounded. I wish I could do more to solve this problem. I wish there were more women, like Nonya above, speaking together to give validity that the threat is all too real. What I do feel is that there's a purpose, and that purpose includes your and your little boy's greatest happiness. Thank you for binge-watching and commenting, because one comment from you is worth dozens ;-)
I cannot speak for these men-commenters because I don’t know the true details of their situations but their comments made me think of that exact same article!
I had been hard on myself for succumbing to my fears and returning to this less than ideal situation. But now I am focusing on having faith in the purpose (even though I haven’t figured out exactly what the purpose is).
If anything, I have a much better understanding of how pernicious patriarchy is, and much more appreciation for your research into goddess culture.
I don't know what the purpose is either, Anneke. I feel strongly that there is one, and you and I are part of it. You're making exactly the right decisions. Thanks for your appreciation, which I have also for you!
Not sure what wave of feminism were on either. I it’s so tiring to always end up with inversions of things. I still think feminism is a net benefit, but how much longer will it seem that way if it’s encouraging promiscuity, childlessness, girlbossing… it might have been the patriarchy that convinced women to enter the work force and turn child rearing into a hobby, but that also means coming to terms that many woman seem to want that. Can’t make it happen if women don’t go along willingly.
I want to see that new Julia Roberts movie. I think they’re starting to walk some of the progressive feminism tropes back. Maybe we should have a viewing party and discuss.
Haha, in response to your comment on your post, I didn't entirely hold my tongue. I explained to the city council member (who needed the big box) that the word matrix, which she'd used, was a psyop and meant womb or network of mothers. To the mayor who felt Santa Cruzans were special, I talked about going back to my Appalachian hometown and how much it had grown with me. There's a hopelessness, I told her, to thinking that people in other places don't love them just as much.
Of the 200 generations of patriarchy since its imposition in 3000 BCE, 199 of them made women entirely dependent on men. I shared a room with my grandmother growing up, because she left my violent grandfather and lived half the time with us, half with another of her 7 kids (although the oldest sons sided with and took after him). My mother's dad died when she was in HS. Her mom made pies for the local drugstore counter and cooked for wilderness camps. My mom had a wealthy boyfriend during the war who helped them too. She wouldn't marry him without an annulment, since she was Catholic and he was divorced. He suddenly stopped coming and married--to a woman who gave birth in less than nine months. I wouldn't want to go back to that kind of dependence.
There are small sensible things we could do to help moms in my system. Give moms the dividends for the kids. Absolve property taxes for homes put into a trust for the kids, with the mom as custodian for life. Don't enforce extradition for moms who bring their kids to raise them with immediate family--parents or siblings, or moms born here who moved away. It wouldn't solve the whole problem but it would be three steps in the right direction.
Yes, I got to that part of the video and you did give them a piece of your mind. How did they respond to that? Was anyone curious enough to engage with you later? Whenever I’ve made contrarian statements in a group that feels they’re under a consensus, I’ve been treated like a crockpot, no one wants to come near me. Did you have a similar experience afterwards?
I’ve read some of the steps you put forward in your book and what you say here now as far as property rights and mother driven societies. I wish you were in this chat group I was in a few months ago when all the men were arguing how women shouldn’t be rearing kids 😂 and how single moms are the cause of pretty much all the societal breakdowns. I did the best I could but didn’t have the bandwidth to draw up statistics or rely on past research the way you have poured and evoked so much time in. Don’t know if it’s worth me reopening that can of worms in that chat, but maybe I’ll just send them a link to your article. Although I don’t wish to have them descent upon your comment section. 🥴
As you know, I love a good argument and a bad argument (where people, ahem, men, are only interested in being right) always gives me an adrenaline rush. So link away!
No one responded in the moment but afterwards one of the 'trigger counselors' came up to me. Definitely gay and the one who'd said a political system should take care of those in need. I thought she was the least likely to get my points, and steeled myself. Instead, she'd taken a photo of my book and ordered it, and remembered me from a comment I'd made more than 10 yrs ago about kids earning their way through college in my point system. I asked how she even recognized me, since I look so different. She said that it was my ideas that were unique.
Shut my mouth! If anything should teach me not to judge allies by their covers, that was it. But yes, I left at lunch, walked part way home and said, 'What am I doing? I was just complaining that I couldn't talk and now, when people are talking, I'm leaving.' So I went back and my friend speed-date introduced me to several women.
Yet I knew that they had the wrong people as being alienated. I was the most likely at that conference to be attacked for my ideas. But instead of a full frontal attack, as men do--which doesn't bother me--it would be a sneaky attack of me lacking compassion, not being an ally, simply being other and just like 'them.' The nuance of what I was saying would be steamrolled in the name of solidarity (and sister solidarity may have been the name of the conference.) I find that kind of attack exhausting and I've been getting a lot of it in the no-virus debate.
A useful statistic for your argument is that outcomes for children of single mother homes are measurably better than those from divided families and equal to those of mother-father homes--once parity is made for income. It's conflict that creates psychological harms, not being raised by a mother. It's poverty that creates physical and educational harms, not being raised by a mother.
I can find the study for you in one of the blogs I'm reading, but fathers have been shown to be a 'nice-to-have' but not a necessity. What's essential for a child's wellbeing is a secure attachment to the mother. Women in these custody groups say, 'Why does he want to be raising our child now when I've been begging him to participate for years?' The answer is money. And the woman I worked with on my neighbor's case said that 100% of the time, there's another woman--his mother, his girlfriend, his new wife. He's pawning off the kids on them so he doesn't have to pay child support. And getting revenge on the mother by taking her kids away.
How did that Bren turn into Brian? Malevolent pixies, I tell ya. Thanks for reading and those fantastic memes! I raised chickens for several years, so hen jokes are right up my alley. And the second link goes to Rat's Chewsday Memes, who sent me to you. I love Rat!
I love Rat too. We’ve been looking for a small farm for 4 years, to raise chickens lol. Good post. I enjoyed all the perspectives you added and seen in the comments here. Thank you for linking my stuff. I publish memes once weekly because laughter is medicine. I’ve evolved to avoid combustible topics in my memes because they’re meant as a comedic escape. Have a wonderful weekend.
hola, tereza. i hope you are well. i haven't dropped in for a while as i've been doing several deep dives and my yoga path has gone deep dive internal spiritual journey.
perhaps the most interesting bit, and germane to this post, has been the an odd out-of-the-blue turn to look at the the malevolent roots of feminism: at least since mary wollstonecraft. and wow, it is bad bad. imo.
so your piece today came as an interesting resource with an equally interesting timing because i've just done my 2nd deep dive into a couple of the dominant trope-lies academic feminists — male and female — have successfully promulgated. i looked at foot binding and female genital mutilation (or cutting). i finished my last piece last night, so your arguments will not be a part of that. (i've not done the final edit pre-post nor created the audio (video?), so it will be a couple of days before getting posted.
in the meantime, you *may* find my last anti-feminism essay interesting. it is about my discovery and surprise at the malevolent roots of 'modern' feminism — since wollstonecraft. with other surprises like the discovery of now (national organisation of women) having been founded with the help of the cia through steinem with the focused intention to destroy the family. see: Marxist Feminism’s Ruined Lives https://mallorymillett.com/post-2/ by Mallory Millet (Kate Millet's sister), September 1, 2014.
quotation:
The horror I witnessed inside the women’s “liberation” movement.
…
It was 1969. Kate invited me to join her for a gathering at the home of her friend, Lila Karp. They called the assemblage a “consciousness-raising-group,” a typical communist exercise, something practiced in Maoist China. We gathered at a large table as the chairperson opened the meeting with a back-and-forth recitation, like a Litany, a type of prayer done in Catholic Church. But now it was Marxism, the Church of the Left, mimicking religious practice:
“Why are we here today?” she asked.
“To make revolution,” they answered.
“What kind of revolution?” she replied.
“The Cultural Revolution,” they chanted.
“And how do we make Cultural Revolution?” she demanded.
“By destroying the American family!” they answered.
“How do we destroy the family?” she came back.
“By destroying the American Patriarch,” they cried exuberantly.
“And how do we destroy the American Patriarch?” she replied.
“By taking away his power!”
“How do we do that?”
“By destroying monogamy!” they shouted.
“How can we destroy monogamy?”
Their answer left me dumbstruck, breathless, disbelieving my ears. Was I on planet earth? Who were these people?
“By promoting promiscuity, eroticism, prostitution and homosexuality!” they resounded.
They proceeded with a long discussion on how to advance these goals by establishing The National Organisation of Women.
end quotation.
the link you gave between virginia wolf and the fabians is fascinating. and pehaps even darker is, of course, her time being made sick with the practices of freudian therapy that didn't stop her from killing herself. hmmmm. and your saying that simone de beauvoir was connected to steinem is well described, and more, by mallory millet. see link above. per millet, the 'modern' feminists were fans of the marquis de sade as a guide (icon?) to help destroy the family. hmmmm. and were the 19th century feminists into occult practices? do christian feminists know that elizabeth katie stanton's declaration of sentiments was produced at a seance table?
yup. and more.
if curious about what i wrote, see "It's Been a While. Where Have I Been?: September 2025: Yogic Life Update with ClearVision Eye-Kriya and I Introduced My Self to Feminism And Am Surprised to Discover it to be Evil Incarnate" https://gduperreault.substack.com/p/its-been-a-while-where-have-i-been
we are living the bhagavad-gita wedded to the great apocalypse! all the best with what is changing. everything changes! with peace, respect, love and equanimous enthusiasm.
Thanks for reading and commenting, Guy. I just read your anti-feminism post, and also the Mallory Millet essay. Glad I didn't grow up in that family!
On a yoga note, my dance teacher quotes an Indian comedian saying 'Leave it to white people to take something meant to be relaxing and turn it into a blood sport' ;-)
Your article certainly corresponds to my critique of seventh wave feminism, which I'm calling woke feminism. But it also seems to lump in mothers who want to be mothers. You quote Angela Stanton-King in saying, "We want equality. Okay. Okay. Well, in the family court systems, don't expect to instantly get custody of a child and instantly get the house. And in divorce courts, instantly get half of a man's wealth. We want equality."
I'm saying, you can keep the equality. We want instant custody of our children, the house, and half of the wealth earned while we were raising the family. Deal? That is prioritizing being a mother over earning a wage. If you're going to condemn mothers for working then you need to support them as mothers.
When you write that feminism is destroying the family, that's saying that mothers are destroying the family. What is a family that a mother hasn't created? There is no such thing.
And when you say millions of babies are killed by mothers, 100% of all babies are also born to mothers. Who are you to judge them? Are you going to raise those babies? It's saying that innocent babies have to be protected from their murderous, horrible, inhuman mothers. Let's take them away from them, give them to the fathers! Or the state! Force those women to give birth and sever the babies' connection from them before they can pollute them.
If you want those babies to be born, figure out a way that women can raise their children securely. Trust mothers to know when someone isn't good for her child. You can't condemn women for NOT wanting to be mothers and also condemn women who want to be mothers. For 5000 years, the ability to raise a child has been held hostage by men. Mine is the first generation where women have the means, so the courts are now taking children away from them. There's nothing more terrifying than not being able to protect your child. If you're against woke feminism, give women an alternative.
i agree with some of your ... reaction. yet my long long long essay was not about solutions. it was about seeing what has largely been hidden and denied by feminists — male and female. feminism is actually is at least as big a lie as has been the idea that the pharmaceutical industrial complex is more about health than it is about making more money be make people more ill. no solution is possible in either case when a huge part of the problem is being argued as the solution to the problem. when does cry more feminism to fix the damage feminism is causing start being recongised?
as you have eloquently written elsewhere, and others i have seen have done in their own ways in my extended research, the *economic* manner of being freedom of 'choice' was/is an economic trap. it wasn't really about given women 'true' freedom: it was to flood women into the work force as a weapon to keep wages down, created double income taxed home income, and get more children away from families and into the state sponsored indoctrination system. a largely undiscussed part of it: you want to see who is creating the future, look to who is teaching the child. troubling thought, and perhaps goes a long way to explain the complete feminist wokification of almost all universities and all university departments — now including the sciences!
for me the first step in fixing the problem is to see it. as you have written, the economic system has almost completelty taken away the ability for women to chose being mothers. hmmmm.
i suspect that that is a large part (maybe the whole part?) of what the 'feminist' movement wanted. again, destroy the option of having a family. almost all feminist rhetoric is about destroying the family without providing any 'solution' to the problems created. when you look at the majority of the tropes — not all — that is what will be the result. and how do we know: because the family is being destroyed just as kate millent and gloria steinem chanted for in NoW.
so, with economics now having trapped the woman in the workforce and 'forces(?)' them to abort, the hawked current 'solution' to the destroyed family is to provide some kind of welfare system. okay. except that they don't work well. the state becomes the parent, which is what the necromongers via their marxist agents want. the state laws being passed authorising the state to take children from parents who question the value of their kid have their genitals chemically of physically mutilated? that is proof of concept: state as de facto parent.
as to welfare as solution, pause to see how well the democrats weaponised that with the blacks under lbj. not a model of anything but internalised social decay by the evidence in front of our eyes.
yup, a marxist system for sure. that is why the feminist solution has created so many problems — that was built into its roots, that was the design from the start! by the fruit of the tree, the tree and its root stock are known. so-called 7th wave is simply the fruit; it hasn't been waves just steady growth of what it always was.
we are currently in a mess. serious, with levels of births for many countries hovering just above or below extinctions levels. some now far below. the puppet masters have women pretending that they are men fighting men pretending they are women. and the necromongers are laughing all the way to the bank. amazing.
solution? stop listening to our government solutions and stop pretending that feminism is anything but a marxist structure — victim/ victimiser, oppressed/ oppressor, etc. so long as that is the bedrock of feminism, we will not see a 'solution'. because in the marxist world, the solution is the destruction of the society. which is well under way. looking to the state for to give strong independent powerful women welfare is a trap into weakness.
and you have mischaracterised stanton-king, imo. did you listen to the whole interview?
and i don't quite understand how my essay lumps in mothers.
and you may find dani sulikowski interesting to attend:
Female Psychology & The End of Empires | with Dr. Dani Sulikowski
we are living the bhagavad-gita wedded to the great apocalypse! all the best with what is changing. everything changes! with peace, respect, love and equanimous enthusiasm.
The question I'm always answering is 'How have good people been tricked into doing bad things?' In my article, I identify the women in this conference as good people who've been tricked by turning their love and compassion into division. I critique the modern version of feminism, which may well have been designed by Virginia Woolf's husband and the Fabian Society. The Virginia Slims campaign that equated women's lib with smoking certainly didn't come from women--it came from the tobacco industry.
I define the version of feminism that I'm critiquing as a needs-based economic system and inverse hierarchy with the most oppressed on top. I define the version I'm defending as matri-feminism with the goal of enabling mothers to securely raise their children. I'm not clear on how you define the feminism you're critiquing, or whether you differentiate between people or theories, or lump everyone together under the label of feminist.
Few people understand central banking and competitive mortgages, so that the more debt anyone can take on, the more expensive the house. When I first wrote about the two-income trap a decade ago, no one understood what I was saying. Why would early feminists be secretly plotting to enrich central bankers?
Who funded NoW? It certainly wasn't women, who had no income. For 200 generations of 'Western civilization' women have been the property of men--legally, economically, physically. A Midsummer Night's Dream is about the father's right to have his daughter executed for not marrying the man he chose.
Work and education equality is the opposite of Marxism, yes? It's capitalism through and through. Women wanted to earn a living, not be dependent on men. That was thwarted by the central bankers and the competitive mortgage.
You are against women doing equal work for equal pay, you are against a welfare system that supports mothers, and you're against women being dependent on men to support them. Is that correct? And you're against women having abortions, although you've eliminated every way for them to support their children.
So now you've taken the first step in a solution by seeing the problem--the economic and legal system makes it extremely risky for women to choose to become mothers. What's your second step?
I see I managed to skip past your opening question. An interesting and important one.
'The question I'm always answering is 'How have good people been tricked into doing bad things?''
Yes. And of course men too. You don't mention them, which may be because your focus was on the female as victim of men. And yet men are also human and alive in the time of massive human schismogenetic practices.
In my own look into that question I have come to see teo significant mechanism that turn 'good' to 'bad' in the human animal beginning at birth: schismogenesis and promoted emotionality.
The first has now become pretty strongly entrenched within modern birthing and general family practices that include the work-family dyad. All have hurt or even pretty much eliminated proper mother child mimetic practices. And removed the 'proper' and necessary masculine presence from the family and society.
The second, and equally important 'tool' that creates human as weapon, is the promotion by modern psychology/ psychiatry of emotions, especially anger, as a net and necessary good. Emotional intelligence is an oxymoron.
People who have been split from self are anxious and are prone to emotionality. Emotions supported as intelligence impedes or regresses the acquisition of maturity and wisdom. Anger as a net good tends towards hateful thoughts and under the right pressures and incentives, physical violence with the home and community.
This is easy to see in the wokes left and right. No humour and some kind of moral outrage / anger that morally rationalises violence in thought and / or action. A marker of that state is lack of humour and dancing in jubilation to someone's assassination.
So, solution: see the promotion of emotionality as healthy as yet another huge cultural lie. The emotions are to be experienced as a normal part of life, felt deeply and fully then let go. All action from an emotional state is a kind of toxin.
Find the source of our anxiety and let it go so that emotioalnality stops and emotion as a transitional state rises.
When we look for wise council it is not the emotional types we seek: it is those with little or no emotion.
we are living the bhagavad-gita wedded to the great apocalypse! all the best with what is changing. everything changes! with peace, respect, love and equanimous enthusiasm.
I'll respond here, Guy, since your article only allows paid subs to comment. Let's go back to the steps for a better argument:
1) Like the person you're arguing with. Yes! We are arguing as friends, with a long contentious history but who have remained friends. Yes?
2) State the question. My question in this article is "Has Woke Feminism Missed the Point of Feminism?"
3) Define the terms. I define Woke Feminism the same way you do, as prioritizing the most oppressed, defending the right of men to look like women and the right of women to work like men. However, I define the point of feminism as what it was pre-hierarchy, a mother's ability to raise her children securely as the purpose of society, within matrilineal property ownership and kinship groups, and without dependence on a man or serving the oligarchy.
As far as I can tell, you see woke feminism as redundant. I'm not sure why you called mine a 'feminist post' when my title of Woke Feminism is clearly a critique of feminism, as it's practiced now. How do you define feminism, Guy?
4) Why does it matter? The woke version of feminism does NOTHING for mothers, except sacrifice them on the altar to the oligarchy and to the inverse victim hierarchy. It has no goal of self-reliance, which is what my system leads towards--not public welfare. The technique for the enslavement of men, 5000 years ago, was giving them the right of rape and sex slaves in return for their obedience. If you want to change men's servitude to the oligarchy (addressing men in how good people were tricked into doing bad things), it's seeing neither sex nor ownership of children as a man's right but support of mothers as the purpose of the species.
5) Brainstorm ways that this could be accomplished. In my comments to Tonika and Mark I've put my ideas out there, which are how to change the system. When you say, 'schismogenesis and promoted emotionality' that doesn't say how the system would be changed.
As I mentioned to Tonika, I can find the study that shows fathers are a nice-to-have but not a necessity for a child's secure adjustment and success or happiness in life. Conflict between parents is much more destructive. When there's no clear right to custody over a child, it doesn't belong to the mother or the father--it belongs to the state. That's who will decide its fate. If you trust government more than mothers to know what or who is best for their children, then government is your friend.
I don't know if you're saying that women should not be differentiated from men in any legal or economic way. Is it? Do you see a woman in her function as a mother as the same as a man or a woman without children? Would you call any women-centric movement feminism? I'm really just interested in your ideas, Guy, not anyone else's.
and my watching it has, for some reason, prompted me to ask your opinion about it. and a question, because it aligns with my own experience with my ex.
is this true? yes, not all not all. in general, is this true and has social media super charged this neurotic characteristic of women which has been stimulated by feminist lie-tropes that have weaponised the sense that women have an inherent feeling of superiority over men — which some parts of your stand embody and even exemplify? (note: in an english class in the late '80s this was explicitly stated — the smug superiority women feel over men — in the sort of novel-like book, 'lives of girls and women' by alice munroe. i wrote my paper on that misandry. unfortunately the paper is on my computer that is in storage, so i don't have the details handy.)
the lock-on replies was substack misbehaving. and i forgot to double check, sorry about that. comments are, i hope, again open to all.
perhaps i can manage a relatively quick reply. yes, your title was indicated that it was to be at least partially anti-feminist. and it was, and not significantly, imo. nor in a really productive way. it narrowly focuses on a part of history which denies the broader scope of it.
The feminism I am criticising is the one defined by elizabeth katie stanton in the declaration of sentiments and by millet steinem et al in NOW. Both are purely misandrist and with the aim of destroying the family. Neither have been ever, imo, really about so-called equality or even the so-called rights of women as distinct from men. From very beginning, including Wollstonecraft, that has been the lie, the trojan horse being used to destroy the society from within the family.
i am not saying that pre-feminism life was utopian. not at all. to cite thomas hobbes, for men and women for much of time under agricultural city state 'civilisation', life was solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.' okay, i'm not that bleak, although it was certainly very hard for man, woman and child. oh to be an elite in the matriarchy and/or patriarchy, high priestess or priest.
in part i see your stand as a pro-feminist (albeit, perhaps, a non-woke version of feminism, i guess) because it insists on the rights of the tribes of men and women with men being less entitled to those so-called rights. it is coming from a female condescending sense of superiority and moral and moralistic rectitude. very off-putting and from that emotional-founded space, solution talk is just gossip. and purely poisonous marxism by finding a guilty part that can be blamed instead of addressing what is in the moment.
the gossipy fixes coming from emotionality, primarily from a state of being angry and looking to blame something, someone else — scapegoating — does not nor cannot work. looking to fix with emotionality the illness arising from schismogenisis is like finding 'great' cures for cancer as a symptom while not looking to the environmental and behavioural roots of those symptoms.
schismogenetic child-practices of various sorts have been extant at least 2000+ years, and likely much further back. and they were and are extended, perhaps most 'viciously' and successfully, within the ruling elite in its various forms including some church practices. if we don't address that as a root cause, and instead continue to practice familial and/or work triage by applying various types of state welfare and taxing manipulation fixes that may 'work' for a time, yet the cancer will just come back. and there are certainly times when triage may be needed! to consider it fix is a delusion and a lie. nothing heals living a lie.
with my last 18 months of looking at the lie, at first with a little naïveté about its central role in making, building and propagating schismogenetic — anti 'good' human expression — i now understand that seeing the lie is the solution. everything else is smoke and mirrors. the convid is a case in point: so long as we are in the majority, the people of the lie, there is no fix.
much of your anti-woke feminism was an appeal to 'proper' feminism, and so a call to extend the marxist-feminist split, the psychological schismogenesis that is with-in our being and that is being made manifest with-out of our selves. that is the social cancer that 'real' feminism is. as i wrote before, by the fruits we know the tree and the root stock of the tree. the societal destruction is the fruit of the marxist roots of feminism, and has nothing to do with woke or not. those too are 'simply' symptoms from the same poisonous tree.
for many years i kept on my various office walls a phrase from the i ching. back then i felt that it was important and recently the depth of its truth has filled my awareness. it is an extended version of the phrase 'the truth shall set you free':
Quotation:
When we are faced with an obstacle that is to be overcome, weakness and impatience can do nothing. Strong individuals stand up to this situation with [stoic] equanimity, for inner security enables the strong to endure to the end. This strength shows itself in uncompromising truthfulness with themselves and the events of our lives. It is only when we have the courage to face things, other people and ourselves in the circumstances of life in this moment, exactly as they are without any sort of self deception or illusion, that we recognise that we have the strength to see the light that develops out of events by which the path to success may be recognised.
in my recent studies my awareness of other teachers who said the same thing have become all the more sharp and pertinent. gautama buddha said the same thing, basically: the first of the noble truths is right seeing. seeing what is without self deception. patañjali said the same thing, with his argument that wrong seeing creates all suffering. (i now understand 'wrong seeing' as mistaking as true that which is false; to mistake as false that which is true; and to mistake as either or true or false that which is neutral.) the challenge, of course, is how to 'know'. hmmmm. that is where calmness and equanimity find their place of importance. living emotionally is to live without equanimity and to live without equanimity is to chase after emotional fixes like any addict looking to calm his/her anxiety with the perfect 'fix'.
feminism, the feminism we are living in at this time, is neither woke nor not woke: it began as man and family anger-hatred and we are living that root's fruit. it is when we see that lie, recognise we were tricked into believing it, that the solution will develop out of discarding the lie and living the truth or our goodness. sj warrioring is to propagate the lie and keep the men, the women and the children living in suffering.
"Men provide everything women take for granted, electricity, running water, construction, gas, everything is provided by Men"
Oh really ... then why do I have to pay for them? They say they are 'providing' all of these - just like women 'provide' cleaning, cooking, babysitting services at home without ever getting paid for those essential services. We should not be paying for electricity, water, gas etc either because they are being 'provided' to us just like the free cleaning, cooking. nursing, babysitting services routinely provided by mothers. If a woman's labor is not valuable then neither is a man's.
I'm so glad someone responded, Nonya, who's living in the same world I am and seeing what's happening in family court. That is only the most egregious element of control over women but it's been the means of imposing hierarchy for 5000 years. Thank you for stating the obvious, which can never be emphasized enough, since the hardest thing to see is what is in front of your face ;-)
Indeed. The hardest thing for many people to see is what's right in front of our face! Well said! Denial is a cozy place for many.
• “chronicled in the Torah, which the Aryans wrote”
I am sure that’s not the case but I look forward to perusing the bibliography in your second book, now in progress. I am sure you have come to that conclusion very analytically and thoughtfully. However, I will take some convincing.
I refer here to the work by Daniel Kristos (Ba’al Busters), and his book “Priestcraft: Beyond Babylon”
https://www.semperfryllc.com/store/p93/Priestcraft:_Beyond_Babylon_(Signed_Copy).html
I think it more likely that those who wrote the Torah stole other peoples’ (eg the Aryans’) folklores and oral legends and manipulated and corrupted them to suit themselves, including the ‘deification’ of genuinely noble and heroic mortal leaders such as Thor (?aka Ar-Thor / Arthur …). Then, as the ‘tales’ were handed down, certain historical figures were mythicised, and the supernatural elements added.
What a fascinating topic – I am only just getting into ‘The British Edda’ by L A Waddell
https://archive.org/details/Waddell-TheBritishEdda/WADDELLL.A.-The_British_Edda_1930_1_of_3_%28v.2%29/
Topically, here is Daniel reading the Introduction to “The British Edda”.
https://ftjmedia.com/video/.64piH0y3GrfJbuRHh7ebig
My bibliography will have facts, mostly from the internet, but the conclusions are my own so I'm not sure they'll provide anyone else who's reached the same answer. Here's the question: "Where, when, how and who started the system of power over others?"
Power over others = hierarchy/ One Heir over other rulers or archons.
A huge clue was finding out that the original spelling of the Ar in Aryan was heir or heiro.
The earliest example of heir-archy that I can find is Egypt around 3000 BCE. The first dynasty came from Hieropolis and we call their written language hieroglyphs.
They set up the archon system in Greece at the Areopagus, and wrote the mythologies, making their god Dyeus Pitr into Zeus and Jupiter. Their war god is Ares/ Mars.
They wrote the Rig Vedas in Sanskrit, language of the gods. Which have 432,000 syllables, I was just reading, in relationship to 72 and 432 as sacred numbers.
They made Iran, whose name means Land of the Aryans, their stomping ground.
All the languages that replaced the mother tongues of old Europe and later the world, are now said to come from PIE--proto Indo-European. But around WWI they were known as Aryan root languages, used for administering territories of conquest--slave languages.
We now retrofit our understanding of Aryan to be the original population that diversified into 72 languages after the tower of Babel. But they were the rulers who enslaved those populations, destroying their languages so they couldn't think as free people.
Daniel doesn't go far enough back. Ba'al is a corruption of the feminine cow goddess Bat, which I spell Ba'at for pronunciation and comparison. Ba'al is a projection of the Aryan thunder Sky God who demanded blood sacrifice to bend his will to the ruler's. The goddess Ba'at was a conduit to the divine realm in order to listen and understand, not boss god around--that's what the Heiros did.
" I don’t think it’s been a benefit to men for women to be dependent on them, so they have to serve The Man in order to raise a family. Women who are free to choose will also free men to prioritize children."
There's a lot to think about there, especially with the word "dependent". I can only go by my experience with being married and having kids. Was my wife dependent on me? It certainly seems so. I was the primary money maker, which freed her up to do most of the childrearing. I was involved in that too, but only as much as was possible given that I was away from home each day at the job.
I'd appreciate some clarification on this. Thanks in advance!
I think it's difficult to start fresh on how we'd like things to be when we're in the messy day-to-day of 200 generations of hierarchy. What I'd suggest is imagining what you'd want for a great-granddaughter, who's not yet born. Then work backwards to how you could encourage the world you'd want for her when she has kids.
The major way in which we could 'lower the fence' instead of building boxes is by reducing the cost of housing. For a commodity that everyone had already when they were born, housing has been made overly precious--especially being fooled into thinking it should be an investment that substitutes for retirement savings and pensions.
That means every generation is being forced by the previous into a life of debt servitude at a multiple of the cost of the house they grew up in. It's a trap.
As you know, my system favors long term residents and those born there. If your great granddaughter wants to buy a house where she grows up, you could set the required income at 5X the monthly mortgage debt. That would keep it low enough that she might buy it on her own, or maybe with her husband. Maybe there would be property tax exemptions for homes put into irrevocable trusts for the children, so they and their mother couldn't lose their home in a divorce. Maybe she would take over her parents' property and build on, getting an equity loan for that.
The cost of housing puts a high stakes and contentious pressure on relationships. I don't think it needs to be that way.
I just made lunch for a friend who had an in-vitro baby on her own. As hard as it is, she doesn't have to fear that someone could take her baby away. She's the second woman I know of who's done that. There's another reader who's a new mom and having severe partner difficulties, but is afraid of what he might do in revenge if she leaves, in terms of the baby. The Women's Coalition News & Views has a picture of three little girls--which particularly gets to me--who were killed by the dad to get back at the mom. Much more common are the mothers who kill themselves after being alienated from their children by a vengeful spouse.
Unless you research these trends in divorce courts, you have no idea how scary it is to be a mom. I welcome your ideas on how to fix this before either of us have great-grandkids.
I was depending on you for ideas on how to fix this! I am not terribly imaginitive, despite having read many utopian AND dystopian science fiction novels in my youth. Maybe I should reread Le Guin's "Always Coming Home".
I have no doubt about what you say about divorce courts and mothers. My personal experience with divorce has to do with abusive relationships. My conclusion is that in that context, men who are abused by women are treated much less seriously than the other way around. So there are unfair biases around divorce that go both ways.
My experience in HR is that when you do something for someone, they will just complain about how it's done. If you force someone to take responsibility for finding a solution, they'll appreciate any help you give them. That's why my economic system lays out the framework of what tools a community has, but leaves it to them to solve their own problems--with empirical measures of whether those goals have been achieved.
It's interesting that you and Guy both have experience with a reversal of the usual roles. I've wondered before if my blog attracts that. Was your ex sexually or physically abusive to your sons? Would she threaten to harm your sons and not let you see them if you left her? That's the leverage that courts are giving to fathers. And I really suggest you look at the Women's Coalition site to understand the severity. I was lying awake last night thinking about the three little girls killed by the dad in the woods and the one he killed second or last, who watched their sisters killed first. That's an extreme but there are many contenders for the worst.
If a mother can't keep and protect her child, the man has complete and total power over what she loves more than her own life. There's no comparison to that. All heir-archy starts at home.
My second marriage (the abusive one) was much later in life, when I was in my late 50s/early 60s. My sons were grown and 3000 miles away from my ex. She did use threats, but not against my family. She threatened to smash my piano, and threatened to lock me out of the house a couple of times. No physical threats against me personally, except for an implied one where she shook her fists at me and said, "This is what violence would look like." (This was after I complained about her violence when she threw all my books on the floor and kicked them.)
Fun times, for sure!
Excellent! Thank you for researching this so thoroughly and describing what I have felt and been unable to put into coherant concepts, words nor did I understand the history and potential solution! 🙏
I have a question... I have never fit in with women my age or even a generation older. I'm an outcast. I think, much like the meeting you attended, people still see "privilege." I read that in the time of witch burning it was sometimes women who were jealous, insecure, or dark triad type that accused other women of being witches to get rid of them. How does one prevent this from happening...even in a society with women who rule their own bodies and have 100% custody of children? Are there accounts of women of ancient times, targeting, tearing down, casting out or killing other women?
Thanks for reading/ watching, Heidi! I'm with you on that. I say often that I don't have friends--I have people with whom I share an agenda, whether that's dancing, aerial or figuring out what's really going on.
The German I wrote about, Gottfried Feder, said that Marxism was a politics of envy. That really stuck with me. What I see with all of this 'privilege' is a politics of envy. It's not someone saying 'Love your house but love mine better because I made it!' Or 'how can I do that too?' Instead, it's tearing down what others have, at least in this town, or apologizing for what you've created because not everyone had that chance.
To go back to pre-patriarchy means pre-historic times, so accounts are speculative. We know that there are no images of weapons, and that burial sites are egalitarian, and except for communal temple grounds, homes are roughly the same. When women have no power over anyone else, and no one to enforce power, they need other women to like them. The danger was roving bands of men looking to steal women. It doesn't seem like they would turn against their own but who knows?
Thank you. This makes a lot of sense. 🙏🌹
I’ve been catching up and binge listening on YouTube. This episode really meant a lot to me. I’m going to have to listen again.
I can now see better how the women’s lib movement got usurped and turned into a joke. The Substack Liberating Motherhood makes a lot of valuable points.
I tried to leave my situation but the post separation abuse was too intense and the threats of a custody battle scared me. I’m now back in a slightly improved situation but still not ideal….
I was hoping that there would be a few more comments, especially from Rhonda and LoWa….
I'm glad that this episode spoke to you, Anneke. I'm afraid that LoWa and I fell out over the no-virus thing. I haven't seen her back since.
I was just thinking of you because I was telling my daughter and my Apocaloptimist women stackers that I seem to only be talking about the plight of mothers to men. I just checked out Zawn and her latest is https://zawn.substack.com/p/but-women-can-be-abusive-too-gaslighting. If you look at this thread, it has two of the three men responding saying exactly that. Mark had a very abusive ex-wife and Guy had a mother so abusive he'll only refer to her by name (which happens to be the same as mine.)
Guy has devoted three of his own posts to rebutting my comments and giving examples of women saying other women are abusive--a trope that men just eat up. His final comment was " it is clarifying to me because you do not see how your 'solution' is a sophisticated appeal to emotion and a debasement of men. you may not be calling men names, directly, and yet your tenor in the essay and within the other comments and comments you approve of certainly is. ... that really had me laughing, thank you, as an example of your calling men names without calling them names."
So Guy is thanking me for laughing at me. Doc Malik just posted the interview we did, although it's behind the paywall. The first hour was me entirely talking about these issues, and how patriarchy was first imposed. I talked about the covert agenda of family court, but he said courts were biased towards mothers--something men are being told as part of the psyop. I realized that, unless you're affected by it or are looking for it, you wouldn't know what's going on.
I'm sorry for your situation, Anneke. I wish I could say your fears are unfounded. I wish I could do more to solve this problem. I wish there were more women, like Nonya above, speaking together to give validity that the threat is all too real. What I do feel is that there's a purpose, and that purpose includes your and your little boy's greatest happiness. Thank you for binge-watching and commenting, because one comment from you is worth dozens ;-)
I cannot speak for these men-commenters because I don’t know the true details of their situations but their comments made me think of that exact same article!
I had been hard on myself for succumbing to my fears and returning to this less than ideal situation. But now I am focusing on having faith in the purpose (even though I haven’t figured out exactly what the purpose is).
If anything, I have a much better understanding of how pernicious patriarchy is, and much more appreciation for your research into goddess culture.
I don't know what the purpose is either, Anneke. I feel strongly that there is one, and you and I are part of it. You're making exactly the right decisions. Thanks for your appreciation, which I have also for you!
Not sure what wave of feminism were on either. I it’s so tiring to always end up with inversions of things. I still think feminism is a net benefit, but how much longer will it seem that way if it’s encouraging promiscuity, childlessness, girlbossing… it might have been the patriarchy that convinced women to enter the work force and turn child rearing into a hobby, but that also means coming to terms that many woman seem to want that. Can’t make it happen if women don’t go along willingly.
I want to see that new Julia Roberts movie. I think they’re starting to walk some of the progressive feminism tropes back. Maybe we should have a viewing party and discuss.
Haha, in response to your comment on your post, I didn't entirely hold my tongue. I explained to the city council member (who needed the big box) that the word matrix, which she'd used, was a psyop and meant womb or network of mothers. To the mayor who felt Santa Cruzans were special, I talked about going back to my Appalachian hometown and how much it had grown with me. There's a hopelessness, I told her, to thinking that people in other places don't love them just as much.
Of the 200 generations of patriarchy since its imposition in 3000 BCE, 199 of them made women entirely dependent on men. I shared a room with my grandmother growing up, because she left my violent grandfather and lived half the time with us, half with another of her 7 kids (although the oldest sons sided with and took after him). My mother's dad died when she was in HS. Her mom made pies for the local drugstore counter and cooked for wilderness camps. My mom had a wealthy boyfriend during the war who helped them too. She wouldn't marry him without an annulment, since she was Catholic and he was divorced. He suddenly stopped coming and married--to a woman who gave birth in less than nine months. I wouldn't want to go back to that kind of dependence.
There are small sensible things we could do to help moms in my system. Give moms the dividends for the kids. Absolve property taxes for homes put into a trust for the kids, with the mom as custodian for life. Don't enforce extradition for moms who bring their kids to raise them with immediate family--parents or siblings, or moms born here who moved away. It wouldn't solve the whole problem but it would be three steps in the right direction.
Yes, I got to that part of the video and you did give them a piece of your mind. How did they respond to that? Was anyone curious enough to engage with you later? Whenever I’ve made contrarian statements in a group that feels they’re under a consensus, I’ve been treated like a crockpot, no one wants to come near me. Did you have a similar experience afterwards?
I’ve read some of the steps you put forward in your book and what you say here now as far as property rights and mother driven societies. I wish you were in this chat group I was in a few months ago when all the men were arguing how women shouldn’t be rearing kids 😂 and how single moms are the cause of pretty much all the societal breakdowns. I did the best I could but didn’t have the bandwidth to draw up statistics or rely on past research the way you have poured and evoked so much time in. Don’t know if it’s worth me reopening that can of worms in that chat, but maybe I’ll just send them a link to your article. Although I don’t wish to have them descent upon your comment section. 🥴
As you know, I love a good argument and a bad argument (where people, ahem, men, are only interested in being right) always gives me an adrenaline rush. So link away!
No one responded in the moment but afterwards one of the 'trigger counselors' came up to me. Definitely gay and the one who'd said a political system should take care of those in need. I thought she was the least likely to get my points, and steeled myself. Instead, she'd taken a photo of my book and ordered it, and remembered me from a comment I'd made more than 10 yrs ago about kids earning their way through college in my point system. I asked how she even recognized me, since I look so different. She said that it was my ideas that were unique.
Shut my mouth! If anything should teach me not to judge allies by their covers, that was it. But yes, I left at lunch, walked part way home and said, 'What am I doing? I was just complaining that I couldn't talk and now, when people are talking, I'm leaving.' So I went back and my friend speed-date introduced me to several women.
Yet I knew that they had the wrong people as being alienated. I was the most likely at that conference to be attacked for my ideas. But instead of a full frontal attack, as men do--which doesn't bother me--it would be a sneaky attack of me lacking compassion, not being an ally, simply being other and just like 'them.' The nuance of what I was saying would be steamrolled in the name of solidarity (and sister solidarity may have been the name of the conference.) I find that kind of attack exhausting and I've been getting a lot of it in the no-virus debate.
A useful statistic for your argument is that outcomes for children of single mother homes are measurably better than those from divided families and equal to those of mother-father homes--once parity is made for income. It's conflict that creates psychological harms, not being raised by a mother. It's poverty that creates physical and educational harms, not being raised by a mother.
I can find the study for you in one of the blogs I'm reading, but fathers have been shown to be a 'nice-to-have' but not a necessity. What's essential for a child's wellbeing is a secure attachment to the mother. Women in these custody groups say, 'Why does he want to be raising our child now when I've been begging him to participate for years?' The answer is money. And the woman I worked with on my neighbor's case said that 100% of the time, there's another woman--his mother, his girlfriend, his new wife. He's pawning off the kids on them so he doesn't have to pay child support. And getting revenge on the mother by taking her kids away.
I think you tagged someone else
How did that Bren turn into Brian? Malevolent pixies, I tell ya. Thanks for reading and those fantastic memes! I raised chickens for several years, so hen jokes are right up my alley. And the second link goes to Rat's Chewsday Memes, who sent me to you. I love Rat!
I love Rat too. We’ve been looking for a small farm for 4 years, to raise chickens lol. Good post. I enjoyed all the perspectives you added and seen in the comments here. Thank you for linking my stuff. I publish memes once weekly because laughter is medicine. I’ve evolved to avoid combustible topics in my memes because they’re meant as a comedic escape. Have a wonderful weekend.
hola, tereza. i hope you are well. i haven't dropped in for a while as i've been doing several deep dives and my yoga path has gone deep dive internal spiritual journey.
perhaps the most interesting bit, and germane to this post, has been the an odd out-of-the-blue turn to look at the the malevolent roots of feminism: at least since mary wollstonecraft. and wow, it is bad bad. imo.
so your piece today came as an interesting resource with an equally interesting timing because i've just done my 2nd deep dive into a couple of the dominant trope-lies academic feminists — male and female — have successfully promulgated. i looked at foot binding and female genital mutilation (or cutting). i finished my last piece last night, so your arguments will not be a part of that. (i've not done the final edit pre-post nor created the audio (video?), so it will be a couple of days before getting posted.
in the meantime, you *may* find my last anti-feminism essay interesting. it is about my discovery and surprise at the malevolent roots of 'modern' feminism — since wollstonecraft. with other surprises like the discovery of now (national organisation of women) having been founded with the help of the cia through steinem with the focused intention to destroy the family. see: Marxist Feminism’s Ruined Lives https://mallorymillett.com/post-2/ by Mallory Millet (Kate Millet's sister), September 1, 2014.
quotation:
The horror I witnessed inside the women’s “liberation” movement.
…
It was 1969. Kate invited me to join her for a gathering at the home of her friend, Lila Karp. They called the assemblage a “consciousness-raising-group,” a typical communist exercise, something practiced in Maoist China. We gathered at a large table as the chairperson opened the meeting with a back-and-forth recitation, like a Litany, a type of prayer done in Catholic Church. But now it was Marxism, the Church of the Left, mimicking religious practice:
“Why are we here today?” she asked.
“To make revolution,” they answered.
“What kind of revolution?” she replied.
“The Cultural Revolution,” they chanted.
“And how do we make Cultural Revolution?” she demanded.
“By destroying the American family!” they answered.
“How do we destroy the family?” she came back.
“By destroying the American Patriarch,” they cried exuberantly.
“And how do we destroy the American Patriarch?” she replied.
“By taking away his power!”
“How do we do that?”
“By destroying monogamy!” they shouted.
“How can we destroy monogamy?”
Their answer left me dumbstruck, breathless, disbelieving my ears. Was I on planet earth? Who were these people?
“By promoting promiscuity, eroticism, prostitution and homosexuality!” they resounded.
They proceeded with a long discussion on how to advance these goals by establishing The National Organisation of Women.
end quotation.
the link you gave between virginia wolf and the fabians is fascinating. and pehaps even darker is, of course, her time being made sick with the practices of freudian therapy that didn't stop her from killing herself. hmmmm. and your saying that simone de beauvoir was connected to steinem is well described, and more, by mallory millet. see link above. per millet, the 'modern' feminists were fans of the marquis de sade as a guide (icon?) to help destroy the family. hmmmm. and were the 19th century feminists into occult practices? do christian feminists know that elizabeth katie stanton's declaration of sentiments was produced at a seance table?
yup. and more.
if curious about what i wrote, see "It's Been a While. Where Have I Been?: September 2025: Yogic Life Update with ClearVision Eye-Kriya and I Introduced My Self to Feminism And Am Surprised to Discover it to be Evil Incarnate" https://gduperreault.substack.com/p/its-been-a-while-where-have-i-been
we are living the bhagavad-gita wedded to the great apocalypse! all the best with what is changing. everything changes! with peace, respect, love and equanimous enthusiasm.
🙏❤️🧘♂️🙌☯️🙌🧘♂️❤️🙏
Thanks for reading and commenting, Guy. I just read your anti-feminism post, and also the Mallory Millet essay. Glad I didn't grow up in that family!
On a yoga note, my dance teacher quotes an Indian comedian saying 'Leave it to white people to take something meant to be relaxing and turn it into a blood sport' ;-)
Your article certainly corresponds to my critique of seventh wave feminism, which I'm calling woke feminism. But it also seems to lump in mothers who want to be mothers. You quote Angela Stanton-King in saying, "We want equality. Okay. Okay. Well, in the family court systems, don't expect to instantly get custody of a child and instantly get the house. And in divorce courts, instantly get half of a man's wealth. We want equality."
I'm saying, you can keep the equality. We want instant custody of our children, the house, and half of the wealth earned while we were raising the family. Deal? That is prioritizing being a mother over earning a wage. If you're going to condemn mothers for working then you need to support them as mothers.
When you write that feminism is destroying the family, that's saying that mothers are destroying the family. What is a family that a mother hasn't created? There is no such thing.
And when you say millions of babies are killed by mothers, 100% of all babies are also born to mothers. Who are you to judge them? Are you going to raise those babies? It's saying that innocent babies have to be protected from their murderous, horrible, inhuman mothers. Let's take them away from them, give them to the fathers! Or the state! Force those women to give birth and sever the babies' connection from them before they can pollute them.
If you want those babies to be born, figure out a way that women can raise their children securely. Trust mothers to know when someone isn't good for her child. You can't condemn women for NOT wanting to be mothers and also condemn women who want to be mothers. For 5000 years, the ability to raise a child has been held hostage by men. Mine is the first generation where women have the means, so the courts are now taking children away from them. There's nothing more terrifying than not being able to protect your child. If you're against woke feminism, give women an alternative.
hola, tereza.
i agree with some of your ... reaction. yet my long long long essay was not about solutions. it was about seeing what has largely been hidden and denied by feminists — male and female. feminism is actually is at least as big a lie as has been the idea that the pharmaceutical industrial complex is more about health than it is about making more money be make people more ill. no solution is possible in either case when a huge part of the problem is being argued as the solution to the problem. when does cry more feminism to fix the damage feminism is causing start being recongised?
as you have eloquently written elsewhere, and others i have seen have done in their own ways in my extended research, the *economic* manner of being freedom of 'choice' was/is an economic trap. it wasn't really about given women 'true' freedom: it was to flood women into the work force as a weapon to keep wages down, created double income taxed home income, and get more children away from families and into the state sponsored indoctrination system. a largely undiscussed part of it: you want to see who is creating the future, look to who is teaching the child. troubling thought, and perhaps goes a long way to explain the complete feminist wokification of almost all universities and all university departments — now including the sciences!
for me the first step in fixing the problem is to see it. as you have written, the economic system has almost completelty taken away the ability for women to chose being mothers. hmmmm.
i suspect that that is a large part (maybe the whole part?) of what the 'feminist' movement wanted. again, destroy the option of having a family. almost all feminist rhetoric is about destroying the family without providing any 'solution' to the problems created. when you look at the majority of the tropes — not all — that is what will be the result. and how do we know: because the family is being destroyed just as kate millent and gloria steinem chanted for in NoW.
so, with economics now having trapped the woman in the workforce and 'forces(?)' them to abort, the hawked current 'solution' to the destroyed family is to provide some kind of welfare system. okay. except that they don't work well. the state becomes the parent, which is what the necromongers via their marxist agents want. the state laws being passed authorising the state to take children from parents who question the value of their kid have their genitals chemically of physically mutilated? that is proof of concept: state as de facto parent.
as to welfare as solution, pause to see how well the democrats weaponised that with the blacks under lbj. not a model of anything but internalised social decay by the evidence in front of our eyes.
yup, a marxist system for sure. that is why the feminist solution has created so many problems — that was built into its roots, that was the design from the start! by the fruit of the tree, the tree and its root stock are known. so-called 7th wave is simply the fruit; it hasn't been waves just steady growth of what it always was.
we are currently in a mess. serious, with levels of births for many countries hovering just above or below extinctions levels. some now far below. the puppet masters have women pretending that they are men fighting men pretending they are women. and the necromongers are laughing all the way to the bank. amazing.
solution? stop listening to our government solutions and stop pretending that feminism is anything but a marxist structure — victim/ victimiser, oppressed/ oppressor, etc. so long as that is the bedrock of feminism, we will not see a 'solution'. because in the marxist world, the solution is the destruction of the society. which is well under way. looking to the state for to give strong independent powerful women welfare is a trap into weakness.
and you have mischaracterised stanton-king, imo. did you listen to the whole interview?
and i don't quite understand how my essay lumps in mothers.
and you may find dani sulikowski interesting to attend:
Female Psychology & The End of Empires | with Dr. Dani Sulikowski
https://youtu.be/sRY_1JRRcNU
hasta luego.
ps: synchronicity link to an anecdote of the state of math in high schools.
https://youtu.be/FrDpSSiAQ5w&t=19
we are living the bhagavad-gita wedded to the great apocalypse! all the best with what is changing. everything changes! with peace, respect, love and equanimous enthusiasm.
🙏❤️🧘♂️🙌☯️🙌🧘♂️❤️🙏
The question I'm always answering is 'How have good people been tricked into doing bad things?' In my article, I identify the women in this conference as good people who've been tricked by turning their love and compassion into division. I critique the modern version of feminism, which may well have been designed by Virginia Woolf's husband and the Fabian Society. The Virginia Slims campaign that equated women's lib with smoking certainly didn't come from women--it came from the tobacco industry.
I define the version of feminism that I'm critiquing as a needs-based economic system and inverse hierarchy with the most oppressed on top. I define the version I'm defending as matri-feminism with the goal of enabling mothers to securely raise their children. I'm not clear on how you define the feminism you're critiquing, or whether you differentiate between people or theories, or lump everyone together under the label of feminist.
Few people understand central banking and competitive mortgages, so that the more debt anyone can take on, the more expensive the house. When I first wrote about the two-income trap a decade ago, no one understood what I was saying. Why would early feminists be secretly plotting to enrich central bankers?
Who funded NoW? It certainly wasn't women, who had no income. For 200 generations of 'Western civilization' women have been the property of men--legally, economically, physically. A Midsummer Night's Dream is about the father's right to have his daughter executed for not marrying the man he chose.
Work and education equality is the opposite of Marxism, yes? It's capitalism through and through. Women wanted to earn a living, not be dependent on men. That was thwarted by the central bankers and the competitive mortgage.
You are against women doing equal work for equal pay, you are against a welfare system that supports mothers, and you're against women being dependent on men to support them. Is that correct? And you're against women having abortions, although you've eliminated every way for them to support their children.
So now you've taken the first step in a solution by seeing the problem--the economic and legal system makes it extremely risky for women to choose to become mothers. What's your second step?
Hola, Teresza.
I see I managed to skip past your opening question. An interesting and important one.
'The question I'm always answering is 'How have good people been tricked into doing bad things?''
Yes. And of course men too. You don't mention them, which may be because your focus was on the female as victim of men. And yet men are also human and alive in the time of massive human schismogenetic practices.
In my own look into that question I have come to see teo significant mechanism that turn 'good' to 'bad' in the human animal beginning at birth: schismogenesis and promoted emotionality.
The first has now become pretty strongly entrenched within modern birthing and general family practices that include the work-family dyad. All have hurt or even pretty much eliminated proper mother child mimetic practices. And removed the 'proper' and necessary masculine presence from the family and society.
The second, and equally important 'tool' that creates human as weapon, is the promotion by modern psychology/ psychiatry of emotions, especially anger, as a net and necessary good. Emotional intelligence is an oxymoron.
People who have been split from self are anxious and are prone to emotionality. Emotions supported as intelligence impedes or regresses the acquisition of maturity and wisdom. Anger as a net good tends towards hateful thoughts and under the right pressures and incentives, physical violence with the home and community.
This is easy to see in the wokes left and right. No humour and some kind of moral outrage / anger that morally rationalises violence in thought and / or action. A marker of that state is lack of humour and dancing in jubilation to someone's assassination.
So, solution: see the promotion of emotionality as healthy as yet another huge cultural lie. The emotions are to be experienced as a normal part of life, felt deeply and fully then let go. All action from an emotional state is a kind of toxin.
Find the source of our anxiety and let it go so that emotioalnality stops and emotion as a transitional state rises.
When we look for wise council it is not the emotional types we seek: it is those with little or no emotion.
Hasta luego.
Hola, Tereza. Another fascinating and stimulating response. Gracias.
I wound up creating another long response. This time too long for a comment. And too long for a note, so I posted it. Here is the link:
"Comment Response to Tereza Coraggio's Recent Post and Comment Thread: Woke Feminism: our love is being used against us. don't blame the love."
https://gduperreault.substack.com/p/comment-response-to-tereza-coraggios
Great topic and a stimulation for me.
we are living the bhagavad-gita wedded to the great apocalypse! all the best with what is changing. everything changes! with peace, respect, love and equanimous enthusiasm.
🙏❤️🧘♂️🙌☯️🙌🧘♂️❤️🙏
I'll respond here, Guy, since your article only allows paid subs to comment. Let's go back to the steps for a better argument:
1) Like the person you're arguing with. Yes! We are arguing as friends, with a long contentious history but who have remained friends. Yes?
2) State the question. My question in this article is "Has Woke Feminism Missed the Point of Feminism?"
3) Define the terms. I define Woke Feminism the same way you do, as prioritizing the most oppressed, defending the right of men to look like women and the right of women to work like men. However, I define the point of feminism as what it was pre-hierarchy, a mother's ability to raise her children securely as the purpose of society, within matrilineal property ownership and kinship groups, and without dependence on a man or serving the oligarchy.
As far as I can tell, you see woke feminism as redundant. I'm not sure why you called mine a 'feminist post' when my title of Woke Feminism is clearly a critique of feminism, as it's practiced now. How do you define feminism, Guy?
4) Why does it matter? The woke version of feminism does NOTHING for mothers, except sacrifice them on the altar to the oligarchy and to the inverse victim hierarchy. It has no goal of self-reliance, which is what my system leads towards--not public welfare. The technique for the enslavement of men, 5000 years ago, was giving them the right of rape and sex slaves in return for their obedience. If you want to change men's servitude to the oligarchy (addressing men in how good people were tricked into doing bad things), it's seeing neither sex nor ownership of children as a man's right but support of mothers as the purpose of the species.
5) Brainstorm ways that this could be accomplished. In my comments to Tonika and Mark I've put my ideas out there, which are how to change the system. When you say, 'schismogenesis and promoted emotionality' that doesn't say how the system would be changed.
As I mentioned to Tonika, I can find the study that shows fathers are a nice-to-have but not a necessity for a child's secure adjustment and success or happiness in life. Conflict between parents is much more destructive. When there's no clear right to custody over a child, it doesn't belong to the mother or the father--it belongs to the state. That's who will decide its fate. If you trust government more than mothers to know what or who is best for their children, then government is your friend.
I don't know if you're saying that women should not be differentiated from men in any legal or economic way. Is it? Do you see a woman in her function as a mother as the same as a man or a woman without children? Would you call any women-centric movement feminism? I'm really just interested in your ideas, Guy, not anyone else's.
and a question just came up. i watched a video.
and my watching it has, for some reason, prompted me to ask your opinion about it. and a question, because it aligns with my own experience with my ex.
is this true? yes, not all not all. in general, is this true and has social media super charged this neurotic characteristic of women which has been stimulated by feminist lie-tropes that have weaponised the sense that women have an inherent feeling of superiority over men — which some parts of your stand embody and even exemplify? (note: in an english class in the late '80s this was explicitly stated — the smug superiority women feel over men — in the sort of novel-like book, 'lives of girls and women' by alice munroe. i wrote my paper on that misandry. unfortunately the paper is on my computer that is in storage, so i don't have the details handy.)
Women ADMIT They Are GUILTY Of Silencing MEN: https://youtu.be/bixFuMebCVA
(and i am curious what has been the experience of any men and women who are curious about this. gracias.)
hasta luego.
the lock-on replies was substack misbehaving. and i forgot to double check, sorry about that. comments are, i hope, again open to all.
perhaps i can manage a relatively quick reply. yes, your title was indicated that it was to be at least partially anti-feminist. and it was, and not significantly, imo. nor in a really productive way. it narrowly focuses on a part of history which denies the broader scope of it.
The feminism I am criticising is the one defined by elizabeth katie stanton in the declaration of sentiments and by millet steinem et al in NOW. Both are purely misandrist and with the aim of destroying the family. Neither have been ever, imo, really about so-called equality or even the so-called rights of women as distinct from men. From very beginning, including Wollstonecraft, that has been the lie, the trojan horse being used to destroy the society from within the family.
i am not saying that pre-feminism life was utopian. not at all. to cite thomas hobbes, for men and women for much of time under agricultural city state 'civilisation', life was solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.' okay, i'm not that bleak, although it was certainly very hard for man, woman and child. oh to be an elite in the matriarchy and/or patriarchy, high priestess or priest.
in part i see your stand as a pro-feminist (albeit, perhaps, a non-woke version of feminism, i guess) because it insists on the rights of the tribes of men and women with men being less entitled to those so-called rights. it is coming from a female condescending sense of superiority and moral and moralistic rectitude. very off-putting and from that emotional-founded space, solution talk is just gossip. and purely poisonous marxism by finding a guilty part that can be blamed instead of addressing what is in the moment.
the gossipy fixes coming from emotionality, primarily from a state of being angry and looking to blame something, someone else — scapegoating — does not nor cannot work. looking to fix with emotionality the illness arising from schismogenisis is like finding 'great' cures for cancer as a symptom while not looking to the environmental and behavioural roots of those symptoms.
schismogenetic child-practices of various sorts have been extant at least 2000+ years, and likely much further back. and they were and are extended, perhaps most 'viciously' and successfully, within the ruling elite in its various forms including some church practices. if we don't address that as a root cause, and instead continue to practice familial and/or work triage by applying various types of state welfare and taxing manipulation fixes that may 'work' for a time, yet the cancer will just come back. and there are certainly times when triage may be needed! to consider it fix is a delusion and a lie. nothing heals living a lie.
with my last 18 months of looking at the lie, at first with a little naïveté about its central role in making, building and propagating schismogenetic — anti 'good' human expression — i now understand that seeing the lie is the solution. everything else is smoke and mirrors. the convid is a case in point: so long as we are in the majority, the people of the lie, there is no fix.
much of your anti-woke feminism was an appeal to 'proper' feminism, and so a call to extend the marxist-feminist split, the psychological schismogenesis that is with-in our being and that is being made manifest with-out of our selves. that is the social cancer that 'real' feminism is. as i wrote before, by the fruits we know the tree and the root stock of the tree. the societal destruction is the fruit of the marxist roots of feminism, and has nothing to do with woke or not. those too are 'simply' symptoms from the same poisonous tree.
for many years i kept on my various office walls a phrase from the i ching. back then i felt that it was important and recently the depth of its truth has filled my awareness. it is an extended version of the phrase 'the truth shall set you free':
Quotation:
When we are faced with an obstacle that is to be overcome, weakness and impatience can do nothing. Strong individuals stand up to this situation with [stoic] equanimity, for inner security enables the strong to endure to the end. This strength shows itself in uncompromising truthfulness with themselves and the events of our lives. It is only when we have the courage to face things, other people and ourselves in the circumstances of life in this moment, exactly as they are without any sort of self deception or illusion, that we recognise that we have the strength to see the light that develops out of events by which the path to success may be recognised.
I Ching 5 Hsu / Waiting (Nourishment) p.25 Baynes/Wilhelm (my edit)
end quotation.
in my recent studies my awareness of other teachers who said the same thing have become all the more sharp and pertinent. gautama buddha said the same thing, basically: the first of the noble truths is right seeing. seeing what is without self deception. patañjali said the same thing, with his argument that wrong seeing creates all suffering. (i now understand 'wrong seeing' as mistaking as true that which is false; to mistake as false that which is true; and to mistake as either or true or false that which is neutral.) the challenge, of course, is how to 'know'. hmmmm. that is where calmness and equanimity find their place of importance. living emotionally is to live without equanimity and to live without equanimity is to chase after emotional fixes like any addict looking to calm his/her anxiety with the perfect 'fix'.
feminism, the feminism we are living in at this time, is neither woke nor not woke: it began as man and family anger-hatred and we are living that root's fruit. it is when we see that lie, recognise we were tricked into believing it, that the solution will develop out of discarding the lie and living the truth or our goodness. sj warrioring is to propagate the lie and keep the men, the women and the children living in suffering.
hasta luego.