Marxist-feminist Universities and the Decline of Character

Today I was thinking about one of the women who turned me into a misogynist. She was a platonic friend I was very close to. She was raised very strictly, with a close-knit family; her grandparents and several other relatives lived very nearby and she saw them often, and the whole family were churchgoers, and a very high standard of behavior was expected of her. I had a very high opinion of her moral character.

Then she went to college.

By the end of the first year, she had fallen in with a bad crowd. Actually, by today’s standards, they weren’t that bad; they weren’t running around shoplifting and using drugs and suchlike. Nonetheless, they were of highly dubious character. One of her friends had to flee to Brazil because she was accessory to a murder. Another drew erotic pictures which she claimed were of adults, but they looked like five-year-olds to those of us familiar with the normal development of the human species. And of course they were all Marxists of some sort. It was actually sort of entertaining to hear them bandy their political opinions around, as they invariably showed an utter lack of basic information, never mind sound judgment, but the entertainment value was offset by the knowledge that they all had the right to vote.

By the middle of her second year, she was engaging in all sorts of reprehensible behavior. And of course, she was steadily edging me out of her life, in a needlessly sadistic way. I restrained myself as best I could from criticizing her behavior, as I was her friend and not her mother, but she knew I disapproved anyway. Indeed, I believe that she disapproved herself. She knew that she was behaving badly and she felt guilty about it. But to have remained true to her values would have meant losing all of her college friends.

To give just one illustration of her conduct: when she was in her senior year of high school, she got a part-time job. Most of her co-workers used a lot of swearwords, and they all assured her that she would get into the habit too. Still living with her parents, she stuck to her guns, and after a couple of months the other employees had begun toning down their own language in deference to her. By her second year of college, her vocabulary was such that passing sailors routinely fainted from shock.

Although seeing her moral collapse and losing her friendship was deeply painful to me, I can’t entirely blame her. I do blame her for the cruel manner in which she drove me away, which was completely unnecessary, although now I do understand that it’s difficult for women to resist hurting people when they have the chance to. But I completely understand why she was willing to jettison all of her morals even though she clearly knew in her heart that she was behaving wrongly. It was the price she paid for companionship, which women desperately need. Her happiness and well-being no longer depended on the approval of her conservative Christian parents, or of me. It depended on the approval of those around her, her fellow students and her professors – and we all know what kind of people become professors.

She was demonstrating the female evolutionary strategy for survival. Where men have the “fight or flight” response, women have the “tend or befriend” response. Standing up for principles is masculine behavior. Virtually the only women who can do it are lesbians, like myself, and we are very different in personality from straight women. As I’ve said before, women really shouldn’t be condemned for this – though they also shouldn’t be allowed to wield power for which they are biologically unsuited. For most of human history, not to mention the history of our ape forebears, the survival of the species depended upon females pleasing those who had the local power. A female driven out of the tribe for not going with the flow would die very quickly, and certainly would not pass on her genes. There are millions of years of evolution inducing women to knuckle in to the people who have power over their lives. A few decades of feminist propaganda isn’t going to undo that. This is why women have never been allowed much power in any civilization – and why every civilization that violated this cardinal rule collapsed.

Not that men do not also need the approval of their peers. But unlike women, a large percentage of them are able to get along without it for a time, because this could be a successful survival strategy for our ancestors; a man (or male hominid or he-ape) who insisted on going his own way could end up starting his own tribe, or inventing something like a spear that gave him a survival edge, and getting plenty of poontang, hence plenty of descendants. We are all descended from women who gave in and men who did not. It is the way of nature.

But there is another aspect to this, and that is part of the difference between male dominance (which is universal among humans) and patriarchy (which is not). I derive my definition of the term “patriarchy” from the brilliant Daniel Amneus, whose works can be found in my sidebar. In patriarchy, not only do men hold most of the positions of real power, which is always going to be the case no matter what, but children are considered to be the father’s and wives are bound to their husbands. In a patriarchy, men in a sense “own” their wives and children – not the way one owns a horse, but the sense of ownership is what compels men to protect their wives and children and steward their morals. Contrast this with today, when children are considered to be the mother’s, husbands are bound to the wives (in the sense of alimony), and the idea that men own their wives and children is considered horribly backward. The result of that last is that men allow their children to behave immorally – indeed, they have little power to stop them – and they also do not or cannot protect them, which is why schools have become so dangerous.

Patriarchy, and hence civilization, is largely fueled by men’s desire to pass on a legacy. This includes their culture and their sense of values. Even a poor man can know in his old age that he taught his children the difference between right and wrong. This is the chief reason that the world’s great religions command obedience and reverence to one’s parents. They would not have become the world’s great religions otherwise, because they would not have the mechanism of perpetuating themselves.

Many men today have become so corrupted by Marxism that they do not want to pass on the culture and code of their fathers to their children. Those who do want to, have an entire society working against them. The popular media, the divorce laws favoring women, and finally the pond scum who will be polluting young minds in college all strive to undercut every father’s effort to teach their children good behavior, ranging from not using drugs to not listening to “music” that sounds like an infinite number of monkeys banging on an infinite number of instruments.

Indeed, the concept that it is “normal” for adolescents to “rebel”, that indeed this behavior is necessary for healthy development, has become generally accepted, even though there is little evidence of it before the 20th century.

The fact is that civilization is one long fight against our ape instincts. It is natural for the young to cleave unto their peers, who will be their mates and hunting partners. It is unnatural to spend years listening to our elders droning on about the wisdom of dead white men and tempering our youthful energy to their expectations, to refrain from sex before marriage even though our hormones are clamoring for it, to restrain our violent impulses when we long to thrash our fellows to prove our dominance, to learn and study and work when we would like to be running around with the pack. These unnatural behaviors are what make civilization possible, and they depend upon patriarchy, upon parental power.

As the West has become increasingly matriarchal, we have increasingly yielded to nature, with the result that young people are becoming more irresponsible and delinquent with each year, not to mention more promiscuous and more violent. These are the behaviors that come of wanting status and approval from one’s peer group rather than from one’s elders. A young woman in college can win her father’s approval by remaining chaste, but she can win the approval of many young men her own age by sleeping with them. (As a bonus, she can then win the approval of her feminist professors, which is most of her professors, by later deciding that she was “date raped” and filing charges.) That the behavior which will win the father’s approval is also that which will lead to the most reliable, longest-lasting happiness is hard for an inexperienced girl full of the passion of youth to understand, especially when there are legions assuring her otherwise.

Character, like every other human achievement, depends upon patriarchy.

Note: There is a book about this phenomenon which parents may find of interest: Hold on to Your Kids: Why Parents Need to Matter More than Peers. I mentioned this book on a forum a few months ago and predictably, several Democrats attacked it fiercely. A Democrat is basically someone who has embraced cultural Marxism, while a Republican is someone who is still resisting, though usually without fully understanding the fight.

Advertisements

6 Responses to “Marxist-feminist Universities and the Decline of Character”

  1. Michael wears a hat Says:

    I would appreciate if you would qualify your comment about professors–there is a big difference between those who become professors in technical fields vs. those who become professors in social fields.

  2. Female Misogynist Says:

    Michael, you're quite right.

  3. Carlton Says:

    Hmmm

  4. The Demon Says:

    Hello Female Mysogynist. I've been reading the "most important posts" section for a couple of days now, and I'm enjoying your writing.After reading this one I decided to google the word Marxist. I've seen this word come by a few times during my "article hunting". Wikipedia came up and as I was reading I thought to myself how can the woman in your post be a Marxist?Upon closer inspection of the title of your post I noticed you wrote "Marxist-FEMINIST Universities and the Decline of Character". This cleared up a lot hehe. Especially since there is a complete section on wiki about that perticular type of "Marxism" I use the parenthesis because Marxist-Feminism is really just Marxism hijacked to explain the so called oppression of women. In reality though Marxism refers to the oppression of the underdog, the people at the bottom of the food chain. In other words BOTH men and women who aren't rich or wealthy.Here's the Feminist section:Marxist FeminismMain article: Marxist feminismMarxist feminism is a sub-type of feminist theory which focuses on the dismantling of capitalism as a way to liberate women. Marxist feminism states that private property, which gives rise to economic inequality, dependence, political confusion and ultimately unhealthy social relations between men and women, is the root of women's oppression.According to Marxist theory, in capitalist societies the individual is shaped by class relations; that is, people's capacities, needs and interests are seen to be determined by the mode of production that characterises the society they inhabit. Marxist feminists see gender inequality as determined ultimately by the capitalist mode of production. Gender oppression is class oppression and women's subordination is seen as a form of class oppression which is maintained (like racism) because it serves the interests of capital and the ruling class. Marxist feminists have extended traditional Marxist analysis by looking at domestic labour as well as wage work in order to support their position.As you can see It's basically just a repeat of classic Marxism only women are singled out as victims. It's that typical old voodoo that Feminists do. Take a general societal problem, blame men for it and victimize the women (That's all that modern Feminism is about really).It boggles my mind how self-centered women are. It's all about THEM. Even when it's obvious that the complete opposite is true. Women can take truths, twist and turn them into something that's complete bullshit and actually believe their own fallacy.This how that age-old stereotype arised that you can't win an argument with a woman, especially if your a man."Men can not win arguments with women because men have a need to make sense!"Chris RockSo true 🙂

  5. The Demon Says:

    (Had to half my post because it was to big)Coincedentaly true Marxism is right up my ally. I believe that Capitalism is nothing more than civilized slavery. And that's if you're lucky, if not then it's more like being forsaken. Unless ofcourse you own multi-million dollar companies and business cartels and have the ability to monopolize on that wich everybody should have free acces to.I'm currently working on figuring out if the world is simply in this state due to natural process or if there is actually some force working to keep it like this because it serves them. I've read a lot about your garden variety conspiracy theories. I've seen both the Zeitgeist movies (enjoyed these a lot, especially the second one) and interviews with the likes of Bill Cooper and Aaron Russo. In the interview with Aaron Russo he explains something that you may find particularly interesting if you don't know it already.He says the Rockefellers (whom are some of the prime enemy's of humanity according to conspiracy theorists, it's also a name that constantly pops up when you look into conspiracies) funded Feminism. Two reasons why they did it he says, "because before women's lib, women couldn't be taxed" and "now that women are going into the workplace, kids will go into childcare at an earlier age. So they can be indoctrinated earlier and start to look at the state and the officials as the parents as opposed to their actual parents".Alex Jones who is interviewing Aaron goes on to explain that Gloria Steinem admits in one of her books that the CIA funded Miss Magazine in order to tax women and break up the family.Here's a link to that particular part of the interview. Alex explains a few other interesting things that you may take to heart.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRjF_ZZI7XY

  6. Female Misogynist Says:

    Hadn't heard that about the CIA. I did read that Ms. was about to go under when a grant from the Ford Foundation kept it going.For more information about what you're exploring, I recommend this essay and this blog.And welcome!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: