Thursday, May 14, 2015

"Anatomy of Female Power"

I don't have any comment except to read this article, which is from Novaseeker.


I’ve just finished a fantastic, yet not well-known, book about male/female issues called “The Anatomy of Female Power”. The author is the Nigerian philosopher and social critic Chinweizu Ibekwe. The book is available for [free] download.

Quite generally, the book is a rather detailed analysis of how human civilization has fundamentally always been matriarchal, even though it has worn a patriarchal mask. That is: while men appeared to be the rulers, women, in fact, ruled the rulers, and thereby indirectly the whole civilization. While his general thesis is provocative and well-argued (and rather reminiscent of Esther Vilar’s “The Manipulated Man“, albeit more systematic in nature), my main interest here is to explain Chinweizu’s view of the current situation — one which I find original and incisive, particularly as it encompasses the author’s experiences in the diverse landscapes of North America, Europe, and Africa.

Taken against the background that he sees as the basic underlying matriarchalism of human society, Chinweizu sees feminism as the revolt of a few women not against patriarchy, but as against the matriarchalist order which underlies the patriarchal mask — a “revolt in paradise”. He explains this by noting that, in power terms, there are essentially three types of women:

Matriarchists — women who believe men should serve women, and the most effective way to do this is for men to think they are “in charge” while actually submitting to female control.

Tomboys — women who wish they were men.

Termagants — women who insist on showing openly that they are “in charge”, and who take pleasure in openly bossing around and harassing men.

Chinweizu stipulates that all three types have always existed, but that matriarchists have always been the vast majority of women. He describes feminism as “a movement of bored matriarchists, frustrated tomboys and natural termagants”, noting that “each of these types has its reasons for being discontent in the matriarchist paradise that is woman’s traditional world”. He describes second wave feminism as follows:

Bored martiarchists (like Betty Friedan) and frustrated tomboys (like Simone de Beauvoir) kicked it off;

Termagants (like Andrea Dworkin) made a public nuisance of it;

Satisfied matriarchists (like Phyllis Schlafly) oppose it;

Non-militant tomboys (the female yuppies) have quietly profited from it.

He explains that what he calls “Friedanite feminism” began out of boredom and a hope for something more satisfying than suburban housewifery, but was quickly joined by frustrated tomboys and termagants. Under the unified front of feminism, militant tomboys vent their frustration at not being men by expressing anger and outrage at “male privilege” and “male power”, while the non-militant tomboy is glad for an atmosphere in which she can pursue male roles with less resistance than in the past — “she goes into previously all-male fields, and still uses to full advantage the skills and weapons of female power.”

And as for termagants, Chinweizu analyzes them as follows:

The termagant (the shrew, scold and harridan of old) is a misandrous sadist whose greatest pleasures come from man-baiting and man-bashing. She resents the matriarchist code which would have her pretend that she is not boss to her man. Under the banner of feminism, she can truly blossom. … The termagant claims for herself absolute freedom of conduct, and would punish any reaction, however natural, she provokes from men. She is the type of woman who would wear a miniskirt without panties, a see-through blouse without bra, and swings her legs and wiggles her arse as she parades up and down the street, and yet insist that no man should get excited by her provocative sexual display. Any man who whistles at the sight is berated for male chauvinism. … Under the guise of “radical feminism”, some termagants, in their utter misandry, have retreated into lesbian ghettos, and from there attack, as traitors to womankind, those other women who are heterosexual, and who do not totally refrain from social and sexual intercourse with men. Under the banner of feminism, all this is treated as legitimate human behavior.

Chinweizu notes that the matriarchsists saw feminism as the ruse that it was, and had no interest in surrendering the traditional bases of female power. Therefore, he sees the support of most women for feminism extending only so far as feminism did not dislodge traditional female privileges and powers. In other words, women are sympathetic to a system which adds to female power and privilege, so long as it does not dislodge or upset the existing power and privilege. He claims, for example, that this is why many matriarchist women organized to defeat the ERA — a constitutional amendment that was supported by feminists, but which could have undermined traditional female privileges in many areas (such as the draft). So his analysis of feminism is that women in general supported the aspects of it that resulted in net gains for women (educational and economic opportunities, greater sexual freedom, easy divorce) but insisted that female privileges be retained (“chivalry”, female child custody, male obligation in the form of child support and alimony, etc.). Hence he sees the current system as being an odd mish-mash by which females expanded their power base into the world of men without conceding any of their own power base, ultimately, to men.

That this is the case is obvious from an even cursory look at most marriages today. A man is encouraged to do housework and especially equally share child raising responsibilities — and many men are doing this — but at the end of the day, in the event of divorce, female power over the children is exerted in an absolute, totalitarian way, even in cases where the father was the primary caregiver during the marriage!

What about men?

Chinweizu also breaks men into three groups:

Machos — almost all men, trained to believe they are strong and in charge, but in reality serving women.

Mushos — “that breed of diffident men who have been bullied, guilt-tripped, ego-bashed and penis twisted into pram pushing, diaper changing, and breast envy.” This is the classic “mangina”.

Masculinists — the tiny portion of men who are devoted to liberty, and insist on avoiding marriage, which he refers to as “nest slavery”.

Chinweizu describes his brand of masculinism as being based on the view that the world is matriarchal, not patriarchal, and that these imbalances are based on biology (rarer eggs). He says that masculinists would attempt to redirect feminism against matriarchy, rather than against the patriarchal mask it wears. His masculinism supports a kind of equality which requires dismantling of all of the female power bases and sources of privilege — such that women should serve on the front lines in infantry, be subject to the draft, work in dangerous jobs like mining, and generally not have social privileges extended to them (chivalry). His masculinism is steadfastly against marriage (which he sees as slavery for men), against male violence with other men over women, against female violence against men (Jean Harris, Lorena Bobbitt), against a hypersexed society which weakens male resistance to female manipulation and power, against the divorce racket and so on.

He describes his masculinism as being sympathetic to feminism insofar as feminism represents a revolt against matriarchy (as described above). He draws a distinction between “tomboy feminism” (which he describes largely in terms of equal opportunities) and “termagant feminism” (which he describes as the female supremacist or man-hating strain), and believes that useful alliances can be drawn between some tomboy feminists and masculinists, provided the efforts are directed against the old matriarchal order, and not its patriarchal mask.

========================

Clearly this is a provocative thesis. Many traditionalists will not care for it, I think, due to his emphasis on critiquing the old order, as Vilar did as well. However, to me it has the ring of truth.

I do not believe our society can “go backwards” — at least not until the whole thing collapses around our ears and we enter a kind of “Mad Max” phase. I don’t think we will see the restoration of marriage anytime soon, and as RAMZPAUL points out, almost certainly not on the basis of any democratic process. In light of that , I do think some of the ideas of Chinweizu are useful.

We can, and have, built bridges with some of the “tomboy feminists”. Christina Hoff-Sommers, Kathleen Parker, Dr. Helen and so on – these are women with whom men can work, and who to our are sympathetic in various ways to our issues while clearly being the beneficiaries of greater opportunities for women. More importantly, if Chinweizu (and Vilar) are right that the old, traditional order was matriarchal, and subjected men to slavery, why would we want to see it resurrected? Wouldn’t it be better for men to push past both that model and the current “hybrid” version of it (which is probably the worst of all worlds for men) and towards a new model which is more open for men and women alike?

What would that model look like? That’s the subject of another post, and one which I intend to write soon. But for the meantime, I think this fascinating, provocative book is well worth reading for its original take on where we are, how we got here, and where we may want to go from here.

15 comments:

etype said...

I am and have always been in full agreement with Mr.Ibekwe. This is why, despite being a masculinist, I cannot break bread with the 'manosphere'... which offers only reaction and misdirection.

Bob Wallace said...

I don't think we live in a hidden matriarchy....each sex has its own spheres of power. The problem today is that women in general have too much power. After all, Samuel Johnson, hundreds of years, said the law wisely gives women little power because nature has given them so much.

Anonymous said...

The gynocracy and patriarchy will work together to punish the detractors, which is why you now have the latest anti-male laws VAWA and 'Yes Means Yes'. Feminists did not enact the man hating laws. Who did? The patriarchy. Why? For the gynocracy. What's feminism? Hypergynocentrism.

Feminism is nothing more than extreme gynocentrism. This is why you see progressives using the fake wage, DV and rape stats. They will go to any extreme to keep women in power and men disposable. Even the pope is getting in on the action.

Women are the privilged class and always have been, which is why women get:

The VAWA
No-Fault Divorce
Alimony
Child Support
Affirmative Action
Title IX
Far more state/fed funding for their health, education and welfare
Yes Means Yes
Exclusion from Selective Service
Etc, etc, etc.

Required reading for all men: (1) The Manipulated Man, (2) The Myth of Male Power and (3) Stand by Your Manhood.

This year alone, 2015, hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of men, in the US alone, will be destroyed through divorce.

Encouraging men to get married should be a crime punishable by law. I CAN fathom how women send their sons out to get married - it's because their sons are disposable.

Anonymous said...

"I CAN fathom how women send their sons out to get married - it's because their sons are disposable."

I've always been intrigued by this behavior. Don't women lose (or greatly decrease) access to their grandchildren when their sons divorce? How common is this? If women really cared about their sons and grandchildren, wouldn't they want the laws changed?And it's not just their own grandchildren, don't they care about their own sons who are destroyed in divorce?

Earl Thomas said...

So the three types of men classified are basically either PUAs, Manginas, or MGTOWs.

I think that happens when man quits listening to what God has to say.

The Obvious said...

"If women really cared about their sons and grandchildren, wouldn't they want the laws changed?"

No, because they might require to use the heavily biased laws for their benefit at some point, similar to the bible quote, women prefer to rule in a hell of their own making than serve in heaven.

Also look up what Florence Nightengale said about women and sympathy to understand to have a better idea.

Woman is a violent and uncontroled animal... If you allow them to achieve complete equality with men, do you think they will be easier to live with? Not at all. Once they have achieved equality, they will be your masters.

Cato The Elder

(In before Cheechy girl gets her barren ovaries in a twist like she normally does)

Anonymous said...

The ugly, unfortunate truths. Not flattering to women:

http://www.fnsa.org/v1n3/brennan1.html

Anonymous said...

REPLY - PART 1

"I've always been intrigued by this behavior. Don't women lose (or greatly decrease) access to their grandchildren when their sons divorce?"

That's the confusing part. The reason, as Mr. Wallace pointed out, is that only a minority of women are going to side with men and boys; hence Vilar, Helen Smith, etc. They realize they needs men's power to remain privileged; hence Schlafly's rejection of the ERA.

Anti-feminists aren't against male disposability - they're against the loss of provision and protection of men. Anti-feminism, feminism and gynocentrism are all the same thing and are all self-interested. They just skin the cat with differing methods. There's a lot of disagreement between women on the best way to cook a man.

Feminism, under the guise of equality, hope to use force of law to strip men of power through careful manipulation of the patriarchy (destroy the patriarchy); hence the NFL commish's near ousting after the Ray Rice debacle, the VAWA and Yes Means Yes. Women have no problem using their collective power to destroy men that don't play ball their way; hence false rape and DV claims. Women vote for the man that will specifically benefit women as a gender - not society as a whole. Hades hath no fury...God help a public figure that sides with men - he'll never get elected or re-elected. Gynocentrism is in inherently anti-male rights and anti-male.

The majority of women are primarily concerned with their own privilege, feminists being the worst of the worst. Ironically, feminists want to destroy the patriarchy (destroy men and transfer men's power and wealth to women) - when it's the patriarchy giving feminists all of their power. This is why so many women won't identify as feminists. They don't want to lose their power over the men in their lives - but will only pay lip service to feminists and male disposability - because it is through male disposability that women gain their privilege.

Men opting out of marriage and family means a huge withdrawal of wealth redistribution from men to women - which is why both feminists and anti-feminists fear MGTOW. What a predicament. Pesky MGTOW. The pope is a big hater of MGTOW, too - and men in general acting independently of women.

Modern feminism didn't even become a huge thing until we started shifting from an industrial to information based society and started shipping in cheap Latino labor and shipping out labor-based jobs. This is why women now demand the most powerful, most prestigious, most lucrative positions for themselves and then complain that there are no wealthy white knights with whom to marry up. Traditional male jobs that paid well are now either filled by low cost slave labor and/or are being handled in Asian slave labor camps. Women don't have to take jobs that muss their nails or hair. You're also going to start seeing more female-only STEM classes. Watch Sex in The City for more info.

Anonymous said...

REPLY - PART 2

Women don't want to marry down and will remain unmarried and childless in many cases as a result. They get no payoff by marrying down. That's why women get so much state and federal funding for their heath, education and welfare. They make the babies. It is men who do the marrying down - not women. Women will marry the state before they marry down. This is why you see women perturbed by the "lack of marriageable men" and at the same time decrying male privilege (as if that exists).

There is no grand child without the disposability of men - because there's no privilege without male disposability; hence the inherent cognitive dissonance of hypergynocentrism. Gynocentrism is male disposability light. Hypergynocentrism (feminism) is the blatant, unvarnished hatred of men.

The same conundrum, from a woman's standpoint, can be found in selective service. Anti-feminists are against selective service for women and want to go back to the good ole days where men provided for and protected women - a time when if the woman divorced her husband - she got everything and he moved in with another divorced guy (The Odd Couple). A lot of women aren't happy that alimony and child support are being phased out in our age of equality - and affluent feminists don't want the tables turned on women - with women paying men alimony and child support to men. For this reason, as women continue to gain more wealth through force of law, alimony and child support will go away.

Next comes nationalized, paid maternity leave. This won't benefit men - nor is it intended to - since the majority of births will be out of wedlock. This is also how the cost of childbearing will be transferred to men (bachelor tax) - a portion of what you'd normally be paid will be put in the corporate kitty fund and higher taxes for women's paid maternity leave. Women will get the tax break for having the kids - and be able to write off any alimony or child support from some sucker from another mother.

The big lie is that marriage was slavery for women. Society (both men and women) expected men and women to behave in certain ways, with the expectation that men provide for and protect and that women care for the children and home. In fact, how high you could rise in wealth as a man was often determined by your marital status and how many kids you had. You're starting to see more articles on how married men with kids make more money, behave better, drink less, are more productive and live longer lives, right? There's a reason for that. Ah - the false dichotomy of feminism and gynocentrism.

Yeah - women may lose access to their grand kids when their son's lives are destroyed - but that's a risk they're willing to take, so long as women remain the privileged. Conversely - if I had a son - I'd pay him to remain unmarried and a non-cohabitant.

Anonymous said...

"The ugly, unfortunate truths..."

It's imperative that women buy into every word in the document you linked. With each woman that takes on the information you provided as gospel, one more man will remain unmarried. Women's refusal to marry is a God send to men. An unmarried man is a saved man. Without marriage, billions in assets will remain in men's hands with each year that passes. It is through their dead husbands, fathers and divorce raped X husbands that women now hold the majority of US wealth.

Barring any false rape, false sexual harassment, false harassment and/or false DV claims - all of which open men up to wealth transfer through civil suits - when marriage goes away - the only forced wealth transfer that remains is affirmative action, paid maternity leave, Title IX and forced transfer through higher state and federal funding for women's health, education and welfare.

Bob Wallace said...

"affirmative action, paid maternity leave, Title IX and forced transfer through higher state and federal funding for women's health, education and welfare."

Unfortunately I'd say that's ten of billions of dollars if not hundreds of billions.

Anonymous said...

"Unfortunately I'd say that's ten of billions of dollars if not hundreds of billions."

Very true. Alimony and child support are the most psychologically and individually life destroying for men. Child support, since it's based on how much you earn, is little different than alimony. There's the smaller portion that will be spent on the child you'll rarely see - and the bigger portion that will pay for her breast lift. Child support for middle class and up men is merely additional alimony. Alimony is money you're forced to pay your now deeply hated X-wife so that she can sleep with the bartender and/or pool boy(s) with your forced financial blessing. Both the gynocracy and patriarchy guarantee it.

While prosecuting a woman for killing her husband, I once heard a female prosecutor say jovially that "You can take his house, car, money and kids. You can make him wish he were dead - but you don't get to kill him." The woman being prosecuted ran her now deceased husband over several times with her Mercedes. You can make him pray for death - but you can't kill him. I think she only got 20 years. Hades hath no fury...

Anonymous said...

Women have jumped the shark. Male birth control, artificial wombs and sex bots can't come fast enough. I hate it that I have to go through a woman to have a child. That's like going through Hitler to spare a Jew's life. It's a tragedy. It's a God awful, crying shame.

MGTOW'd Out said...

"I hate it that I have to go through a woman to have a child."

Program your futuristic sex-bot can pop out one of these darlins'.

http://babyccinokids.com/blog/2010/11/20/my-daughters-favourite-toy-baby-dolls/

Anonymous said...

During classical antiquity, women were commonly called "plagues." The Greek writer Hesiod dubbed Pandora the first of the "damnable race of women -- a plague which men must live with."[73] An identical view was expressed in a satirical poem, written by the Greek poet Semonides: "Yes, this the worst plague Zeus has made -- women; if they seem to be [of] some use to him who has them, it is to him especially that they prove a plague."[74]

http://www.fnsa.org/v1n3/brennan1.html