Debunking the Myth of Female Oppression

suicide by inexplicable recklessness is oppression
the horse was working for the Patriarchy!


There is a pernicious myth that has even found purchase in the Manosphere among others beyond it. Its accompanying refrain goes something like this: “women may have been an oppressed class in the past, but they aren’t anymore, so feminism is just attention-seeking idiocy.”


To cede ground to an enemy is foolish, but to do so under the auspices of a lie is worse by orders of magnitude. Allow me to put forward a notion that may seem radical, to those who think that Laci Green is a whack-job, but the suffragettes had a point: women have never been an oppressed class. Not once in human history. Now, notice that when the left speaks of ‘protected minorities’, they must make a special caveat for women, who in most instances are not a numerical minority. They are a special case, a group which doesn’t hold a physical minority status, but rather only the trappings of one. They are apparently somehow treated the same as, say, a black in the Jim Crow South, and so are entitled to all the safe-spaces and special privileges to dampen disparate impact from which they suffer at the hands of the Patriarchy (a transnational cabal of men dedicated to keeping womankind in chains). If you type ‘Oppression’ into Google, the first suggestion is ‘synonym’, the second suggestion is ‘of women’.

I now wish to dispel this proposition with one of my own. Oppressed classes are distinct in history in that they are not classes at all. For a group to be defined as oppressed within any given society, a condition must be fulfilled which says they are not part of that society, and so not entitled to the usual benefits it yields in terms of general moral courtesy and duty. All people from all walks of life will experience some hardship in their finite existences for some feature, opinion, or disposition that they have, but an oppressed class is something very different. There is a reason that the ‘dehumanization’ step is so important in the conduct of genocide. As much as it has to do with reducing human to animal, it is the process by which there is not a single soul left in the nation who looks upon a member of the targeted group and says “Ah, my fellow countryman!”, but instead narrows his eyes with disgust and wonders “Why are they here? What have we done to deserve their presence in our midst?”

Consider for a moment, the ‘untouchables’ in India. These are people who arrive at their station in life due to a hereditary, occupational stain on their name. They are born into careers deemed ritually ‘unclean’ such as handling the dead, the slaughter of animals, leatherwork, and the maintenance of sewage. This is so abhorrent to the Indian people that it is seen as akin to receiving a fatal contagion to even touch them (hence the name). They are the carriers of a spiritual pathogen which kills the soul, and because of this they are indeed an oppressed class, but interestingly enough in the eyes of an Indian, they are not a class at all. The caste system has four ‘varnas’ or levels arranged in a hierarchy. The untouchables occupy what is colloquially termed the ‘unmentionable fifth varna’. You can actually see in a caste diagram, they are separated out from the pyramid because they are, for ritual reasons, not part of the system. They are outsiders.


It is essential that a group have an ‘outsider’ status to truly be an oppressed class. Being treated differently is not enough, for the Sudras are certainly treated differently to the Brahmins, and yet they are not an oppressed class and wouldn’t consider themselves as such.

Women can never occupy this position. If women were an oppressed class, seen as outsiders in society, you would be looking at total demographic annihilation. It is as absurd as saying that in a given society, children could be an oppressed class. This would be the death of that society, and could only be imposed by a malicious and totalitarian dictator.

The complaint women have is that they are treated differently to men, but this does not equal an oppression. We do not leash cats, so does it therefore follow that dogs are oppressed? There could be nothing more demonstrably ruinous as to treat that which is unequal (meaning ‘not the same’ in the world of mathematics) as equal. If you were to treat 2+5 as equal to 20+8, you’d never balance a checkbook. Women have been kept from politics and business, confined to the industry of child-rearing, not because of some conspiracy to exclude them from society and thus oppress them within its borders, but because psychologically, physiologically, biologically, anatomically, genetically, and spiritually, they are entirely different to men. Yet, they remain absolutely essential to any nation that wishes to survive beyond one generation, and so in all civilized societies throughout traditional history they have been active participants, just not male participants.

One key tipoff that women are not an oppressed class is that complaints about such things are decidedly Modern. Were the women 500 years ago too stupid to realize they were being oppressed? How about the women 1000 years ago, or 4000 years ago? Where was the suffrage movement in 1925 BC? There was none, because women had not been propagandized with the lie of oppression. Give me one, just one, other example of an oppressed class who had to be told they were being oppressed. We are given the horror stories of women in Ancient India being thrown onto funeral pyres after their dead husbands, never knowing that in 99% of cases, it was the voluntary selfless act of a grieving widow with a wish to follow her husband into the great beyond. The rhetoric of the Modern SJW would seem absurd to them.

the Patriarchy pushed her!

Julius Evola states in Revolt Against the Modern World:

“After centuries of “slavery” women wanted to be themselves and do whatever they pleased. But so-called feminism has not been able to devise a personality for women other than by imitating the male personality, so that the woman’s “claims” conceal a fundamental lack of trust in herself as well as her ability to be and to function as a real woman and not as a man.”


How peculiar. Black Americans rarely imitate White Americans, in fact much less so since their ‘liberation’ during the Civil Rights Era (the reverse is actually more common). What we are seeing with regards to the fairer sex is not the liberation of an oppressed class, but a functional disorder in the collective mind. Women are trying to absorb the functions of men, like a vacuum cleaner trying to do a dishwasher’s job. Was the vacuum cleaner oppressed because it could not wash dishes, or was this simply a testament to its functional purpose, its design?

Men who are awake to the errors of Modernity, and the great lies of this dark age, cannot afford to pull a shroud of concealing smoke over their eyes with regard to history. Like some bloodsucking fiend, the enemy latches onto it and never lets go. Do not cede to them their core premise of being oppressed, which is liable to garner sympathy, even if it is only in the retroactive sense. It is the myth of historic as well as current oppression that inspires the next generation of ‘French Revolutionaries’, infusing them with a warped sense of entitlement and vengeance. Shattering this mechanism is key to our goals.


Women of the world: you have never been, nor will you ever be, an oppressed class. You are too valuable in your function, just as we are. Lois de Bonald describes the role so intrinsic to the female character in relation to the father and the child:

“The father has, or is, the power to accomplish through the means or ministry of the mother the reproductive and conservative action of which the child is the term or subject. […] The father is active or strong, the child passive or weak; while the mother, median term between the two extremes of this continuous proportion, is passive to conceive, active to produce, receives to transmit, learns to teach, and obeys to command.”

My hope is that I live to see the day when the confusion of the feminine psyche ends and women can once again find fulfillment in their organic roles, beautiful, mysterious, and supportive. Not ugly, degenerate, and embittered.


the eyes of a hostage…
of course

(Still relevant a year later, ‘The Tyranny of Suffrage‘ by Reed Perry)
Advertisements

4 thoughts on “Debunking the Myth of Female Oppression

  1. Great stuff as usual. It's another example of intellectual output that, by right, ought to be coming out of academic departments of sociology, but never does. It has seemingly been left to Reactionary bloggers to take up the intellectual slack left by professionally derelict social scientists.

    To the substance of the article, I'd add that another reason the women-as-oppressed-class thesis is absurd on its face is the simple fact that, in all the ages, races, and civilizations of Man, a woman inherits the social status of her father, and upon marriage, automatically acquires that of her husband- and that to the exact extent that society has a “patriarchal” character!

    Then again, I know from exasperating professional experience that there are any number of SJWs- credentialed to profess the social sciences at a University level, and thus in a position to know to better- who'd tell me, with a perfectly straight face, that the socially rather well-to-do-looking lady in the painting was “oppressed”, since she wouldn't have been eligible to sit in the House of Commons. (Yes, it really does get that stupid).

    The mystery of how common sense can get thrown out the window like that clears up as soon as one realizes that this sort of argument isn't intellectually serious and isn't really meant to be. Woman-as-oppressed-class is a type of legal fiction, a theoretical contrivance meant to facilitate the social process whereby, according to a peculiar Modern custom of ours, anybody who would ascend to the heights of the Brahminate must first *affect* sinking beneath one's actual status into the ranks of the Sudras. Now the posh girls, in the very course of being groomed to take their place in the arch-elite strata of society, can claim common cause with, or even membership in, the lower classes, and perhaps for good measure take to dating a Black guy. In a normal civilization- say, that of the classical Hindus- all of this is precisely the sort of behaviour that would cause one to be forever condemned to social oblivion as Chandala, a fallen and hence indelibly polluted person; here in the West, the same thing confers rare and fiercely sought-after social capital of a sort that mere money by itself can't buy. (I think you have a past entry somewhere that addresses this subject). I swear, antiquarians of the future are going to spend entire academic careers trying to figure out just what exactly was wrong with us in this respect.

    Like

  2. This argument doesn’t work against the closely related claim that women have been on average more oppressed than men. To that I’d say, where conquered men have been killed, conquered women have been espoused. And that seems like the dominant term in the average. Do you have a better response?

    Like

  3. That's a fine response, but I just reject the entire premise of what Liberals mean by 'oppression'. They think it basically means “being compelled to do anything that goes against Liberal dogma”. So any kind of pressure to have a family is akin to slavery. Any kind of pressure to enter certain fields of work is command economy. And on and on.

    Like

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