Newton’s laws are actually very simple. We see it working all the time. It’s like yin and yang. You can’t separate it from life. Nothing changes by itself, what goes up, must come down. Life adapts. When you push someone, they will (usually) push you back in a way they perceive as equal (a natural reaction). Well, I adapted his first and third laws a little already.
The first law states that nothing will change, unless there is a third force that is acting upon it. The third law states that every action has a re-action that is opposite in direction and equal in force.
The effects of Newton’s first law can be seen in the Feminist movement. It wouldn’t have been possible for a small group of women to have grown such a giant movement. Especially in the 1970´s. They needed a huge sponsor to infiltrate the media, movies, TV, magazines etc. Here comes the application of Newton’s first law. A third force.
To understand how this happened, you have to know a little about the state of mind of an investor. Investors don’t think in terms of good and bad. They think in terms of what would be profitable for their investment interests or not. Everything in the world of investment is seen in an amoralistic fashion. Also, investors don’t invent ideas. They just sponsor them. So, for example, many people blame certain rich investors for wars and abuses that have taken place in the world, but they (the investors) feel that they didn’t do anything. The people did it. Often investors simply put their money in a symbol, like a stock market ticker. As long as it gives them money, they don’t want to know what it actually does. It’s much like betting on a football match. You make the money if they win, but you didn’t play.
This is the mindset of an investor. This also explains why they don’t seem to feel a sense of guilt for what is happening in the world.
Apparently feminism was sponsored by some rich investors. It was in their interest to get women into the
workplace. It was also in the interest of the governments, because prior to feminism, only half the population could be taxed. Feminism made the workplace attractive for women. “Come get a career – prove yourself!” Women could work now, and be taxed too. Women could spend more money now, and be taxed too. And the media kept raising the bar as to what the ideal lifestyle is – and that also encouraged more spending to keep up with that.
workplace. It was also in the interest of the governments, because prior to feminism, only half the population could be taxed. Feminism made the workplace attractive for women. “Come get a career – prove yourself!” Women could work now, and be taxed too. Women could spend more money now, and be taxed too. And the media kept raising the bar as to what the ideal lifestyle is – and that also encouraged more spending to keep up with that.
“C’mon, join the progress! Society is advancing! Don’t be left behind!!”
So, this was the financial drive behind feminism. Meanwhile, feminism was a think tank for a new generation of female writers, who were driving the direction of this movement.
The goal of the governments and investors were to get more tax money, and to put the economy on steroids. What was the goal of the actual feminist movement? You’re assuming that the goal was to get EQUALITY for women. Don’t be so sure. There were different women in the movement, with different goals.
“Radical feminist theorists do not seek to make gender a bit more flexible, but to eliminate it. Gender can have no place in the egalitarian future that feminism aims to create” - Sheila Jeffreys
"I feel that 'man-hating' is an honorable and viable political act..." - Robin Morgan, Ms. Magazine Editor
"If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males." - Professor Mary Daly, feminist theologian
These are just a few. I think few people were aware of what the goal of some leading feminists were.
Think about what Sheila Jeffreys said. She didn’t say that women should have privileges equal to men. She said that gender would have to be destroyed in order to create her ideal of an equal society. See any parallels with Communism?
But why destroy gender? That is a very good question, and not easy to understand what exactly she meant. The effects of this can be seen in society. Maybe her intentions were simply idealistic, but the ones who carried out the orders of the movement may not have understood her ideals in the same way. Many understood it simply as, ‘destroy men’.
So, how do you destroy gender anyway? And what did they do to society to accomplish this goal?
We grew up watching TV and reading magazines oblivious of the influence of this. Someone somewhere was writing scripts for movies and sitcoms and adverts, and they were injecting ideas inside that were designed to destroy gender. And they were paid in dollars for it. Did we know that? No! we just watched the Cosby show, Threes company, Cheers, Two and a half men! Yeeeaahi! It’s funny!
The basic idea of these shows were to demonstrate that the feminist ideal could ‘work’. I did notice though, that in most sitcoms the wife was a professional, or a competent and confident person, while her husband was the stootch who’s only value was to give us something to laugh at. Sometimes the basic theme was acceptable to traditional society, but there were scenarios in every episode that overturned it. We adapted to that over time. If you look back at those old tv shows, none of that will shock or challenge you anymore.
It is the era of post-feminism. What are we left with? For about 40 years, women have been fighting for their rights – and now we can see the results of that. Introducing Newton’s third law. What was the opposite and apposing effect feminism had on society?
The first and foremost opposite or counter effect womens liberation had on the movement itself was that womens lib 'liberated' women's sexuality, and the related industries took of in the last 40 years like never before. Even the softporn industry overemphasizes that aspect - completely counter-blowing the idea of a 'genderless' world. Now women's lib was overfeeding an industry that was based on abusing women, reducing them to mere objects.
Another counter effect the feminist movement had on itself was the ‘TAKE IT LIKE A MAN’ effect. After all, if women and men are equal, why have any special respect for women. The Cleveland bus driver incident is a much discussed video on youTube, where there was a video clip of a fight between a women and a bus driver that went viral. Very few people sympathized with the women, because she was so aggressive, even though the bus driver was a much bigger man, and punched her so hard I thought he was going to kill her.
Now people have been confronted with a new idea. Well, if men and women are supposed to be the same, then why should it matter if he punched her in the face? A movement that was intended to protect women, now created a culture that offset the protection of women.
It seems the movement jinxed itself, in so many ways. So what are we left with? I discussed some counter-effects. But what are some basic effects feminism has had on society?
A comprehensive study was done by the University of Pensilvania that found that women's happiness levels have dropped in the last 40 years. You think feminism had something to do with that?
A lot has been written about gender identity issues, and no doubt feminism contributed to this. People are very conscious of, let me say, alternative gender roles, and the confusion it creates. Society says ‘There’s no difference between men and women’. Yet we know that men and women are not the same. They are not physically the same. They are not psychologically the same. Hence the confusion. Look chronologically at recent history. Is it a coincidence that gay consciousness movements have sprung up after feminism has had its run for a couple of decades?
The breakup of the family unit is another effect. Sheila Jeffreys' contemporaries anticipated this, but maybe the ordinary girl, hoisting the banners at a womens lib protest didn’t. Maybe some even thought that by challenging gender identity, couples would be happier. But there is a general sense of dissatisfaction in male-female relationships, otherwise why the sorry statistics?
The answer may lie in the concept of gender polarity and masculine and feminine dynamics. Tantric author David Deida says, “Masculine and feminine aspects exist in all beings. For real passion to occur, there needs to be a ravisher and a ravishee...attraction is based on polarity. All natural forces flow between two poles. The North and South Poles of the Earth create a force of magnetism. The positive and negative poles of a battery create an electrical flow. The masculine and feminine poles between people create a flow of energy in motion.” (Secrets of Mind and Reality)
These tantric concepts come from the east – India. These are old concepts. They come from traditional societies. When I say ‘traditional’, I don’t mean USA 1930. I mean India, no later than 5th century AD.
“The feminine is pure, boundless and infinite energy moving freely without any particular direction. It is directionless but immense, ever changing, beautiful and destructive. The feminine is the force of life and source of inspiration. The feminine moves in all directions, the masculine moves in one direction. The feminine needs the masculine to give it direction, focus and purpose. The masculine needs the energy of the feminine to give it drive and passion. The masculine and the feminine need each other. The masculine directs while the feminine projects. This is the relationship of yin and yang.” (Blog, Evolution of the Male Part I)
These kinds of concepts go against the modern feminist view of men and women. What it says is that both men and women are incomplete in different ways. Attraction is caused because of this incompleteness that identifies the opposite gender as having the qualities you need to be fulfilled. I suspect that by destroying gender, you will also affect this polarity between men and women in a big way.
Ask five different women the question, ‘What do you think of men these days?’ I doubt they would credit the male species with the quality, ‘man’. The response seems more to be ‘Where are the real men?’
Well, ladies, they are probably nearly extinct, and you can say thank you to feminism for that.
Modern society looks down on traditional concepts and values. But more and more it seems that the answers to modern ills lie somewhere in the traditional ancient manuscripts.
Society is advancing, isn’t it? Or not? The more things change, the more they stay the same?
5 comments:
Very well put! I have been saying this for a while that women are trying so hard to be on the same level as men and losing their feminine appeal. Then they wonder where the real men are and the problem is we're right here but they are blinded because the gender roles have become smaller and smaller. How do you treat a women like a women who also wants to be treated like a man?
Very well put! I have been saying this for a while that women are trying so hard to be on the same level as men and losing their feminine appeal. Then they wonder where the real men are and the problem is we're right here but they are blinded because the gender roles have become smaller and smaller. How do you treat a women like a women who also wants to be treated like a man?
You make some very valid points. However, there are civil rights that women deserved long before there was any socioeconomic motivation for investors to create a market for feminism.
SMARTerror: I don't know about the previous generation so much, but the new generations consider the gender confusion as normal. Actually, they aren't even aware of feminism. It's ideas have become so ingrained in our society.
TurboCrusher: I think those civil rights were probably already addressed in the first wave of feminism. Nevertheless, the feminist movement wasn't about women's rights, or equality at all. It was about getting women into the work place, and getting the childrent under federal schooling as soon as possible.
Post a Comment