The Paradox of Feminist Power: How Feminism Both Demeans and Demands Male Power.

It’s been a matter of habit for conservatives and the White Right to bemoan the demasculinizing effect of feminism. Conservative white men have long condemned the castrating effect of feminist ideology. Many suspect feminism’s goal is to stunt the natural growth of young boys into hardy men, to feminize men in general, to degrade masculine virtues and principles, and to purge the academic curriculum of values and activities amenable to the virtues of manhood.

Of course, there is much truth to these charges, especially when it comes to the world of Northern Europeans, particularly the Scandinavian types in both Europe and northern parts of the America. When life was cold and brutal in Scandinavia long ago, the men had to be extra tough and hardy to survive and take care of their clans and families. But once economic and technological advancement came to the northern parts, people could be comfortable without acting like Vikings or Gustavus Adolphus. And since Scandinavia was cold and dark for most of the year, there wasn’t much for the men to do except stay indoors and attend to domestic chores close to their wives and daughters. Also, the cold climate made Scandinavians emotionally and mentally focused on single tasks; when they were into acting like barbarians and warriors, they could be single-mindedly ruthless in their aggressions and plunder, as the Vikings were. Such single-mindedness made Scandinavians conducive to the spartan hardiness of Lutheranism and puritanical moralism. Once Scandinavians lost their religion, their single-mindedness turned to the new religion of the era, the secular faith of social-progressivism, and this accounts for Sweden’s leading the way with its dourly humorless policy of elevating women at the expense of men and in opening the doors to vast numbers of Africans and Muslims and indulging in interracism. And such mind-sets can also be found in places like Minnesota that was largely settled by Scandinavian-Americans. Whether conservative or liberal, Scandinavians tend to be single-minded in their commitment and devotion; they have a tunnel vision of what-is-to-be-done. In the modern era, Liberal Scandinavians have won the culture war as conservative types never seem to engage much in intellectual or cultural affairs. You can’t win if you don’t get into the ring. The Right speaks of the culture war but provides no troops for the good fight since it has no use for arts, ideas, and culture, at least not for the creation of new expressions and propositions. Thus, what goes by the name of Right-wing culture has only been defensive. It relies on established truisms and traditions. To go on the offensive — at least in the modern world — , one’s side must create NEW ideas and culture — even if essentially repackaging of old ideas — to hurl at the enemy. This was the brilliance of Fascism and National Socialism for they repackaged the Right as a force of modernity that looked forward than backward. Unfortunately, Hitler decided to look eastward than forward, bringing about WWII and the destruction of not only Germany but the modern right.

Anyway, most feminism in America isn’t like the one practiced in Sweden. On the one hand, it is true that feminism has a demasculinizing effect on boys in general. Feminists have often denigrated ‘manly’ things as aggressive, violent, cruel, barbaric, oppressive, ruthless, and hostile. Some feminist educators, allied with castrated male counterparts, want to degrade the spirit of competition in schools. Some schools don’t even keep count of the score, and sports games end with both sides as ‘equal winners’ or some such. We can recount a whole litany of examples of the feminist war on manhood to fill up hundreds of pages.

But there are two sides to the feminist coin. Paradoxically, feminism also has had the effect of exaggerating and magnifying masculinity, machismo, and male dominance, if only selectively. When the pioneering radical feminists in the 60s and 70s were making the social climb, most of their ranks did rail against the aggressive tendencies of maleness. Many attacked capitalism as not only male-dominated but as the instigator and perpetrator of male dominance since capitalism was supposedly all about dog-eat-dog ruthless competition than about cooperation and sharing. Ironically, to an extent, this view had a certain parallel with the conservative male view that women, being the fairer and gentler sex, weren’t fit for the game of capitalist competition. Pat Buchanan, for one, said as much. It would be like dogs competing with wolves. Where feminists and Buchanan disagreed was that the former thought women were equally capable of being just as determined, competitive, and aggressive, but some of the Sisters thought that women shouldn’t follow down such a path as they would only be participating in the patriarchal and imperialistic system that exploits people all over the world.
Also, many of these early feminists were ugly Jewesses and hags of other groups, and they were filled with envy of prettier women who made it with their sex appeal and looks. So, feminists attacked Hollywood and the porn industry as ‘sexist’ and raised their daughters with something like neo-puritanical ethos that shunned the ‘beauty myth’. As Carole King sang, she was proud to be a ‘natural woman’ who looked like she hadn’t showered in a week nor brushed her hair. (She wrote some great songs though.)
But in time, the communist world imploded(and socialism in general came to be discredited — unless one worked in the academia), and neo-liberalism came to be embraced by the entire spectrum of ‘progressives’, including feminists. And with the rise of MTV culture, the boomer generation of feminists found their daughters rebelling and demanding the right to be appealing to boys. Their girls wanted to be sexy, dress like madonna, and be liked by boys.
Also, if the early feminists found the female sex symbol in the media to be enslaving — not least because the movie and TV industries were dominated by men — , attitudes changed as lots of women began to work in the upper echelons of the entertainment industry. And as they made a lot of money, they began to live THE SEX AND THE CITY lifestyle. If early feminists saw the idealized images of female sex symbols to be manipulative and controlled by men — as in STEPFORD WIVES — , later feminists grew up with equal access to power in every industry and sector and came to prize sexiness as a powerful asset. Early feminists believed that many women had been forced to rely primarily on their sex appeal since so few avenues of power were open to them. Thus, they came to fallaciously associate sex appeal with male domination.
But as women gained great power in the 80s and 90s, they came to see sex appeal as an additional weapon in their arsenal of power. As women comfortable with their feminine sex appeal, they naturally sought out men with masculine sex appeal. A woman could be a power player AND a sex symbol, whereas early feminists believed that a woman had to choose one or the other: to play the game, you couldn’t be a dame. But later feminists came to realize that they could play the game and still be the dame. Sexiness, which had once seemed to be owned by men, now came to be a weapon of women themselves.

But more importantly, the new feminists came to demand more from life. They got good jobs and money and lots of freedom. The won high positions and accolades. And so many opportunities were availed to them. Also, powerful women in the entertainment industry had to admit that sex appeal was very profitable, and they weren’t going to sacrifice billions in profits out of some ideological fixation to early outdated feminism(of struggle than enjoyment).

Feminism went from struggle for freedom and power to taking freedom and power for granted(and seeking the hedonistic joys that accompanies freedom and power). Once women had the power, they demanded more pleasure, and of course, one of the biggest and most powerful kinds of pleasure is sex. And women find their biggest pleasure in the arms of big, tall, muscular, and big-penised men. For women to find true liberation and happiness, why should they be denied the ultimate pleasures in sex? And to find such pleasure, women demanded muscular studs with big puds than dorks like Pee Wee Herman.
Thus, there is the paradox at the core of feminism. On the one hand, it attacks male power to make room for more female power. It rails against male domination and aggression and makes a case for ever more opportunities and equality for women. And yet, women with lots of power and freedom discover those assets can afford them lots of riches and pleasures of life. Women want the fruits of power, which are happiness and pleasure. And for many women, the biggest pleasure comes from sexual relations with macho men. If a rich and powerful woman craves great sexual pleasure and if she could choose to have sex with any man, would it be with a dork or a stud? The stud, of course. Thus, feminism came to prize the value of the macho stud. It’s like if you are rich and can afford to eat anything, would you eat something delicious and fancy or something cheap and coarse? (Personally, I’ll take a cheeseburger over some fancy dining any day.)

And this neo-feminist desire for macho studs even became ideologically feasible since black men are the most muscular, most powerful, and biggest-penised studs on the planet. While a macho white man might carry the stigma of the ‘white male chauvinist oppressor’, a Negro stud, no matter how rough and tough, has about him the aura of holy eternal victim-hood stemming from the Cult of Jim Crow. Consider the film HAPPINESS by Todd Solondz where a very attractive and sexy ‘liberated’ and free-and-independent modern woman keeps a black stud as her sex mate. She is a gorgeous babe with lots of money and freedom, and she wants the maximum in sexual pleasure. Indeed, she demands it. The final product of feminist liberation lusts after powerful masculinity. (And consider the scene in SPARTACUS where a rich Roman woman swoons over the big mighty Negro played by Woody Strode. If she had the power and freedom to choose any man to do her, it’ll likely be such a Negro than some white guy.)
Rich and powerful men all over the world desire tall and buxom blonde women, and they use their money to acquire and enjoy such women. Today, in a world with so many rich and powerful women, they too have the freedom and choice to hire and enjoy the ultimate pleasure with super macho males, and often, these males are black. Feminism made it possible for women to grow rich and powerful. And rich and powerful women want maximum sexual pleasure, no less than rich and powerful men do. Think of all the rich and powerful Arab men who hire blonde women to suck their whankers. Similarly, rich and powerful women get it on with Negro studs. Consider madonna with her Negro studs porking her every orifice. Of course, not all rich and powerful women indulge in such things. For one thing, there aren’t enough trustworthy Negro males to serve as safe mates for most successful women. And it’s risky for rich and successful women to form dalliances with dangerous street Negroes who might act violent.  Also, some successful white women only want to enjoy Negro studs as something like their stable of horses. The Negroes are seen as animals to ride than long-term mates to settle down with. Notice even madonna didn’t marry a Negro though a whole bunch of them porked her in every hole. So, a rich white woman might sow her wild oats by having affairs with a bunch of Negro men but eventually settle down with a more reliable white guy.
Since blacks are seen as a ‘victim group’, black men, far more than white men, can get away with their machismo. If some white guy acts to macho, he could be attacked for his male domination, but if a black guy does the same — or even more — , his ‘uppitiness’ and ‘in your face-ness’ can be lauded as an example of a black man re-establishing his manhood(within the hoary historical context of having been forced shuck and jive as a ‘boy’ under the tyranny of the white man).

White conservative males may hate feminism for being anti-male and anti-masculine, but there is a side to feminism that lusts after machismo, as long as it’s within the power and choice of the woman to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’. Besides, the rise of masculinism doesn’t favor all races equally. It favors the more masculine race over the less masculine race. If women desire the macho men, they will favor the Negro man over the white man and favor the white man over the short Mexican or geeky Asian man. If white men were the toughest, most muscular, and biggest-penised men in the world and if feminists lusted after studs, white men would win the game of sexual competition. But as Negro men are considerably more muscular than the white men — and in many cases bigger penised — and can ‘sing and dance better’, the female/neo-feminist desire for sexual pleasure with the super stud favors the Negro.
In our ‘vagina monologue’ culture, feminists are encouraged to speak openly about their raw sexual desires. In the past, when such things were considered vulgar and unbecoming, a lot of girls talked about how ‘cute’ guys were and how they were after romance. But new feminism encourages women to talk about sex, sex, and sex — and those who don’t are accused of espousing repressed neo-Victorian ‘abstinence’ — , and all such talk about sex naturally revolves around ‘my boyfriend has a bigger dick than yours’, and ‘I had the biggest orgasm in my life with a guy whose dick is so big’. As one white female at work once told me, she had the biggest orgasm with a Negro whose penis was so big that she felt she was being ‘fuc*’ed in the spine. When I was a teenager in the 80s, most girls didn’t talk like this, and someone going with a Negro was seen as somewhat strange. With such talk now so common among young women who espouse new feminism, girls without boyfriends with huge muscles and big whankers feel left out. They feel cheated in life of the sexual pleasures that should be the ‘right’ of every liberated woman seeking pleasure. Every woman wants his Negro Heathcliff. Indeed, a new British version of WUTHERING HEIGHTS has a Negro in the role. And a whole bunch of British women are going with Negroes. And one of the favorite reading material among feminists is THE AWAKENING by Kate Chopin about a middle class white woman who has a fling with a mulatto or something and is finally ‘awakened’, presumably by his mega-penis. Thus, feminism, especially neo-feminism, rebels not so much against big strong alpha males as against beta-males who have used their institutional power to keep women under their control. After all, patriarchy wasn’t so much the rule of men over women as the rule of older and/or institutional men over younger and rougher men. A patriarchal system favors the older men and diligent brainy men over rough-and-tumble men with huge muscles and big penises(though, to be sure, Jewish men are both brainy/diligent and possessed of big fat whankers). Thus, under patriarchy, many women had to remain loyal to their older or beta-husbands as such a social system had a way of keeping wilder and younger studs in their place; the Rule of Law and social customs favored the diligent worker-bee-husband over the wild thug-stud. Many women felt imprisoned in such a social system and hungered to be carried away by the wild stud who would ravage her and liberate her with a mega-orgasm. (But then, judging by the Japanese film such as UGETSU, men too have had fantasies of abandoning domestic obligations and going off with the woman of their dreams. And in SAMSON AND DELILAH, the Jewish strongman even unwittingly betrays the people of his own tribe, especially the homely but loyal Jewish girl, all because he can’t resist the charms of a Philistine shikse who looks like Hedy Lammarr, who ironically enough, was really Jewish.) The theme is there in Jane Campion’s stupid PIANO too, where a white woman rebels against her diligent white husband and goes off with a man who has gone ‘native’. Of course, middle class white women could indulge in such fantasies because they could take for granted the comforts of bourgeois life provided by their diligent husbands who may not have been super-studs but worked hard to keep society running and orderly. It’s like children often find their parents oppressive and dream of going off with outlaws and freaks to find freedom, but such fantasies are possible because of the comforts of home.
Still, if a woman was married to some dullard and stuck in a boring middle class home, we can imagine why she might have longed for ‘liberation’ in the arms of a ‘pirate type’ like Fabio. We can understand why Diane Keaton’s character in MRS. SOFFEL goes off with the outlaw character played by Mel Gibson. Sexual desire is funny that way. And of course, white men had something of a similar problem. Consider how, in THE BOUNTY, Mel Gibson’s character rebels against the uptight character played by Anthony Hopkins. Gibson’s character has status and respect and enjoys the privileges of the British social system, but having fallen for a tropical hottie, he feels truly liberated for the first time and is willing to give up everything for love and lust. So, the likes of John Milius wants to lord over the tropical ladies who would suck his warrior penis, and the likes of Jane Campion wants to surrender to the natural dominance of Maori warrior studs. So, you see, there is a paradoxical link between ultra-masculinism and ultra-feminism.

Given the nature of racial differences, old feminism was actually better for white male than the current feminism is. Old feminism tended to be puritanical. It attacked female sex symbols and was hostile toward machismo in general. But new feminism came to embrace the sex symbol as ‘empowering’ and fun, and once power and wealth flowed easily to women, they wanted and demanded the pleasure that comes with the power. And since sexuality is one of the great pleasures of life — especially as the needs of housing, food, clothing, and food have been met for most modern people — , feminist women today demand top studs to pump and hump their orifices. Look at all the feminists who shake and pump their booties to rap music by Negroes and who drip with vaginal juice at the sight of Negro football and basketball players who dominate the sporting fields.  So, white males lose to feminism’s attack on male power(generally white male power), neo-feminism’s demand for sexual pleasure with super studs(who happen to be Negroes), and to masculinism’s favoring the stronger Negro over the soft white boy. Unless white males face these facts of racial differences and work together to save their own race, they will be finished in a few generations. But Jews control the minds of white women and also have so many white men — conservative as well as liberal — by the balls.

The future of the white male: