Baldovin Concept censured on Facebook

(ro- for English scroll down) Baldovin Concept a fost pentru o perioada in imposibilitate de a fi publicat pe Facebook. Probabil ca unii dusmani ai sigurantei femeilor au fost deranjati de articolele scrse aici in ultimul an, si l-au raportat masiv ca spam, desi continutul sau nu contine reclame si nu vinde nimic. La rugamintile mele, dvs. cititorii ati contraraportat ca spatiu sigur care nu incalca standarderele comunitatii, pentru care va multumesc.

Eng- Baldovin Concept was for some time banned to be published on Facebook. Probably some women's security enemies were disturbed by the last year's articles I wrote here and received multiple negative spam reports to Facebook, although its content doesn’t contain advertising or any kind of commerce. But due to my asking for help, you the readers counter-reported this space as safe, not going against the Facebook Community Standards, so I thank you for that.

31 martie 2021

5.7. Ideological problems in the of the “patriarchy”, “patriarch” terms pejorative form

5. The Feminism as a reaction to crimes and emotional abuse against women

5.7. Ideological problems in the of the “patriarchy”, “patriarch” terms pejorative form

This article continues the previous one  

The main feminism theme, either moderate or radical, is the patriarchy. It is described under the unilateral-demonic image that subdues the woman by the abusive and even raping man. In fact, as I have shown in the previous article, the medieval burning witches practice shows that there is some justification for such a thing. As in the case of radical feminist accusations against all men as rapists, the classical society persecuting women as a whole is also exaggerated. In the previous article I described how the Marxism and the feminism tend to idealize the primitive and to demonize the classical society. In the first case, these political currents overlooked the horrible parts and ignored the positive aspects from the other.

In this ideological context, the term "patriarchy" has somehow taken on a different meaning under feminist usage. As we see in the Oxford dictionary, the patriarchy originally referred to the common type of family-based social system in which the man is the "head of the family," that is, the very model of the traditional family. The children bear the father's name and the woman can rarely keep her maiden name after marriage. In the feminist view, the patriarchy, as a social organization, has become a kind of traditional sexism. If we judge with the values of today's traditional society, then we will invariably find sexism there. But in those times the difference between the male and the female activities was consolidated, according to the each sex role in the classical family. In this type of society there was created a traditional and multimillennial gender specialization: the man used to work outside the living space and to bring inside what was necessary for a comfortable living; the woman used to work inside the living space with what the man brought from outside.

Indeed, the traditional patriarchy excluded women from political decisions, as feminists noted. But these decisions were part of male specialization. As others have said, the traditional sexism has been primarily positive, pro-women, that is, an incipient, traditional feminism. Women were delighted not to go to war and not to get involved in building homes or other dangerous, typically masculine activities. The only traumas that the women were exposed to in this lifestyle were those of several births, or the rape. Such an event could affect their future as a result of a fatherless child and generally unwanted by men according to their social status. In the first case they could do nothing. In the second case they could use the head of the family protection, as the father, the brother or the uncle to defend it against such sexual aggressors. The only condition was to stay inside the living space. The feminism says that such a lifestyle is a kind of prison. But if we think about that time fortresses walls, almost the entire classical and primitive lifestyle was a prison. The man had to protect himself from other men attacks in the classical period and from the competing species animals for resources in the primitive period.

Remaining indoor, the women specialized in cooking, cleaning, perfumes, shopping, home decoration and making clothing products, in addition to for keeping eye on children. The modern woman is not far from such a thing either, although it is an insult to recommend her to change her interest towards such a thing if she is interested in masculine activities. For a masculine woman, such a perspective seems like hell, just as it is uncomfortable for men to deal with those activities. But for those who are attracted to giving birth and raising children, such a lifestyle is not bad at all. It brings many benefits. In the classical period when cities were besieged and women had to endure the conquerors rapes, the men were killed by them or marginalized, while women kept their social status if they did not become politically involved. The women "submission" was in fact a kind of neutrality in the struggles of men. As several feminism critics have pointed out, the women's indoor activities specialization is much lesser risky than that of men. The classical man bigger political power was settled according to these risks and with his administrative-economic competences deriving from them.

The traditional sexual specialization has been inevitable for traditional societies

Too radical a gender specialization was inopportune for the human species, as did a constant state of alertness and fear of war with the other hostile communities. The contemporary peace treaties as well as the gender specialization blurring have tempered this masculine-feminine split. Today we judge these things with the contemporary society’s values. But the changes in modern society are bigger than the traditional ones; we have conquered the nature, we have eliminated any rival from other species, and there are peace treaties between most countries. Raping the Western woman is also punishable in Iran and North Korea, even though these countries have not signed cooperation treaties with the West. All these were not possible in the past precisely because the primitive drives were not yet tamed by the civilization. And these impulses have not yet been completely civilized. This is why the women need to take extra precautions against these risks. Much of what contemporary feminists interpret as traditional patriarchal oppression against women was in fact positive discrimination for them in the previous ages. So, in fact, the sexism was originally a traditional protectionism, a classic feminism, as much as it could be at that level of the civilization evolution.

Of course, there were exceptions with men mistreating their wives, using power to abuse. But they have been a negative example in the community ever since. There have been historically recorded court sentences against them. This proves that the abusive practices were not as common as moderate and radical feminists say. The “rape culture”, by which they describe the classical society, is not exactly true as long as rape has been constantly condemned. In addition to the previous article, I also showed in this article the traditional society negative parts  , which are generally abuses against the human rights, whether woman or man. But, as I mentioned in both, the feminists see primitive society in too optimistic colors, as well as they see traditional, patriarchal society in too gloomy colors.

It is easy today to blame from the car wheel the fact that the traditional man forbade the woman to leave the house and held her in the kitchen. But then it was ridden on horseback or in a cart or cart. Let such a radical feminist go one day on the horse saddle or in the calash shaking and then choose where it was most comfortable for the woman! Was it in the house or outside? And that was possible only if the woman was a noble class family member. Otherwise, people walked on rustic roads (there was no asphalt back then), through mud or dust, cold or heat, without proper clothing or footwear. Because, indeed, back then the big clothing and footwear companies did not yet exist and everything was done by hand. And so the clothing was very expensive.

Blaming a social organization specific to a certain historical and technological level is absurd. The paradigm of Kant's pigeon, which is believed to be entangled in air in its ambition to fly higher and faster, fits here as well: without air the pigeon can neither fly nor breathe; in the same way without classical society we cannot have the comforts of modern society. Yes, we can blame the outdated attitudes of repressing the marginalized, left from the traditional society to the contemporary one, which has a different technological level. But it is absurd to blame these behaviors in those moments of evolution of civilization. That means to blame predators for killing the prey they feed on. What was normal then is perceived by modern society as abusive, by the virtue of the mentalities evolution towards a less oppressive and more permissive society. The submissive woman or even the submissive man, as was normal in those days, rarely exists today, as that society remains in the contemporary. The nowadays freedom denies these power cores. It is natural to campaign for the political power reduction for each of us, in order to stop the risk of abusing the weakest, but not to turn the abuses upside down, from woman to man, relying on the supposed woman sanctity who would not fall into this abusing power excess.

The inverted sexism role in the traditional-classical society demonizing

The traditional society blaming Marxism can be seductive, given that the freedoms brought by social evolution were constantly increasing. Then, the traditional, patriarchal society overly blaming by the feminism has a psychopathological explanation. Such an idea comes from the blaming the father, which is generally specific to radical feminism and then spread into the moderate one. Some of them personal experiences as daughters or lovers to such abusive traditional men have created this phobia towards the traditional mentality. Others have a problem with their own discordant perception towards their eccentric sexual orientation, which is then identifiably projected (in the psychoanalytic sense) into the others. If we think about the accusatory superego of these eccentric sexual preferences women from the radical feminism (not all radical feminists have eccentric sexual preferences), such a pejorative terminological meaning makes sense as identification with the aggressor. The basic accusatory father's blame for the (son / daughter in particular) eccentric sexual preferences proves to be an extension of the same prejudice specific to radical feminism that all men / fathers would be rapists. So, we can understand this prejudice deeply embedded in the feminist mentality after the superego self-accusation logic: "you accuse me of being different; I accuse you of being a rapist."

But there are enough women who have experienced the traditional society good side or do not have eccentric sexual impulses that bring guilt feelings. Precisely because of this, the women with a traditional-conservative mentality are the feminism opponents , including the moderate one. From this adversity was born the idea of blaming traditional society and patriarchy as the man external specialization model. However, the matriarchal social organization proposal found more sympathy among the traditional-conservative mentality women, but somehow seduced by the perspective of power.

Patriarchy versus matriarchy in love affairs

As showed here  , I do not support absolute andocracy in the couples construction. The man excessive role in the couple's relationship; the woman exclusion from the decisions regarding the couple and the family is specific to the warrior societies. But, to the same extent, the opposite extreme is not viable either. The women's contribution oversizing to love relationships, as proposed by the radical feminism, is the same abusive tendencies expression that the social dominators usually exercise. Some women inherit and practice them nowadays, as we can see. If in the abusive or violent societies the women were excluded from the couple decisions, on the contrary, the radical feminism wants more or less to exclude men from this equation.

With modern automation, these traditional gender roles, with the outdoor male specialization and indoor female specialization activities, have faded. The modern man does a part of the woman traditional jobs and vice versa. But this does not mean in any case that the modern woman must become a "traditional contemporary" man, or conversely, that the modern man must become a traditional like submissive woman. The radical feminists accuse the traditional-conservative mentality men for medieval behavior and not adapting to contemporary society. But they themselves are drove by the same outdated habits. The original masculine predisposition to diminish the partner role in the couple's relationship is inherited directly by these radical feminists. Leaving the couple construction exclusively to the woman is an opposite pole excess to the traditional excesses. It is natural for both partners to participate in the couple construction, with a slightly bigger contribution from the man, in accordance with his biological status. The male libido inherited by them on the patrilineal line, with (more or less) sadistic drives makes them behave (grandiose) bossy to potential partners, just as patrilineal ancestry behaved with their partners.

The exclusively female courtship initiation theory is a typical manifestation of this radical, sexist feminism, to which some moderate ones might adhere. It practically repeats the Casanova seducers abuses or the clumsy men who offend the woman by too fast emotionally approaching her. I have shown that too direct, too explicit courtship initiation of a woman by an unknown man violates the 4th preceding courtship rule , and the 5th (acceptance) stage  . But, to the same extent, the exclusively female courtship initiation theory violates the 2nd stage (the discreet sign) and the 4th stage (the amorous cultural production). This affects the normal libido of both heterosexual normal women and men because it excludes the man's second stage response and the 4th stage of his submissiveness to the woman's indecision. As the abusive masculinity, the radical feminism tends to abuse the both sexes enhanced biological and traditional cultural behavior.

This is understandable for the eccentric sexual preferences women. I have shown in the articles linked above that those lesbians or disguised prostitutes that are part of the radical feminism core (not all of them) have primarily a purely sexual or financial interest in initiating the courtship or in not being approached by uninteresting proposals. They want to turn upside down the sexuality biology and psychoaffectivity, according to their own libido. The radical feminists want the male role to become as passive as the Casanova men want the role for the woman. They want a doll man, to respond to their commands like a robot. About the same way the Casanova men want from women. They want to just change the sign and the bad sexist tradition, replacing the traditional abusive man with the modern abusive woman. Just as the traditional abusive man imposed his will towards his submissive wife without accepting her answer, in the same way the abusive woman wants to decide everything in the couple relationship. That is why we can say that the radical feminism is an inverted traditional sexism. As mentioned above, this idea is then taken up by moderate feminists in the absence of satisfactory counter-arguments both for themselves and for the wide society.

But, paradoxically, most men agree with such a thing on a phantom level. A woman who comes in a whirlwind and takes care of everything, hangs us unexpectedly on the street, takes us to her house and kidnaps us there is a divine miracle for most of us. Let's look at Per Gessle’s dreams! That's pretty seductive, isn't it?


When Karen Straughan complains about the few men raped by women, trying to fade off the women's grievances about the rape trauma, she does it from a female perspective, not a male one. If the male rapist perspective is hell for most women, on the contrary, the female rapist perspective is heaven itself for most men. There are men who pay prostitutes to play these roles and are desperately looking for a partner with some sadistic pulsions. Unfortunately for them, this is exactly what the radical feminism that supports the exclusively female courtship initiation theory  does not want to do ... There are some nymphomaniac prostitutes who can do such a thing for their own libidinal interest and thus make a living out of their libidinal disorder. But those disguised prostitutes who support the radical feminism (not all the disguised prostitutes are radical feminists) simulate sexual arousal and the intention to control everything in a false relationship with a rich man, who pays a considerable amount at some point for their "service". Until such an occasion, the supposed hot radical feminist seems to be more a sexy bitterness for her social rank men, without any interest in sex playing the female officer…

Even less those lesbians from the radical feminism (not all the lesbians are radical feminists) are willing to play this role. And the histeroid women, who represent the third psychopathological group that supports the radical feminism, are not by nature interested in love relationships. This is exactly the exclusive female courtship initiation main problem, namely that the radical feminism actually does not do it at all… What it is trying to do with this proposal is not the actual courtship but prostitution, revenge and histrionic, pre-genital libido.

There are classical poetic impulses that make normal women resonate with the feminist-radical ideas. The Marxist prejudice of primitive heaven metamorphosed into the feminist prejudice of female heaven. There are enough poets who have described such a thing after falling in love. I have already mentioned in the previous article that some moderate feminists (that sometimes fall into the radical feminism spell even if have no lesbian or steroid psychopathological constitution) are looking for such an experience with a certain unrecognized poet. I will return with arguments in this regard in the other chapter, when I will describe several cases of women who have fulfilled their family and found a suitable partner, and who later give up feminist militancy. In anticipation of a "movies" or as in classical literature love, they try to overlap as faithfully as possible over this image described by those poets already established in the history of literature. For this reason they behave exactly like in their poems descriptions, respectively as goddesses, or as some higher species members, perhaps extraterrestrial. But we must remember that these periods of lucidity loss out of love are still rare. The female Eden Garden withers off after its direct experimentation and even poets have seen this on their own skin…

In the next article I will continue the process of separating the moderate feminism from the Marxism.

Niciun comentariu:
Write comments

Popular Posts