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.

30 aprilie 2021

5.8. The feminism can live separated from the Marxism

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

5.8. The feminism can live separated from the Marxism

As several critics have noted and as I mentioned in some previous articles, the radical feminism has somehow "borrowed" some Marxism prejudices. I analyzed in the previous article the primitive tribes’ matriarchal organization prejudice, which is actually meant to avoid incest but not to maintain the supposed primitive women superior political power over men. In addition, the general feminism was seduced by other Marxist prejudices and adapted them to its ideology. For example, the Marxism "class struggle" has become under feminism the "sexist struggle"; it substituted the Marxism exploitative bourgeoisies with men in general. The result was a kind of inverted sexism Marxism, after which 99% of women would be "good" and 99% of men would be "bad." This is how it came up the idea that 99% of men are abusers and rapists (or even all, according to some). This idea comes directly from the Marxist theory that all employers are law breakers or immoral.

By changing the Marxism bourgeoisies for "patriarchy", the radical feminists thus brought out the same political current, with the same resentment tendencies. Well, just as it happens with the "primitive heaven" which loses its magic after being directly experienced, so it does with closely known communism. The communists removed experienced people from their positions and replaced them with amateurs, insufficiently trained and incompetent. The private initiative eradication by the Marxist policies has led to the economic stagnation and terror. Then, in their blind permanent revolution, they continued the "hunt for capitalists" among their own comrades, as was the case with Stalin, who thus eliminated his rivals for the Communist Party leadership out of this kind of suspicions of betraying communist ideals. This is the picture in which the radical feminism “matriarchy dictatorship" frames into by blaming all men as rapists and emotional abusers. The radical feminism thus risks repeating the same Marxism political errors on the sexist level. Instead of identifying the social profiteers or major sex offenders, they carry an ideological microscope with which they observe a false sexual harassment or a false misogyny in jokes or innocent gestures made by men.

The moderate feminism is thus influenced by the radical one to resume the Marxism political problems (communist dictatorship). Of course, the radical feminism is a minority; its followers are few but it is worth showing here what risks the moderate feminism assumes if it is seduced by this rhetoric. The moderate feminism can exist without this "dictatorship of the matriarchy ", as a sexist form of Marxism that proposed the "dictatorship of the proletariat". This is why I want to point it on the moderate feminists’ attention, with whom I empathize and to whose ideology I subscribe, to the risks they are subjected to, without a more critical analysis of certain radical ideas that seduce them in a way or another.

The mistaking patriarchy with the slavery

The radical feminism main theoretical problem is that they interpret the today's civilization social neo-slavery as male oppression. But the patriarchy is not a big society’s problem, as feminism in general considers, nor the Orthodox Church Patriarchate. The human society’s problem is the war and slavery practiced by the classical warriors, as still the basic institution of the so-called civilized society functioning. Even though fewer citizens are directly involved in the weapons handling, the war threats still affect us all day by day in and hour after hour. In the modern era, the slavery has been given a false aspect of free trade between the one who orders and the one who executes the orders, as I have shown here   . Instead of the slavery threats of beating or death, we have now the by senses harassing slavery for extra consumption, which has led to the mental disorders modern explosion among the population.

I have constantly said in my texts that the traditional culture is an artificial consent abuse culture. This false consent was artificially snatched from both men, by recruiting into a hierarchy, and women, by the pressure to accept love affairs. But, on the other hand, the traditional society has also meant an evolution from a violence or robbery culture to that of natural consent, and courtship rules show exactly that. The general feminism has described this type of society by the "rape culture" phrase.


The "rape culture" theory with which the general feminism characterizes the traditional society is the direct expression of inverted sexism. It excludes men from this trauma machine, because men were much less raped than women. As they were told many times, the abusive or honest men were also victims of these initial abuses in order to create them a predisposition to execute orders. But the strong ones abuses against the weak are not only sexual by nature, but also the hierarchical subordination or instinctual harassment one, through advertising messages. This type of abuses victims can be both women and men.

The strongest men suffering caused to the weakest is far bigger than the sexual crimes and the emotional abuses against women; raping women has a mirrored in death itself, for men. The number of women burned at the stake on charges of witchcraft is much lower than the number of men killed in the wars. The modern wage slavery abuses are bigger for men than for women. The murderous sadists produce fewer casualties than the modern work accidents, in which the majority of those who lose their lives are men. The missing women number, probably killed by sadists, is much lower than the general deaths among men. There is a whole debate on this subject in the West, regarding the suffering degree that the rape has towards women in relation to that produced by men by the masters or conquerors of new territories.

For an objective, non-sexist society critique

Of course, as I personally mentioned in this text and as other theorists said, the women did not care about this issue, due to the pact between warriors to protect women and children, or the modern mentality that the women should have a job easier than the men. All these facts are feminist demands that the traditional, "patriarchal" society has adopted at the cultural level, during the civilization evolution. From a female point of view, the rape is the only negative aspect of this warrior culture, given that the warriors made this early pact for the protection of women and children. Even today, the main traumas suffered by women are sexual by nature. Otherwise, their lives are protected from the traumas to which most men are usually exposed, according to their traditional specialization. In order to avoid the reversed sexism, the warrior societies of the past or those exclusively profit-oriented specific to modern era, should simply and comprehensive be characterized by the feminism under the " abuse culture" formula and not only by that of the "rape culture". Such a sexist-reversed attitude tends not to give a damn about male suffering.

Equally, the profit that some women gain from this abuse culture should not be overlooked. The war was also practiced in the primitive, supposedly matriarchal society, even if without a slavery social system. Most of the new slave owners are men, indeed. But there are also women who benefit from this social system criminal convenience that convinces one part of society to execute the orders of others. Believing that belonging to the female sex * absolves them from the guilt of supporting the current system is a comfortable naivety. It comes from the guilt of participating in this oppressive system in which we live, projected exclusively on men. Excluding women from this state of affairs, as feminism in general does, is a typical reverse sexism manifestation. It is based on the deep mind perception, which I mentioned in the previous article, that the father (patriarch) would be bad and the mother would be good. This theme of good and bad parents has been described in detail by the psychoanalysis.

The radical feminism proposes replacing the traditional abuses with the modern ones, just as the communist dictatorships became popular because they promised to set free the wage slave (the worker). As I said in the previous articles, the contemporary lifestyle, like the primitive one, is rendered in far too optimistic colors, compared to the classic, traditional one. But, if we look more closely, we will see that the "mess" was only swept under the carpet, not exactly solved. Indeed, the "modern family" no longer needs a man to fix things in the house or household. Today there is a steward, a bricklayer, a plumber, a cleaner, and so on, who comes and does this in exchange for money. The family no longer needs an abusive father, but the abuses have moved to the new type of slavery, the wage slavery. Those plumbers, stonemasons, bricklayers or cleaners used for a time for the interests of a few such "modern families" will come home tired and frustrated and point their frustration on their families. And this will eventually lead to its destruction, the loneliness and antisocial acts. So the modern society solution of patriarchy “repairing” actually only hides the problem and sends it into the future.

This is the main point of disagreement that I have with most feminists in general. Some of them have a Marxist vision about the evolution of humanity towards moral and political perfection, considering history as a process of "liberation" the marginalized. I also support the individual freedom and getting out of despotism. I also blame the classical slavery. But, unlike them, I believe that the classical society means not only empires (slaves), but also free zones that could live in freedom most of the time. The 19th century bourgeoisie and the contemporary capitalism mean not only abuses, but also mentality evolution through the very technological evolution that conditioned it. Any technological initiative could not be made in history without the male specialization outside the living space, just as the species itself could not be promoted without the female specialization inside it. The traditional patriarchy cannot be equated with the classical slavery and the empires that practiced it, but with the traditional specialization of gender itself. Except for the issues listed above, I believe that these communities have been the standard for peaceful coexistence and the very civilization values consolidation. And these communities had a patriarchal organization.

Yes, the classical society has abused its people, both women and men. To blame its patriarchy actually means to blame the entire technology and civilization that men in particular have created through gender specialization. Personally, I am a great opponent of the traditional abuses that are still practiced today in the contemporary society, by default. But when appeared in history, they represented that specific technological and cultural level. Yes, the contemporary civilization has its problems. Yes, the cities are overcrowded and we feel uprooted from the way we lived thousands of years ago, for millions of years. Yes, the human civilization is still eugenic, practicing the marginalized ones discreet elimination. Yes, the human civilization is gradually poisoning the planet. Yes, the ever-expanding human civilization is destroying wildlife and endangering the rest of the species. There are painful things to be solved in the future. But these horrors are totally accepted by the primitive mentality. Except for the practiced from inside eugenics, done out of the confrontation with the rival species, all these are every species ideals of development. It is the very civilization that has made us change our mind about the primitive mentality. The rape, the sadistic passionate women killing and the emotional abuse are also contemporary society big problems to be solved in the future. But not through the past. The past alternative solving to these problems is the direct fight with rival species, which is much more traumatic than rape.

These are the main points of disagreement I have with the moderate feminism and especially with the radical one. With the first I have much more in common. And I also feel the specific to the psychopathologist empathy regarding the radical one, despite the criticisms coming from my sociological, political, psychological or legal moral beliefs. For this reason and from my predilection for scientific objectivity, I will also highlight in the next article the radical feminism good parts including in the errors I have criticized so far.

* Some feminists themselves have a prepsychological mentality that they project and then criticize it in the traditionalists, according to which gender is dictated by the genitals. From this prejudice they deduce that there are as radical differences between women and men as the two organs look different. Psychology has dismantled this myth long time ago. So, having female genitals, they consider that they would be automatically different from masculinity. But, as can be seen, they are very masculine in vehemence, pouring their masculinity into this kind of militancy.

Niciun comentariu:
Write comments

Popular Posts