Misty asked me to expand on the idea of Post-Victorian Feminist mythology.
Victorian Literature and the underlying cultural assumptions are the core mythology behind current Western Feminist orthodoxy.
Most people who’ve read much in English Literature are familiar with the Victorian Era, 1837-1901. Queen Victoria did more to shape our American culture today than is easily imagined. Whole books have been written drawing out the ways in which her reign covered a period when all sorts of things came together which changed the world in so many different ways. If you are aware of scholarly movements behind things like Protestant Theology, you realize some of the worst heresies we still suffer came from this period: modern religious liberalism, the denial Scripture is the unique record of God’s revelation, the social work religious movement, Marxist and related theologies, Progressivism (interpreting theology), Zionist Dispensationalism, Protestant fundamentalism, etc. You may be aware of pernicious influences in other fields of study, not least being political theories.
It wasn’t all bad, but the point here is how it collated and solidified a massive layer of social mythology regarding human sexuality. I won’t get bogged down here in details, but it’s the logical culmination of feudalism, the Reformation and basic Germanic pagan mythology. The business of the white knight and Mariolatry gave us the two primary sex types, both so completely false, it’s hard to know where to start.
Thus, while we know Queen Victoria’s isolation in childhood and her mother’s strict legalistic morality are strong influences on her reign, it’s hard to blame her for anything more than keeping the ball rolling in the same direction it was already going, when it would have been the perfect time to stop it and get real.
Some of the things which came to a head during her reign:
1. The extravagant protection and smothering control of childhood: It’s not that prior generations didn’t love their children, but this was extreme, unique in human history. As Western materialism came to a head, the natural human capacity for being otherworldly and hoping for a better future in Paradise (however imagined) was sublimated into vicariously living your paradise through your children. Instead of afterlife above, it was afterlife in the kids. There was no longer any moral investment in the divine, but all one’s energy was in creating a better world for one’s progeny. The primary mark of holiness was embracing prissy middle class virtues, making it the whole point of religion and religious zeal.
2. The moral dominance of women: Men had to strive mightily to become a white knight and maintain it. Women were presumed born virtuous as the Mother of God. Sacred virginity became the symbol of all things good, great and powerful. Women weren’t supposed to like sex, only tolerate it. Their mission in life was to tame their bad boys, including the ones they married. Whatever was a feminine concern was the Word of God, because women were the soul of civilization.
3. Extension of the nest: The model of a woman’s home became the blueprint for all the world at large. Domestic order and prosperity of the sort found in middle class proper homes became the blueprint for national politics and international relations. Meanwhile, the extended family home was broken up, and the nuclear family became the only model for home life. It’s almost shocking how utterly destroyed was the instinct to cling to your roots. To move far away from parents and other kin became a dire necessity of human existence. Thus, instead of your local paternal village council of elder kinsman, your entire nation became your “village” and the national government got directly involved in your personal affairs. Government took the place of family elders.
It’s already obvious how this destroyed human political behavior, but what applies to society at large surely sets the stage for all human interactions, including personal romance. Game is the obvious recovery of sanity in peeling away the layers this Victorian mythology, and we can only hope it lays bare the obvious mistakes in politics, as well. Even in theology it helps, because it exposes the hideous excuses for questioning the old order, not of the feudal structure, but of the more ancient assumptions about reality.
Consider this: Setting aside for the moment the contents of revelation, if your fundamental assumptions about reality make room for divine revelation, it’s hard to describe what a difference it makes compared to a reality organized purely on human perception and logic. The Victorian Era crystallized a resolve to discount and ignore received wisdom from any divine source, not simply the God of the Bible. Whether you agree with that epistemology or not, what we have now is the inevitable result of that tectonic shift in how we approach the task of conceptualizing reality. Could we visit a parallel universe where the various cultural inputs were changed, I seriously doubt the fundamental assumptions of feminist mythology would be so very different.
Take away the fear of divinity, and you will have a feminist political and social system of some sort. The basic wiring of men and women are that different.
Addenda: Vox offers a short list of what all this has gotten us today. I paraphrase:
- Women reject accountability for their words and actions.
- Women are more demanding and difficult to family and freinds than with complete strangers.
- Women whine about men, then chase the most available alphas, who are jerks.
- Women demand more of others than themselves.
- Women demand laws giving them advantages and call it “sexual equality.”
In response to an offline question, perhaps I should make it more obvious about one thing. When young fellows are coming of age, most are self-neutered by adopting the feminist social propaganda. They become deltas and gammas, etc. In order to maintain any manhood, if they don’t actually understand the truth on some level, they end up having to rebel against society. Typically that means taking the only path open — being a jerk, a predator, etc. Thus, the majority of fellows who arrive at adulthood with their manhood intact are very likely bad boys of one stripe or another.
Women demand white knights, honestly believe they want them, yet hate them. Women chase alphas because that’s what their wiring responds to, and most of the alphas they encounter are jerks. Most women have no idea why they do this, even deny doing it. This is the Post-Victorian Feminist woman.
That is the best summation of Victorian feminism I’ve read in a long time.
You would know, Robert! Your approval is weighty and gratifying.
Pingback: Battling Your Boys « Do What's Right
I don’t entirely agree with the premise that #2 (“the moral dominance of women”) is attributable to the Victorian era or, in fact, any other phony construct. In fact, I recall reading many books by the Founding Fathers (who predated the Victorian era by decades, obviously) where they would frequently speak of women and about women in this manner. As just one small example, I recall George Washington writing something like, “In romance, men are the hunters, women are the game, and civility acts as the rules of the contest.” or something like that. Benjamin Franklin said that men need women’s “softness and subtle discernment” to be whole, is another small example.
Separately, I wanted to refer the author (and anybody else) to this create three-part history of modern feminism by Harmony Dawes: http://www.truthtellers.org/alerts/FemiCommunismPt1.html
She illustrates how modern feminism was crafted, financed, and maintained almost 100% by Jewish women, from Betty Friedan to Gloria Steinem to virtually any other influential feminist in recent times.
David, it’s all of the above and much more. I simply singled out the Victorian influence as it was, and I didn’t intend to make it seem the sole source of trouble. Rather, Victorian literature and culture added a higher degree of ubiquity in the myth.
Oh, I see. Well, if it’s a matter of degree, then I’ll defer to your judgment on the subject, since I don’t have any great knowledge of 19th century American culture, nor even much of a control to contrast it with. So I’ll agree with you on trust.
I’m also firmly of the belief that, because of the bizarre plummeting in testosterone of men in the past 30 years (as numerous studies have demonstrated), and also presumed similar biochemical abnormalities occurring in men (see: American men needing Viagara to make love), that women aren’t sufficiently excited and inspired by men. Because men are more docile and subservient now, women have less incentive to appeal to men’s manly nature.
Not to be too crude, but I remember a French Canadian woman once saying (candidly), “Sometimes a woman just needs to be forcefully f—–.” (Kind of like how Rhett Butler treated Scarlett O’Hara when she was getting too hysterical.) Now, I think that sentiment is applicable beyond just sex. Women need to see men building, dreaming, striving, and working. This inspires them to be better. But when men are effeminate, limp (not just sexually!), and docile – like all these fat, disgusting men attending “support the troops” grovel-fests and such – women are not sufficiently inspired to be the more moral and discerning actors that they are in their nature.
I guess this is my long-winded, rant-like way of saying that I believe there is an immediate biological cause for the seemingly perverted relationship between the sexes in modern day America. The cultural (feminist) components could well be secondary to that, but yet receiving all the blame.
Quite so, David. The larger issue is too complex for a simple blog post to cover all the bases. I’ve covered the environmental pollution which attacks testosterone in other posts, and several other cultural problems. Yes, manhood is under attack from all sides, and it ruins it for everyone.
I watched my father and father-in-law under too much control from their wives. I vowed never to be in that position. I embraced the advice my past spiritual mentor gave me about marriage. The man is the General. The woman is the Command Master Sergeant. He says, take that hill. She says, this is what its going to cost and this is how we will do it. Stragtegy/tactics. He provides. She executes.
I worked for a little while with a dozen men and two women. One day one of the women was berating the other eleven to their face when I walked in. She quipped that they were all p***ys when she spied me new in the room and laughed nervously, amending herself by pointing to me, saying, not you.
Both my mom and MIL have asked my wife why she can’t control me. Its been 33+ years of trying. I’m kinda proud of that.
During a very big argument, but civil, with a woman at work, hard as nails, swore like a sailor, I threw her completely off her game during a nanosecond lull in the fireworks. With the whole work area as witnesses I smiled, moved close to her and told her that if I weren’t married already she’d make a wonderful prospect. Stunned silence ensued. Using the silence for dramatic effect I finally said I would marry her so that I could retrain her in about six months time. The fireworks continued as before. But we became good friends.
I have many more stories of parry and thrust with the fairer sex.
All that to say I am perrenially perplexed by this gender difficulty.
Good job. We are different men who would use different methods for the same results. These days I consider the fireworks just background noise, a hazard of the job. I haven’t worked in that sense in quite a while. Instead, I face some of the same challenges with my neighbors (in an isolated trailer park). I’m quite active in trying to stay connected with them, helping and creating a real community. So I am surrounded with people who suffer all sorts of crazy Post-Victorian assumptions, but I am aware of no one who dislikes me, despite disliking each other sometimes. So far, none of them puzzle me in how they act; it seems mostly predictable.
Pingback: ACBM: Part 1 Chapter 6 | Do What's Right
Pingback: Quantum Game | Do What's Right