Upon reading the article, “Feminism: Destroying America,” by Alan Stang, I engaged in the following debate with the author about his work…
Rayn: I came across your article on the internet and agreed with it up until you hit the part about feminism. I have recently noticed a growing trend of male authors writing about the social downfall created by feminism (i.e. www.savethemales.ca). While it is refreshing to see that men are finally noticing that the values of women and men were attacked in the USA during the 50s and 60s (with advent of Playboy Magazine to devalue women to men and the second “feminist” movement to devalue women to other women), it is disheartening to have this argument then morph into a lesson on how women are in some way spiritually weaker than men. While you get close to the truth, you fall short of having a hearty message because you fail to see the bigger picture. Your insights, whether intentional or accidental, only seek to further the concepts of groupthink as reigning supreme over the rights of the individual.
Please hear me out because I do not seek to insult you, rather I wish to enlighten you to a larger truth that most seems to be overlooking for now. You see, the family problem you are describing should more accurately be called “neo-feminism,” since the true spirit of feminism was based on fighting for suffrage, which, unlike this “upkeep-of-family-as-slavery” neo-feminism, truly had the merit of being a Creator-given right to speak out against having no individual voice, and as such proved that women deserved a speaking role in politics and all other arenas that directly affected their lives.
Think about the true story of the Iron-Jawed Angels. They were women, who, because they were single, had no say whatsoever in politics. It had been argued for years that a woman’s vote was accounted for through her husband’s vote. This created a huge problem for women who were not desirable for marriage by men, women who were not inclined to marry, women who were divorced, women students who planned to marry after a studies were finished, etc. Like Ghandi, they committed themselves to their cause and used passive resistance in the form of food refusal when they were jailed for protesting outside of federal property while the USA was at war. Eventually, they became very malnurished and were painfully force-fed via nose tube. However, truth prevailed, as they were so righteous in their cause, and had faith, that they held steadfast and eventually gained victory. They didn’t play nice; they played smart with strong hearts. They sacrificed themselves, literally, so that others would gain. They had convictions – the likes of which we have failed to see since!
And make no mistake: the Iron-Jawed Angels were fought by the so-called “feminists” of their day, who attempted to quash their message under the premise that it was too much, too soon, and that there was also a war happening, so it wasn’t the time. There is no other time in history where the rights of women were truly being sought out. The only time that even comes close is during the civil-rights movements of the 1960’s, when women wanted the right to be given the industry standard’s pay, like all working-class citizens. However, they showed no conviction in this cause, as they did not prevail. Today’s statistics prove it. No equal pay for equal work. The most likely reason is because this particular movement was nerfed in the lies that fueled the destruction of the “nuclear family,” which had already been diluted from the initially-assailed “extended family.” The lies I refer to are that women are not whole until they, like men, slave for the industry – and, that keeping family and home is an unrewarding job. Any so-called feminist movement that does not strive for the rights of the individual based on the guiding light of the Creator’s Laws can be referred to as either “pre-feminism” or “neo-feminism.” Real “feminism” would more accurately be desribed as a movement in which females decide that individuality is a Creator-given right, and that blind groupthink cannot overrule it.
Now, in regards to the issue of playing nice already, I believe it already has a better name: “political correctness” or “self-censorship” (or as I like to call it, “PC bullsh*t”). Politics and government in practice are based on lies and deception. The Constitution makes that clear. It’s pattern of checks-and-balances reeks of the inherent mistrust that our “Founding Fathers” had for organized goverment in action. Therefore, “political correctness” is a politician-created and government-sponsored project and an oxymoron – lies and deception can never be considered “correctness.” And, those who wish to “play nice” with the goverment, such as Big Business, Bigger Business and Mainstream Media, as well as individuals, are considered the orchestrators of this concept on a national scale and as a national anthem.
We are human beings first, with indivisible individual rights, but these man-made industries would have us believe that we are all actual potential or imaginary CEOs and must therefore be very careful with our words so as not to disrupt our already gained assets, or even possibly bring our whole business down. We are asked to pretend that each one of us is a many-faced individual and must therefore act accordingly. We must speak and act in a way that satisfies that whole instead of our soul. These companies have widdled away at our family structure – our source of individuality – because it is a threat to the man-made industry created by them. They know it’s power because it is that same power that they harness in order to rule over us in the first place. If we lived with Grandma, Grandpa, Uncle, Aunt, Brother, Sister, like in the old times, we wouldn’t need to buy all of these appliances and individually-packaged food for our homes. As a matter of fact, married couples wouldn’t need to have to strive for their own individual homes and cars. We wouldn’t need all of this therapy, because we’d have our wise older people still with us, instead of in nursing homes. They have forced us to out-source our individually-based families and all of the possible rewards offered by its structure for a convenience-based industry of planned obsoletion and poison. And, it seems like their favorite methods of achieving this are two things: forcing people to choose between two good things and then eliminating the one that isn’t chosen as if it were bad. And, as an alternative, forcing people to choose between two bad things as if they are the only choices available, and then declaring that our forced response was actually what we wanted in our hearts.
So, you see, any movement may be based on or devolve into this politically-correct nightmare. All it takes is a few people propagating groupthink mentality to their peers while under the assumption that it is better to satisfy the whole at the expense of the few or, more precisely, the individual.
Homosexuality, which you incidentally also mention as a destructive force along with feminism, is a perfect example of what I am getting at. Morality aside, if there were no socially pre-assigned gender roles, than a number of so-called “homosexual” people wouldn’t feel that their failure to conform to one gender means that they are actually a member of the opposite gender, and must choose a mate, accordingly. We are individuals first, and bodies second. Individuals were made to rule over nature; nature was not made to rule over the individual. Everything females do as individuals define what is feminine. Everything males do as individuals is masculine. The words do not define the people – the people define the words. We are organic. Rules and traditions are not meant to bind us. They are the will of the last generation imposed on the next. The last generation held them true because they were actually true at the time. When their time passed and they ceased being true, tradition took over to keep them in place. When done by choice, it is called respect, but when forced it is called oppression. In hope, each generation should use the traditions of the last generation to seek the original source of that generation’s wisdom and to drink from that fountain for themselves, making their own message for their own generation. This also goes for the individual. We were never meant to blindly follow the last generation. We all know what happens to carbon copies – as you get further removed from the original, it loses more and more of it’s message, until it is barely legible.
On that same note, PC bullshit is what’s really destroying our military. For example, if things were based on the individual merits of the soldier or soldier-candidate, then strict physical guidelines would keep most women off the front lines, but there would always be one or two born with the right body-type and physical strength to meet pass. However, since it has been made a general rule that women be kept off the front line because “soldiers wouldn’t be able to handle seeing women die and women are not strong enough,” then two false arguments have been posed. The first problem is that a generalized statement involving spiritual weakness has been attributed to entire population of individual male soldiers. If this were the real reason, we wouldn’t let brothers stay in the same company. Believe me, if we were fighting a just war with another country, we would all want to be heroes, and dying in battle would be an honor. Statements like this are made to prepare the population for the idea that we will be fighting wars for sport, which we have already done and are doing even now.
The second problem is that another generalized statement has been made. Muscle strength is measured in two ways: isometric and isotonic. Maybe in general, women are physically not as isometrically strong as men, but isotonically, they are about the same, if not stronger. When a large muscled versus a smaller muscled person both stand up for the whole day, or run for the day, they will both have about the same amount of muscle soreness, but the smaller muscles will heal faster because of their size. All muscles become sore with extended use because muscles cannot partially contract. They always fully contract when you flex them, and what may seem like degrees of contraction is actually fully contracted muscle contracting either tightly or loosely (I was pre-med in H.S. and some of college – switched to English, though). Ever think about why the best runners are all skinny and why women seem to be made to handle the long-term weight burden of pregnancy? Generally speaking, an argument of male strength versus female weakness is actually an argument for isometric strength versus isotonic. Each one has it’s own merits, but we are led to believe that you can not only choose between the two, but that your preference dictates that the other is the opposite.
However, to play devil’s advocate, let’s say that isometric strength is somehow better. When you take a group of people and decide their individual rights are removed by the sum of what they generally appear to look like, then you have committed a wrong against that group. As I said before, there will always be a few women that actually can lift as much as men. It might be because they have genetically been predisposed to do, or they may be involved in bodybuilding. When you make the rule that says all women can’t be involved even as we are aware there will be at least some exceptions to the rule, then you are acknowledging that the rule is actually a form of planned obsolescence. And, after the rule proves not to work, we will inevitably gravitate towards it’s counterfeit alternative: that we let any woman on the front line who wants to be there, qualifications aside, to make up for what we did before. And, that is the raw, gritty truth of this man-made system of laws that now seek to satify the group over the individual. The puppetmasters are just praying that we don’t see the bigger picture. They especially don’t want us magnify and reveal it to others. But, let’s “develop a negative into a positive picture,” as Lauryn Hill put it.
You seem to have your heart in the right place. Now, let’s all bring the message home together. No more distractions based on who’s got what kind of genitalia. It’s just what the puppetmasters want: us squabbling over two good choices as if one is better than the other, or that we should monstrously attempt to meld them into one master-choice by making useless generalizations that come back to bite us in the ass, later.
In conclusion, we are all starting to see that something is wrong with America, and are coming upon great, critically-thinking, real-time, organic conclusions. We know what they’re really after: those things that make us Individuals. Therefore, we cannot fight using generalizations. And, I know that it is easier to make generalizations because they are mostly true, but since they are not completely true, they are false. To force them to be anything but a useless generalization is wrong. You will draw in the sheeple, while pulling away from other info-warriors who are spiritually committed to our cause of Individuality over groupthink. I don’t pretend to know any absolute truth, nor do I take full credit for the ideas I have placed forth, I am just relaying to you what I have discovered so far from my unique individual perspective, which for me, also includes truth that has been shown to me by others. I communicate this email with you in the hope that you can, if you find there to be truth in what I have said, take a few steps towards using your own individual experiences and what you hold true to help others like yourself to understand the larger picture. It would also be appreciated if you write back to let me know that you’ve read my e-mail, or perhaps even to talk, if you are interested. I’m eager to hear your feedback and your possible input.
Alan Stang: Thanks for very thoughtful message. Not sure I completely understand, but it appears we agree in part and disagree in part. I do not claim to invent anything, merely that the entire relationship is governed by scripture. Don’t agree women are spiritually inferior. Can’t see where you got that idea. Also don’t agree those few women who physically qualify should be in combat. Keep reading. I shall cover this subject at length. Many Blessings.
Rayn: From your article (emphasis mine):
“…The one I am talking about is, I believe, the worst of them all; it has done more to destroy America than any of the others, however bad they are.
Why feminism? The thing that holds our civilization and country together is the family. In fact, the strong, stable family is the basic element of that civilization. Without the family, our country could not exist. It is the family that claims our original loyalty. It is almost a truism to say that the surest way to destroy our country would be to destroy its foundation, the family.
Look around you. Homosexuality and feminism are rapidly dismantling our nation. Some of the symptoms are divorce, delinquency, illegitimacy and crime. Another is our dramatically shriveled birth rate, already not quite high enough to maintain our population.
…Feminism is presently destroying our military. Feminism is the principle at work when a military man is accused of failing to make nice in Iraq. Feminism is the reason we give the enemy – not our own men – the edge that decides who lives and who dies.
Recently, a criminal beat a World War II veteran in Detroit and stole his car. The victim, Leonard Sims, was 91-years-old, and commentators are aghast because many witnesses saw the crime in progress (it was even taped), but no one – no one – no one did anything to help him. Sims was left to defend himself.
Why the surprise? The witnesses did what they have been trained to do starting in kindergarten. They made nice. They have been taught that nothing, ever, is worth fighting about, so they didn’t. They have been taught that it is not nice to bear arms, so they didn’t. The fact that the criminal refused to make nice was not a reason to intervene. The witnesses waited politely for the cops to show up. Cops almost always show up after the crime has been committed.
Forgive me if I misinterpreted your above words. I took them as indication that you perceived women to be spiritually weaker than men. The qualities you describe all seem to involve a weak-willed inability to resist over-reaching authority, and a weak-willed desire to avoid conflict, even in times of life and death. This is precisely why I brought up the Iron-Jawed Angels; these women exemplify the exact opposite of the pseudo-feminism you describe above. They were willing to give their lives over to a cause that hadn’t even yet come to the “life or death” stage. They pushed the envelop with their hunger strike, forcing the government to choose between life and death. They understood “life” as a spiritual concept, with free-will of choice, within the boundaries of truth and justice, as necessary ingredients. Because of this, rejected the illusion that anything less would be considered “life,” and not “death.”