A rather interesting finding... (TL;DR feminism and race and stuff)

Politics, History, & 'Conspiracy'
User avatar
Luigi
Posts: 2899
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2013 11:01 pm
Reputation: 2142

A rather interesting finding... (TL;DR feminism and race and stuff)

Postby Luigi » Fri Mar 16, 2018 7:42 am

Browsing wiki on politicians today I found something interesting. Perhaps you have heard the argument that is was the feminist movement that lead to the abandonment of ethnocentic/Westphalian nationalism in the West. The argument goes like this:

Because of evolution and natural selection in our tribal past, the men who were fiercely tribal, killing the men of other tribes and taking their women, were genetically successful, thus rewarding tribalism. Conversely if you were a woman and your tribe was conquered by another and all the men of your tribe was slaughtered, those women who showed tribal loyalty would be much less successful at passing on their genes than those who didnt care about tribes and just wanted to love everybody. Thus explaining the data from psychology which shows men are predisposed to a heavy racial in-group preference while women instead show a heavy gender in-group preference. This much seems logical and straitforward. Karen Straughan was the first I saw advance this theory and I believe Gad Saad has spoken in support of it as well.

Many however have extrapolated this with the observation that the counter-culture movement was directly proceeded by great strides by the feminist movement. For those who dont know, feminism started in the mid-1800s, was firmly rejected until the interwar years when it started to gain traction(because of female workers during the state of total war in WW1) and rapidly accelerated after WW2 becoming much more popular in the late 40s and 50s. Well I don't know how true this is in America or Europe, but in Canada it is seemingly demonstrable. Enter Ellen Fairclough:

Image

She was the first Canadian female MP. She won her local election in 1950, and was a vocal supporter of feminism in the Canadian parliament. When John Deifenbaker won the federal election in 1957, he appointed her secretary of state, and the following year she became minister of citizenship and immigration. She held the office for 6 years until 1963, during which she eliminated many of the traditional ethnic/racial restrictions practiced in Canadian immigration, also increasing the number of immigrants allowed per annum and allowing more refugees. While Canada did not adopt the political identity of multiculturalism until Pierre Trudeau's government in 1971, Canada had indeed already entered a state of purely civic nationalism by the will of its first female MP a decade earlier.
Image

User avatar
Masato
Site Admin
Posts: 12135
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2012 3:16 pm
Reputation: 5609

Postby Masato » Fri Mar 16, 2018 12:11 pm

Luigi what do you think of the theory that the bulk of feminism in the 50's/60s'/70's was pushed by malevolent social engineers as a strategy to destroy the family structure? (Edward Bernays, etc)

User avatar
Luigi
Posts: 2899
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2013 11:01 pm
Reputation: 2142

Postby Luigi » Sat Mar 17, 2018 7:12 pm

Masato wrote:Luigi what do you think of the theory that the bulk of feminism in the 50's/60s'/70's was pushed by malevolent social engineers as a strategy to destroy the family structure? (Edward Bernays, etc)

There are different ways of looking at this. For example, KGB defectors confirmed that as much as 85% of the KGBs efforts were to introduce social subversion to weaken America and the West. So this is probably the one instance where you can say undoubtedly there was something like that.

However I think feminism was more about social engineers who did not view themselves as malevolent. Rather I think it was driven by the deep love we feel for our mothers, wives and sisters. If you look at the gender preference studies I mentioned in the OP, its not only women who show a strong gender preference for females, men also show a strong gender preference for females. We by our very nature are biased against ourselves in favor of women. This is what psychologists refer to as the "women are wonderful" effect. Now imagine youre a freethinking college professor in the 1960s, its not hard to imagine you would read something about how women are so oppressed, jump on board and teach it to all your students.

Then there is the notion that business elites wanted it so that they could double the potential employees and drive down wages, and would have paid lobbyists and feminist student unions and stuff like that. This is something that seems plausible but I cant really speak to because I haven't seen any hard proof of it.

I suppose I should also address the theory popular with the stormfront crowd that it was a cabal of evil Jews who wanted revenge on White Christian society for the Holocaust. Once again, zero hard proof. The only thing I have seen to support this is that there was a general sentiment at the time that it was all Whites to be blamed(Einstein was a firm believer in this. He said "racism is a disease of White people" - a sentence which would sound bizarre and nonsensical to someone in the pre-counter culture era).
Image

User avatar
Canuckster
Posts: 4983
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 5:24 pm
Reputation: 2553

Postby Canuckster » Tue Mar 20, 2018 11:01 pm

Luigi wrote:
Masato wrote:Luigi what do you think of the theory that the bulk of feminism in the 50's/60s'/70's was pushed by malevolent social engineers as a strategy to destroy the family structure? (Edward Bernays, etc)

There are different ways of looking at this. For example, KGB defectors confirmed that as much as 85% of the KGBs efforts were to introduce social subversion to weaken America and the West. So this is probably the one instance where you can say undoubtedly there was something like that.

However I think feminism was more about social engineers who did not view themselves as malevolent. Rather I think it was driven by the deep love we feel for our mothers, wives and sisters. If you look at the gender preference studies I mentioned in the OP, its not only women who show a strong gender preference for females, men also show a strong gender preference for females. We by our very nature are biased against ourselves in favor of women. This is what psychologists refer to as the "women are wonderful" effect. Now imagine youre a freethinking college professor in the 1960s, its not hard to imagine you would read something about how women are so oppressed, jump on board and teach it to all your students.

Then there is the notion that business elites wanted it so that they could double the potential employees and drive down wages, and would have paid lobbyists and feminist student unions and stuff like that. This is something that seems plausible but I cant really speak to because I haven't seen any hard proof of it.

I suppose I should also address the theory popular with the stormfront crowd that it was a cabal of evil Jews who wanted revenge on White Christian society for the Holocaust. Once again, zero hard proof. The only thing I have seen to support this is that there was a general sentiment at the time that it was all Whites to be blamed(Einstein was a firm believer this. He said "racism is a disease of White people" - a sentence which would sound bizarre and nonsensical to someone in the pre-counter culture era).


Considering feminism and political correctness are products of communist Russia as well, I'd have to disagree with this
People say they all want the truth, but when they are confronted with a truth that disagrees with them, they balk at it as if it were an unwanted zombie apocalypse come to destroy civilization.


Return to “The Grand Chessboard”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 2 guests