Wednesday, May 9, 2007

Endgame! Part II


When I was researching this particular topic, I did not find any phrase that stated:

"For the sake of world domination, we must bring Plato's nefarious scheme to fruition!!"

Subsequently, in order to appreciate the importance of Platonism to our modern day leftist movements, we first must establish that he was an inspiration to the Marxist and feminist thinkers that came after him.

Starting off, we examine Plato’s Republic and Feminism by Julia Annas:

…”I shall maintain what may surprise some: that it is quite wrong to think of Plato as ‘the first feminist’. His arguments are unacceptable to a feminist, and the proposals made in Republic V are irrelevant to the contemporary debate. The idea that Plato is a forerunner of Women’s Liberation has gained support from the fact that in Republic V Plato proposes not only that women should share men’s tasks but also that the nuclear family should be abolished. This idea is put forward by some radical feminists today as an essential part of any programme for the liberation of women (Annas p. 307)… ”
This short paragraph yields tons of useful information. By informing her readers that her thesis would be surprising, it is clear that thinkers that move in the same circles as our author hold Plato as "the first feminist."

We find book V of the Republic mentioned as a concrete set of proposals that some have undoubtedly taken seriously, to the point where "radical feminists" have called for the destruction of the family unit as a whole.

For the doubters out there, I have turned to the illustrious Men's Wiki, who have listed the following feminist quotes:

"Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women's movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage." -- Sheila Cronin, the leader of the feminist organization NOW

"Marriage as an institution developed from rape as a practice." -- Andrea Dworkin

"The nuclear family must be destroyed... Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process." -- Linda Gordon
A footnote on Annas’s paper reads:

“Plato justifies the abolition of the nuclear family solely on the grounds of eugenics and the unity of the state… and there seems no reason why these grounds should not hold even if women were not full Guardians and had a subordinate status…(Annas p. 308).”

Hmm... what famous feminist was one of the most vocal advocates of Eugenics in our time??

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket
(Margaret Sanger)

Ahh that's right. Margaret Sanger.

According to Men's Wiki:

"The most merciful thing a large family can to do one of its infant members is to kill it." (Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, in "Women and the New Race," p. 67).
According to Black

At a March 1925 international birth control gathering in New York City, a speaker warned of the menace posed by the "black" and "yellow" peril. The man was not a Nazi or Klansman; he was Dr. S. Adolphus Knopf, a member of Margaret Sanger's American Birth Control League (ABCL), which along with other groups eventually became known as Planned Parenthood.

Sanger's other colleagues included avowed and sophisticated racists. One, Lothrop Stoddard, was a Harvard graduate and the author of The Rising Tide of Color against White Supremacy. Stoddard was something of a Nazi enthusiast who described the eugenic practices of the Third Reich as "scientific" and "humanitarian." And Dr. Harry Laughlin, another Sanger associate and board member for her group, spoke of purifying America's human "breeding stock" and purging America's "bad strains." These "strains" included the "shiftless, ignorant, and worthless class of antisocial whites of the South."

Not to be outdone by her followers, Margaret Sanger spoke of sterilizing those she designated as "unfit," a plan she said would be the "salvation of American civilization.: And she also spike of those who were "irresponsible and reckless," among whom she included those " whose religious scruples prevent their exercising control over their numbers." She further contended that "there is no doubt in the minds of all thinking people that the procreation of this group should be stopped." That many Americans of African origin constituted a segment of Sanger considered "unfit" cannot be easily refuted.

While Planned Parenthood's current apologists try to place some distance between the eugenics and birth control movements, history definitively says otherwise. The eugenic theme figured prominently in the Birth Control Review, which Sanger founded in 1917. She published such articles as "Some Moral Aspects of Eugenics" (June 1920), "The Eugenic Conscience" (February 1921), "The purpose of Eugenics" (December 1924), "Birth Control and Positive Eugenics" (July 1925), "Birth Control: The True Eugenics" (August 1928), and many others.

Just in case one believes that only Sanger was a supporter of the Platonic ideal of Eugenics, the ever helpful Men's Wiki notes that:

In response to a question concerning China's policy of compulsory abortion after the first child, Molly Yard responded, "I consider the Chinese government's policy among the most intelligent in the world" (Gary Bauer, "Abetting Coercion in China," The Washington Times, Oct. 10, 1989).

So we can see that Plato and the feminist movement agree on the point of eugenics, and by extension, abortion on demand. The matter of dispute, according to Annas, is not whether or not "selective breeding" is wrong or immoral, but whether or not the status of women will be improved as a result of the act.

The author continues:

“ Of course Plato is not bound to be interested in the psychology of women, but his complete lack of interested underlines the fact that his argument does not recommend changing the present state of affairs on the ground that women suffer from being denied opportunities that are open to men.

His argument has quite different grounds, in fact. The state benefits from having the best possible citizens, and if half the citizens sit at home doing trivial jobs then usable talent is being wasted. Here Mrs. Huby gets the point exactly right: ‘There was nothing worth while for a woman to do at home; she should therefore share in man’s work outside the home (Plato and Modern Morality, p.23). Plato’s sole ground for his proposals is their usefulness to the state; the point is repeated several times.

Of course there is nothing non-feminist about this argument. But Plato’s argument gains rather different significance from the fact that this is his only ground. His argument is authoritarian in spirit rather than liberal; if a woman did not want to be a Guardian, Plato would surely be committed to compelling her to serve the state (p. 312).”

“…since it is also a consequence of the fact that Plato justifies his proposals solely in terms of benefit to the state. The proposals for women are not a matter of their rights. There is nothing in Republic V that one could apply to the question of women’s right; the matter is simply not raised (p. 313).

I have believed for some time that feminism, and the leftist ideology that drives it, is selfish, grasping, and cruel.

And yet, I am amazed by how many women will defend feminism to their last breath, even as it corrupts their bodies and destroys their souls[aa][bb].

This is a point that I will be making again and again as we go forward...


And speaking of insensitivity, we read on the site that:

"No woman should be authorized to stay at home to raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one."

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket
(Simone de Beauvoir)

That chilling commentary comes from fem-socialist
Simone de Beauvoir, in her famous 1974 interview in The Saturday Review.

So what happens when the radical feminist agenda becomes the law of the land?
That is not a mere hypothetical question. It can be answered by turning the pages of history back to the tragic early days of Soviet Russia.

When Lenin's Bolsheviks seized the levers of power in 1917, Lenin faced the daunting challenge of jump-starting agricultural and industrial production. So he cast his eye on a vast, untapped workforce: peasant women.

Parroting the Marxist line on female oppression, Lenin incited women to action at the First All Russia Congress of Working Women: "The status of women up to now has been compared to that of a slave; women have been tied to the home, and only socialism can save them from this."

In short order, Lenin pushed through laws assuring women equal pay for equal work and the right to hold property.

But as Simone de Beauvoir pointed out, many women would be tempted to go back to the old ways to tend to hearth and home. So the traditional family would need to be abolished. Lenin understood that fact, as well.

So in 1918, Lenin introduced a new marriage code that outlawed church ceremonies. Lenin opened state-run nurseries, dining halls, laundries, and sewing centers. Abortion was legalized in 1920, and divorce simplified.

In a few short years, most of the functions of the family had been expropriated by the state. By 1921, Lenin could brag that "in Soviet Russia, no trace is left of any inequality between men and women under the law."
For all the talk of equality, equal rights and slavery... what did the Russian people get out of the experience?

I'll allow you to check into that for yourselves.[a][b]

When you are done with that, read about how women fared back in the good ol' days when they worked outside the home.

To be sure, de Beauvoir isn't alone in her agreement with Platonic thought.


"The care of children infinitely better left to the best trained practitioners of both sexes who have chosen it as a vocation...[This] would further undermine family structure while contributing to the freedom of women." --Kate Millet, Sexual Politics 178-179

"In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them" (Dr. Mary Jo Bane, feminist and assistant professor of education at Wellesley College, and associate director of the school's Center for Research on Woman).

"Being a housewife is an illegitimate profession... The choice to serve and be protected and plan towards being a family- maker is a choice that shouldn't be. The heart of radical feminism is to change that." (Vivian Gornick, feminist author, University of Illinois, The Daily Illini, April 25, 1981

Moving on to the next piece, we have Plato’s feminism by Harry Lesser.

Mr. Lesser, a man, takes Annas, a woman, to task for her criticism of Plato. It becomes clear that “feminism” is actually a very clever form of male domination after all.

The irony.

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket
(La Servante de Harem, or, your typical feminist handmaiden)

Feminism, is not the main enemy here. Feminist thinkers are but mere handmaidens to the real power-brokers, such as the mysterious money men, "Third Wave" types as exposed by Mr. Farrell, the men who run Big Business and Government, academic elities such as Mr. Lesser, and others.

This is an important point that should not be forgotten. It is my view that our social experiment is nothing more than a modern day application of "Divide and Rule."

As we shall soon see, although women enjoy special privileges at the present, the groundwork has already been laid down for them to be stripped of their natural rights, just like the fellas.

Totalitarian governments are equal opportunity after all.

Mr Lesser writes:

“Plato did believe in the superiority of men over women; and his argument for sexual equality is based on the belief that it is in the interests of the community. Nevertheless, what he says can still be used to knock down any attempt to build a case for sexual, class or racial discrimination. When Socrates asks (Republic V, 455) ‘Do you know of any human occupation in which the male sex is not superior to the female’ and Glaucon replies that ‘No doubt many women are better at many things than man men, but taking the sex as a whole it is what you say’, this does not introduce a fatal flaw into the argument, but paradoxically makes it more powerful… the true claim that men are physically stronger than women is just as irrelevant as the false one that they are more rational.

The only difference between all men and all women is that, as Plato puts it, ‘the male begets and the female gives birth’. So once we have pointed out the fairly obvious fact that these differences are irrelevant to the question of what occupations the two sexes must follow, we have done all that is necessary (p. 113).”
He continues:

“To get the best person for a particular job, one has to look at individual capacities: a generalization about the sort of person who is often, or even usually, best is not good enough. For this reason, Julia Annas is mistaken when she writes (p. 310):

'Scientific research into sex differences is an area of great controversy precisely because its results have important social consequences; if men and women did have different types of intelligence, for example, then different types of education would surely be appropriate.'

Even with out limited knowledge we can be confident that such research could only come up with the information that some skills are more often possessed by one sex than the other. This information ought to have no social consequences of any kind (p. 114)…”

This is the voice of the tyranny of tolerance.

The assertion that sex differences have no relevance is why so many people in our modern world are suffering.

A dear old MRA friend wrote the following:

Sex and Character, by Otto Weininger advances an interesting theory with respect to the nature of the sexes.

"In the widest treatment of most living things, a blunt separation of them into males and females no longer suffices for the known facts. The limitations of these conceptions have been felt more or less by many writers. The first purpose of this work is to make this point clear...

... Sexual differentiation, in fact, is never complete. All the peculiarities of the male sex may be present in the female in some form, however weakly developed; and so also the sexual characteristics of the woman persist in the man, although perhaps they are not so completely rudimentary. The characters of the other sex occur in the one sex in a vestigial form. Thus, in the case of human beings, in which our interest is greatest, to take an example, it will be found that the most womanly woman has a growth of colourless hair, known as "lanugo" in the position of the male beard; and in the most manly man there are developed under the skin of the breast, masses of glandular tissue connected with the nipples. This condition of things has been minutely investigated in the true genital organs and ducts, the region called the "urino-genital tract," and in each sex there has been found a complete but rudimentary set of parallels to the organs of the other sex.

. . . The fact is that males and females are like two substances combined in different proportions, but with either element never wholly missing. We find, so to speak, never either a man or a woman, but only the male condition and the female condition. Any individual is never to be designated merely as a man or a woman, but by a formula showing that it is a composite of male and female characters in different proportions..."

"... Emancipation, as I mean to discuss it, is not the wish for an outward equality with man, but what is of real importance in the woman question, the deep-seated craving to acquire man's character, to attain his mental and moral freedom, to reach his real interests and his creative power. I maintain that the real female element has neither the desire nor the capacity for emancipation in this sense. All those who are striving for this real emancipation, all women who are truly famous and are of conspicuous mental ability, to the first glance of an expert reveal some of the anatomical characters of the male, some external bodily resemblance to a man. Those so-called "women" who have been held up to admiration in the past and present, by the advocates of woman's rights, as examples of what women can do, have almost invariably been what I have described as sexually intermediate forms. . . .

The vast majority of women have never paid special attention to art or to science, and regard such occupations merely as higher branches of manual labour, or if they profess a certain devotion to such subjects, it is chiefly as a mode of attracting a particular person or group of persons of the opposite sex. Apart from these, a close investigation shows that women really interested in intellectual matters are sexually intermediate forms.

If it be the case that the desire for freedom and equality with man occurs only in masculine women, the inductive conclusion follows that the female principle is not conscious of a necessity for emancipation; and the argument becomes stronger if we remember that it is based on an examination of the accounts of individual cases and not on psychical investigation of an "abstract woman...

As has been the case with every other movement in history, so also it has been with the contemporary woman's movement. Its originators were convinced that it was being put forward for the first time, and that such a thing had never been thought of before. They maintained that women had hitherto been held in bondage and enveloped in darkness by man, and that it was high time for her to assert herself and claim her natural rights.

But the prototype of this movement, as of other movements, occurred in the earliest times. Ancient history and medieval times alike give us instances of women who, in social relations and intellectual matters, fought for such emancipation, and of male and female apologists of the female sex. It is totally erroneous to suggest that hitherto women have had no opportunity for the undisturbed development of their mental powers..."

Men and women, are not the same. Also, men and men are not the same.

Think about it. We are all human beings, and yet, we have unique fingerprints. Billions and Billions of people, living and dead, and yet each person's is unique.

So it is with Men and women. Some of us are simply more Manly/Feminine than others.

Manly Dominant women push the status quo. These were, and are the women that seek to be like men. It's just in their nature.

With respect to our FemiNasty friends, it becomes quite clear that these women are Masculine Dominant in thought, word and deed.

That is also why Feminism is a false doctrine... because Feminists assume that ALL WOMEN FEEL AS THEY DO, WHEN THEY DO NOT.

Feminism implies that all women should emulate "Manly Dominant" women, when that is not what the majority of women really are.

One of the central tenets of Feminism is that Men and women are not two distinct biological sexes, but two Genders.

What's the difference between these words?

From Merriam-Webster:

Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin sexus

1 : either of the two major forms of individuals that occur in many species and that are distinguished respectively as female or male especially on the basis of their reproductive organs and structures

2 : the sum of the structural, functional, and behavioral characteristics of organisms that are involved in reproduction marked by the union of gametes and that distinguish males and females

function: noun
Etymology: Middle English gendre, from Anglo-French genre, gendre, from Latin gener-, genus birth, race, kind, gender -- more at KIN

1 a : a subclass within a grammatical class (as noun, pronoun, adjective, or verb) of a language that is partly arbitrary but also partly based on distinguishable characteristics (as shape, social rank, manner of existence, or sex) and that determines agreement with and selection of other words or grammatical forms

b : membership of a word or a grammatical form in such a subclass c : an inflectional form showing membership in such a subclass

2 a : SEX b : the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex

So when Feminists say Gender, they don't mean those biological items and functions that separate male from female; they are referring to subclasses in a sexless mass of some grouping. Even the word Gender brings us full circle back to S.E.X.

In other words, Feminists deny femininity itself. And that move makes perfect sense. If you are trying to create the impression that Men and women are exactly the same, using words like the "Female Sex" doesn't really help achieve that goal. A good example of "Newspeak", as Orwell called it...

I read somewhere once that "a lie becomes truth if we stick to the lie forever."
And it might have worked too... if it wasn't for those meddling scientists!!

Check it out:

”ONLY a girl could write The Female Brain and walk away with life and reputation intact. This new book may be contentious, but in fact modern science is merely playing catch-up with what we know intuitively. Girls are different from boys.

Mind-blowing news, huh?

But here's the really brave bit: the unisex brain is a feminist fabrication. Louann Brizendine, an American neuro-psychiatrist, has written a book debunking stubborn notions that girls are different only because society makes them so. It's much more to do with the brain, she says. The female brain, to be more precise.

Here's a snap brain quiz. Which sex uses, on average, about 20,000 words a day, in contrast to the 7000 uttered by the other sex? Who has two-and-a-half times the amount of brain space devoted to sexual drive, meaning they think about sex, on average, every 52 seconds? When their feelings are hurt by someone they love, which sex reacts by assuming the relationship is over? Who has larger sections of the brain for action and aggression? If you answered, in order, women, men, women, men, you've been watching too many Woody Allen movies. Now, science is confirming that Woody was right all along.

While more than 99 per cent of male and female genetic coding is the same, it's the less than 1 per cent of difference that packs a punch in marking out women from men. Drawing upon advances in gene technology and brain-imaging techniques that have revolutionised neuro-scientific research, Brizendine presents a heady cocktail of structural, chemical, genetic, hormonal and functional differences between women and men.

These biological differences explain the most basic female behaviour. For instance, why do teenage girls endlessly talk? Science suggests that connecting through conversation triggers the pleasure centres in the brain. Talking activates what Brizendine describes as the "fluffy, purring kitty ... feel-good brain chemicals" - oxytocin and dopamine - which together deliver "the biggest, fastest neurological reward you can get outside of an orgasm". Maybe that explains why women like to talk during sex, perhaps looking for a double dose of delight.

OK, that last bit is not in Brizendine's book, but there is plenty that will upset the old bra-burning feminists who steadfastly refuse to allow biology to get in the way of ideology. Let's start with how girls choose a mate. According to Brizendine, "our (female) brains size up a potential partner, and if he fits our ancestral wish list, we get a jolt of chemicals that dizzy us with a rush of laser-focused attention".

And that ancestral wish list has not changed much in the past 1000 years. Brizendine points to a study of 10,000 people across 37 different cultures, that reveals women are less interested in how a man looks and more interested in his wallet and social standing. It may not fit the picture of the modern girl fending for herself but Brizendine is concerned with evidence, and not imagery. And the evidence suggests that, for all the economic and social advances women have made, the powerful desire to have and care for children means many women are still interested in finding a provider. It's part of what Brizendine calls the "inherited architecture of the female brain's mate-choice system".

Equality feminists will be even more disturbed by science that confirms what most of us already know: women are more emotional than men. Cutting to the chase, that means girls are more prone to over-reaction than boys. Were we to map the female brain, Brizendine says the connecting routes for emotion look more like super-highways, compared with the country roads you'd find inside the male brain. In a Stanford University study, when volunteers were shown emotional images while having their brains scanned, nine different areas lit up in women. In men, two areas lit up.

The author concludes that "there's no getting around the fact that women have different emotional perceptions, realities, responses and memories than do men, and these differences - based on brain circuitry and function - are at the heart of many misunderstandings". And it's in the hard-wiring of the brain, rather than environment...

…Talking about genetic differences between men and women has long been taboo because, according to feminist orthodoxy, if women were different it necessarily meant they were inferior. But that competition-between-the-sexes business is so old hat these days.

Ignoring the differences, and framing public policy on a pretence that women are something they are not only ends up hurting women. For instance, in the heady days of 1970s feminism, it was assumed that universal child care would free women to achieve true equality with men. We now know that many women would prefer not to outsource the raising of their children. And so we need public policy and workplace changes that recognise that biological drive...”

We need policies indeed.

Lets move on to the next piece, just in case you are not convinced.

The mismeasure of woman
Aug 3rd 2006

From The Economist print edition

”...The sensitivity of the question was shown last year by a furore at Harvard University. Larry Summers, then Harvard's president, caused a storm when he suggested that innate ability could be an important reason why there were so few women in the top positions in mathematics, engineering and the physical sciences.
Even as a proposition for discussion, this is unacceptable to some. But biological explanations of human behaviour are making a comeback as the generation of academics that feared them as a covert way of justifying eugenics, or of thwarting Marxist utopianism, is retiring. The success of neo-Darwinism has provided an intellectual underpinning for discussion about why some differences between the sexes might be innate. And new scanning techniques have enabled researchers to examine the brain's interior while it is working, showing that male and female brains do, at one level, operate differently. The results, however, do not always support past clichés about what the differences in question actually are.

In the past, it was assumed that a female was simply a male with hormones, says Tracey Shors, a professor of neuroscience at Rutgers University. The truth is the exact opposite. Female is the default brain setting. Until the eighth week of gestation every human fetal brain looks female. The brain, like the rest of the human body, becomes male as a result of surges of testosterone—one during gestation and one shortly after birth.

This wash of hormones creates an organ that generates typically boyish behaviour, such as rough-and-tumble play. Behavioural differences appear early. For example, a one-day-old girl will look for longer at a face than at a mechanical mobile; a boy will prefer the mobile. That it is testosterone exposure which causes such preferences is suggested by two sorts of research. Several studies have shown that girls with a genetic disorder which exposes them to abnormally high prenatal levels of testosterone often develop boyish patterns of play. As regards boys, Simon Baron-Cohen and Svetlana Lutchmaya, two researchers at Cambridge University, found that boys exposed to relatively high levels of testosterone in the womb looked less often at their mothers' faces, made eye contact less frequently and had smaller vocabularies than those exposed to lower levels—though this study has yet to be replicated successfully by other researchers."

(It would seem that Mr. Weininger was correct. Men and women possess varying degrees of Manliness and femininity, and the cataylist is varying amounts of hormone exposure.)

"Within a year of birth, boys and girls also prefer different toys. Boys prefer cars, trucks, balls and guns. Girls prefer dolls and tea sets. Although evolution has clearly not had the opportunity to mould a preference for tea sets, there is evidence from another species which suggests that human infants might be predisposed to prefer toys that have particular adaptive significance to their sex. Several years ago, Melissa Hines, of City University in London, and Gerianne Alexander, of Texas A&M University, gave some vervet monkeys a selection of toys, including rag dolls, pans, balls and trucks. Male monkeys spent more time with the trucks and balls. Females played for longer with the dolls.

Obviously, cultural stereotyping is an improbable explanation for this. Nor could male monkeys have evolved a preference for fire engines. The theory put forward to explain what happened—and the similar innate preferences of human children—is that the toys preferred by young females are objects that offer opportunities for expressing nurturing behaviour, something that will be useful to them later in life. Young males, whether simian or human, prefer toys that can be used actively or propelled in space, and which afford greater opportunities for rough play...

The brain is by no means immutable, even in adulthood. In the hippocampus, an area thought to be involved in spatial learning, new nerve cells can be born in an adult and hormones influence their birth and survival. Dr Shors says that her work has shown that the female brain, at least, is very plastic, changing dramatically during life in response to pregnancy and menopause as well as puberty...”

The research speaks for itself.

There are real differences between men and women, and any philosophy, such as the ideas advanced by Plato, and by our author Mr. Lesser that fails to take these differences into consideration is the philosophy of slavery and oppression.

Man and woman are much more than the sum of their parts. God, Blessed be He, made sure of that.

It is interesting, and quite tragic that feminists, male and female alike, presume to tell women how to think and how to feel, even when it goes against their most basic biological and spiritual natures.

Something to keep in mind as we move forward.

Thanks for reading!

Next time, more commentary on Plato.


tba said...

It is interesting, and quite tragic that feminists, male and female alike, presume to tell women how to think and how to feel, even when it goes against their most basic biological and spiritual natures.

That feminists would presume they have authority to tell woman what is acceptable (slaving at work) and what is not (being a good housewife) is proof they, themselves don't believe in the equality of men and women. They see women as children. Hypocrites, they are.
They are also subtly exclaiming men superior by wishing to define women according to men's standards and attempting to have women behave as men, rather than the opposite.
An even more egregious fact is that these feminists wish men to behave as men, yet they want to 'protect' women from assuming ANY responsibility for their action. Again, giving the subtle message that women cannot handle the responsibilty, treating them as children.

tba said...

"An even more egregious fact is that these feminists wish [wo]men to behave as men..."

I need to start proofreading BEFORE I post, instead of after.