Friday, 3 July 2009
It is interesting to see that several Blogs have been debating the Anglobitch Thesis. As well as being intellectually flattering, this demonstrates the importance of our values and concepts. I truly believe the Anglobitch Thesis explains most of the problems in Pan-Anglosphere gender relations as no other theoretical model – but then, I am somewhat biased. Someone called ‘Roissy in DC’ keeps a Blog ‘where pretty lies perish’ and a discussion about the recently deceased Michael Jackson somehow transformed into a fascinating debate on the problem of Anglo-American women, which incorporated much discussion of the Anglobitch Thesis. I include some of the best posts for your interest and edification, with commentary from myself. More of this material will be forthcoming.
1.on June 26, 2009 at 3:55 pm mandy been here a while
In light of that article, you might enjoy this theory
http://anglobitch.com/ That Anglo Saxon culture has long had antipathy towards men that makes Anglosphere feminists particularly virulent.
2.on June 28, 2009 at 2:23 pm doug1
I don’t need a caveman who’s pissed women are smart, have good jobs, and live longer; someone who hates that we have the sexual power AND that we are breaking out of our gender roles and controling the world…
Women only have sexual power to the extent men allow them to have it. Men have the real power. Of physical coercion. Of military force. And even of inventiveness.
Through most of history women haven’t chosen their sexual partners, society, ruled most of all by men, have. Most marriages were arranged to at least a considerable extent. Women might have some choice but within a narrow range, or no choice at all. What choice they did have could often be vetoed by their families, lead by their father, or sometimes by others. Older women were fully allied with men in this social choosing. This is true not just of agricultural societies and after but of most tribes as well. Female choice was considerably constrained. It’s really back in primate times that mates were not chosen heavily according to social and family/tribal forces, by rather by pure female attraction and lust.
As well the reason women have been free from rape to the extent they have is because men have severely punished rape in most circumstances. In circumstances where they haven’t much, such as often when armies or mongol hordes or viking raiders have overrun a village or a city, rape has often been widespread and women have been utterly powerless to stop it.
As for your notions of learning how to shoot a gun as well as any man. Haaaa. Steel nerves is what it really takes to shoot a gun well in a combat situation, and women are piss poor at having them. (So are a lot of men it’s true, but those bell curves ain’t anywhere near close.) Ask anyone who’s not an officer on the record worried about political reaction in our armed forces, or the Israeli armed forces or any armed forces and they’ll tell you that the average woman soldier is terrible at actual combat pointed spear roles (as opposed to some support roles) compared to the average male soldier.
Hey all of recorded history is the way it’s recorded for a reason. It’s not some fluke. Morally disapproving of prior “neanderthals” is no answer. In it, all of recorded history and the anthropological record as well, men rule, and women follow. It’s only when men with Marxist equalist notions allow legislation to be passed often requiring and certainly always allowing (with the media and action groups cheer leading) affirmative action for women in a host of ways all over the place, and allowing women to clean up on divorce theft from men in no fault divorces, and which criminalized a man exerting physical dominance in a straightforward simple way (as rare backup) by striking his wife or girlfriend, or making sexual remarks in the workplace, and so on, that women emerge from a clearly following, important but following, status as compared to men.
It doesn’t naturally occur. It requires a heavy ideological hand on the scales to make happen. It’s highly artificial and an artifact of Marxist derived equalist in outcome moral imperatives. I reject those moral imperatives. Men and women are not naturally equal. Women are naturally followers of men. Close followers, and followers of a man well matched for her, not just any or every man, but there you have it nonetheless. Followers of men rather than being fully naturally equal in leadership, force or power. Equal in overall value though, and in human dignity, for sure. As well many women have huge abilities which it would be a shame to waste by not allowing them to become wonderful doctors and so on.
Such female followership, rather than complete and full equality with men, was and is the case with tribal man. Such was the case with agricultural states and the normadic horsemen and norsemen that often conquered them. Such was the case with industrial age man, and information age man. It’s an indulgence of modern men in the modern west, especially the Anglosphere, to have allowed feminism so much scope and through it’s influence in the media, to have gotten so much feminism favorable legislation passed.
It’s time to start reversing this unnatural feminist aberration, that has zero to do with the prosperity and inventiveness of American society, or European society or Japanese society, but rather rides on that back, and was made possible because of it, while sapping the male inventiveness that was the true cause of that technology and prosperity.
Rookh Kshatriya writes: While the author describes Anglo feminism and its fallout perfectly, in what way is this ‘Marxist’? Might it not just be Anglo-Saxon? That is, might preferential treatment for women and widespread legal/political/cultural misandry just relate to the puritanical undercurrents of Anglo culture? Also, I assume that this author is an American citizen. To my knowledge, Marxism is not a powerful influence in American culture and subsists as a somewhat marginalized, shadowy entity with no real influence on foreign or domestic policy. How, then, can Marxists have imposed this ideology on American society? Another error the author makes is leaping into chauvinism, a dangerous approach for counter-feminist males while feminism retains such a prominent position (see my June 2009 Blog post on the perils of chauvinism).
1.on June 28, 2009 at 2:52 pm Joe T.
“It’s only when men with Marxist equalist notions allow legislation to be passed often requiring and certainly always allowing (with the media and action groups cheer leading) affirmative action for women in a host of ways all over the place”
You are a very confused person, a typical product of this generation’s crop of deluded “libertarian capitalist” white males. Marxists, socialists, social democrats and allied groups are first and foremost *economic* egalitarians, not supporters of revolutionary gender politics. Marxists and socialists support gender equality in theory, but do not contemplate the total erasure of natural gender roles — that’s something that’s just not in their purview.
It was only after Anglo-Saxon capitalism and conservative “libertarianism” fused in the 20th century, resulting in “Turbo Capitalism” which became the driving force in much of American politics, that we have seen the rise of the politics of gender-role obliteration. This is no coincidence, because it is actually in the interests of the economic libertarian ruling class, for there to be no differential between the sexes. When women are considered simply “guys” with boobs, they can be exploited and paid less for jobs which the formerly male family breadwinners held. Women are paid less than men, but it’s by the design of the anarcho-capitalists, not Marxists, who almost don’t exist as any real force in the USA.
Under the anarcho-capitalist libertarians’ economic blueprint, more and more of the educated workforce will be female, with fewer and fewer young females consequently seeing the human value of being mothers. The social fabric will fray further, as women abandon this role more and more for careers.
On the other hand, Turbo Capitalism wants men to self-obsessed consumers, just like the “working women” they have created and brainwashed, hence the metrosexual. So while not actually promoting a female-dominated society, Anglo-Saxon Turbo Capitalism is pushing us inexorably in that direction. The result of what they are doing is a “modern” society in which women and men are regarded as essentially the same, and biological, psychological, and sexual differences are papered over. In such a milieu, if they keep pressing those trends for economic profit, what you will essentially have is a society in which men are constantly being disempowered, and women are constantly being empowered, contrary to biological realities.
The single biggest failure of the moronic “angry white male” movement which has sprung up in America, and which thrives on this blog, is to attribute these changes to unseen “Marxists” and other evil “leftists”.
Nothing could be further from the truth. The truth is right under your noses. The truth is that it is your own self-satisfied “libertarian capitalist” movement which is the driving force upending gender roles, destroying the biological male-female dichotomy, and creating the social turmoil that will inevitably do us in as a society within the next 10-15 years, in which I predict we will fall first economically, and then politically, to the oldest continuous civilization in the world, China.
And that, my friends, will probably be a *good* thing for the world.
Rookh Kshatriya writes: Too lenient... Certainly, turbo-capitalism will of course favor gender equality, since it serves to maximize profits at the expense of all else. Releasing women into the workplace reduces wages (for several reasons) and, more importantly, doubles the number of consumers. All psychological evidence suggests that women are broadly more pliant and susceptible to suggestion that men, which allows turbo-capitalism to push products they probably couldn’t in a true patriarchy. As the author shrewdly points out, this emergent gender equalism has papered over biological distinctions between the sexes, partly leading to the well-attested pan-Anglosphere ‘male crisis’ and suppression of the Anglo-American birthrate (certainly among the higher social classes, who are most integrated into this turbo-capitalist ethos).
The author is also correct in locating the Anglobitch problem in Anglo-Saxon culture, not leftist interventionism. The United States has no strong leftist tradition and the leftists that do exist enjoy no real power-base to effect such far reaching social changes - so, the source of the problem must be intrinsic by default. The English visionary William Blake argued that Anglo-Saxon culture is imbalanced in favor of Reason to the exclusion of all else, which is why Anglo-culture is prey to ‘inhuman’ fads likes turbo-capitalism. However, Turbo-capitalism isn't the sole answer. After all, Capitalism is indifferent to anything but the profit motive, yet contemporary Anglo culture harbors an overt antipathy to men irreducible to economic factors. For example, why is the media so misandrist? Other factors - cultural factors - simply have to be at work.