Rebranding the Natural Order as “Misogyny”

TPTB are attempting to redefine the public’s perception of right and wrong.

Readership: Aliberals; Christians; Men;
Length: 2,400 words
Reading Time: 8 minutes

Introduction

Over the past few years, TPTB have tried to make us swallow the false notion that traditional nationalism is “rac!st“, and anything antifeminist (e.g. the Manosphere, masculinity, traditional marriage, SAHM’s) is “sex!st” and “misogynist“. Meanwhile, many weak-minded, NPCish, mass media consumers have jumped on the wagon. About one year ago, I picked out the latter slur, and wrote a post entitled, Revisiting Misogyny (2020 August 7), which deconstructed how “offense” is purported to be “abuse”. I also examined the ethical vectors and psychological tools that feminism uses to demonize Headship in general, and recast the blame onto men specifically.

This post revisits this topic and offers a few pertinent case studies that elucidate the machinations of mass rebellion.

The Rebranding of Misogyny

An article at The New York Times explained the challenge that feminists have had in subverting the traditional/Christian social mores of America, and why they coopted “misogyny” as a socially coercive shame tactic.

“This understanding of misogyny became a commonly held idea among feminists: the issue was structural. Society was organized in a misogynistic way, even if its individual members didn’t see themselves as woman-haters.”

The New York Times: What does Misogyny look like? (2019-03-08)

The inside scoop is that this concept of society being “organized in a misogynistic way” is rooted in “the problem that has no name” (H/T: Betty Friedan in her book, The Feminine Mystique), a problem that we might now call Generalized Feminist Discontentment (GFD), and which we know is magnified by sexual promiscuity. Considering the fact that most women were generally happier under the old regime, it is a twist to call it misogynistic.

“Much like “racist” — which was once mostly used to describe certain sheriffs, politicians or neighbors — misogynist is now as often applied to the system of institutions that creates an unequal America as it is to individuals. In this broadened meaning, happily married men, men with daughters and women themselves can be implicated. The way the word is now used, you don’t have to hate women to be a misogynist, despite what Webster’s dictionary still says today.”

The New York Times: What does Misogyny look like? (2019-03-08)

For those of us who are still confused about why the word “misogynist” is being thrown at so many apparently decent people, the author makes this clear. Anyone who subscribes to the old regime in any way, anyone who is traditional, conservative, Christian, family oriented, or in a word, Godly, can now be thrown under the bus. It’s sad for us to find that feminists have had considerable success in their endeavors to criminalize order and spread their brand of GFD across the nation.

The New Feminist Concept of Misogyny

An article that appeared in Vox: What we get wrong about misogyny (2020-03-07) reported a book by Kate Manne entitled, Down Girl: The Logic of Misogyny. According to the book summary at Amazon, Manne argues that… [emphasis mine]

“…misogyny should not be understood primarily in terms of the hatred or hostility some men feel toward all or most women. Rather, it’s primarily about controlling, policing, punishing, and exiling the “bad” women who challenge male dominance. And it’s compatible with rewarding “the good ones,” and singling out other women to serve as warnings to those who are out of order.“

The definition of misogyny in the first sentence is close to being correct, but I would add that it is a practiced expression of cruelty, exploitation, hatred, and hostility. The way Manne phrases it reinforces the “men are evil” message that is being carefully matriculated into the public consciousness of the wider populace. But in fact, misogyny comes from other women as much as it does from men, and it can be institutionalized as well. For example, last year’s post argued that feminism is misogynistic because it uses lures of sexual liberation and power (AKA equality) to exploit and corrupt women through peculiar channels that are unique to women’s weaknesses. Manne’s addition in the remainder of the paragraph makes it quite obvious that the purpose of rebranding a patriarchal order as “misogyny” is to subvert God’s ordained order of Headship. Obviously, she/they have never tasted the delicious fruits of spiritual obedience, and their GFD has grown into spiritual rebellion, indicated by how they have called good evil.

Amazon’s summary buys into mythos (which is a commonly adopted approach to evince a lie) when it goes so far as to say,

“It’s also common for women to serve as scapegoats, be burned as witches, and treated as pariahs.”

Burning witches was common in the colonial town of Salem in the winter of 1693, but I’m hard pressed to come up with another example in recent western history.

To make a big lie go down easily, it must be personally identifiable, it must appeal to discontented desire, and it must be woven into the present. It must also be targeted at an audience willing to be deceived (see 2 Timothy 4:3-4). Therefore, in order to stoke up the mythos for this claim to be sufficiently convincing, Manne goes on to describe several present events to which this rebranding can be applied. Going on with the summary at Amazon,

“Manne examines recent and current events such as the Isla Vista killings by Elliot Rodger, the case of the convicted serial rapist Daniel Holtzclaw, who preyed on African-American women as a police officer in Oklahoma City, Rush Limbaugh’s diatribe against Sandra Fluke, and the “misogyny speech” of Julia Gillard, then Prime Minister of Australia, which went viral on YouTube. The book shows how these events, among others, set the stage for the 2016 US presidential election. Not only was the misogyny leveled against Hillary Clinton predictable in both quantity and quality, Manne argues it was predictable that many people would be prepared to forgive and forget regarding Donald Trump’s history of sexual assault and harassment. For this, Manne argues, is misogyny’s oft-overlooked and equally pernicious underbelly: exonerating or showing “himpathy” for the comparatively privileged men who dominate, threaten, and silence women.”

No witch burnings were mentioned (unless we count Hillary Clinton’s electoral defeat), but moreover, it is just as I described in last year’s post. The TPTB (and their pandy Manne) are using a broad brush in an attempt to expand the definition of misogyny by presenting a false association between patriarchy, misogyny, and various social ills related to human nature. By making this logical leap of faith, using classical conditioning and raw repetition, and sparking the inherent fear of mass anarchy, any manifestation of male authority, i.e. Headship, can be absorbed under this subtle redefinition of misogyny, and the baby can then be thrown out with the bathwater. Manne’s book is a perfect example of propaganda supporting this strategy. We can only assume that the purpose of drawing this association is to assert a false moral authority over non-liberal value systems (e.g. Christianity; gender roles; the traditional family structure), to calumniate them as being detrimentally archaic or depraved, and to leverage the ostracization of their practitioners on various levels of society through the machinations of the liberally ordered shame culture.

How Rebranding “Misogyny” is used as a Shame Tactic in a Power Play

To give the reader an example of how this power play is executed, I’ll present this speech from ex Prime Minister of Australia, Julia Gillard.

Wise politicians know that a divided house cannot stand, but Gillard foolishly divided the house along the lines of male-female sex differences. The resulting leadership instability, political turmoil, and utter distraction caused by a speech such as this one is precisely why women were not admitted into politics before the early 20th century. If women are to be involved in politics, their first priority should be to bring unity and national inspiration, not turmoil. For example, Princess Diana was excellent at this and so her legacy continues to this day, in spite of the failures in her personal life.

Just as could be expected, nine months after this speech, following a lengthy period of leadership instability, Gillard lost the leadership of the Labor Party back to Rudd. Like a sore loser, she resigned from her position as Prime Minister the next day, and announced her retirement from politics.

Politics is dirty business, always has been, and that is never going to change. Gillard obviously couldn’t stand the heat, but instead of putting her personal discomfort aside and concentrating on making an appeal to national unity, she tried to destroy the oven, and only as a last resort did she get out of the kitchen. Note that she uses the phrase, “I’m offended” no fewer than 15 times within a 15 minute time frame. If a male politician ever used this phrase, he would be laughed to scorn. At 7:13, we see the parliament member sitting behind her stand up and walk out. At 8:05 another one follows him out. Even the women seen in the video, although they were acutely attentive, were also worried and bewildered.

Hillary Clinton, who was Secretary of State at the time, praised the speech as “very striking” with Gillard going “chapter and verse”. [Video of Clinton’s speech on Sexism: jump to 7:57 in the linked video for her coverage of Gillard; at 9:28 she states “chapter and verse”.] (Her choice of words indicate that she is a firm believer in the hoary scriptures of the Feminist Bible.) In turn, Clinton also lost the presidential election in 2016. Overall, it appears that having a Feminist platform and grasping at power through accusations of “misogyny” is a losing political stance. The reason is because it not only divides the house, but also the whole nation.

Here, I don’t intend to cast judgment on any actions that could (or could not) be construed as an injustice, but only to say that addressing the kinds of “offenses” that Gillard brought up in this speech should be reserved for personal interactions and private conversations, not on the floor of national Parliament, and certainly not broadcast on prime time TV. This kind of brash impertinence sets a bad example that every woman in Australia will follow after. (See Esther 1:16-18.)

So you see, this rebranding is not only being talked about in books and on liberal internet articles, it is taking place at the highest orders of power.

Turning Things Up-Side-Down

Vox’s article included an interview with Manne in which she states,

“There are relatively few misogynists as brazen or as unapologetic as Donald Trump, partly because misogynists often think they’re taking the moral high ground by preserving a status quo that feels right to them. They want to be socially and morally superior to the women they target.“

Manne’s last sentence is a projection that implies that she is feeling rather morally inferior for some reason and is resentful of the natural order.

In spite of all his moral defects, Trump is a man who is comfortable with his masculinity. He’s also quite adept at exercising masculine frame. This is precisely the trait that grants him leadership ability, and it is also what made him popular among his constituents — not his past sins. This is an important trait for a leader to have, because it shows that he firmly believes in God’s ordained order. He doesn’t need to waste his time arguing and quibbling to maintain “moral superiority” because he knows his authority (as a man) is written into the fabric of creation.

¹³ For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve.  ¹⁴ And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a wrongdoer.

2 Timothy 2: 13-14 (NASB)

In the interview at Vox, Manne states,

“I think most misogynistic behavior is about hostility toward women who violate patriarchal norms and expectations, who aren’t serving male interests in the ways they’re expected to. So there’s this sense that women are doing something wrong: that they’re morally objectionable or have a bad attitude or they’re abrasive or shrill or too pushy. But women only appear that way because we expect them to be otherwise, to be passive.”

I won’t deny that a lot of misogyny is directed toward women who violate patriarchal norms and expectations, but it isn’t done as part of a concerted mass conspiracy waged by men against women to control them and keep them in line, as she seems to think. The fact is that women who violate patriarchal norms are just being ugly on the spiritual plane of existence, and this is the characteristic element of feminism that fails miserably. Men can’t do anything in response to ugliness other than to react accordingly. As I wrote in last year’s post,

“Misogyny is a self-reinforcing cycle.  Women who conscientiously pursue the development of masculine traits invariably invite more misogyny onto themselves, especially when they use an aggressive masculine front to defend the lies and deceptions they have bought into via herd conformity.”

What Manne doesn’t seem to understand is that patriarchy is not about women being under subjection to men (which is an oft tainted violation of the hoary rule of equality), nor is it about women “serving male interests” per se, but rather, it’s a conformance to God’s created order — one that carries many inherent blessings to both men and women (blessings which are habitually downplayed, denigrated, or ignored altogether). God created women to be a companion and helpmeet for man, and if they fail to do that, or carry a resentful attitude about it, then they are doing something wrong and morally objectionable. But here we see that Manne goes to the opposite extreme with the mistaken notion that women can fight against God while expecting to become morally superior!

Again, this all comes back to the redefining misogyny to include any expression of God’s created order and rebranding it as oppression.

Concluding Statements

Following this modus operandi, we can see how modern feminism is truly the most misogynistic social machine in all of human history.  Now, every Christian who conforms to Biblical gender roles, Headship, and God’s created order can be denigrated as systemic abusers, when in fact, it is the accusers who are guilty of disorder and rebellion. This powerplay also undermines women’s natural source of support and security — societal order in general, and specifically men — and demands that women become what they are not — all the things which are traditionally assumed of men.  This fully explains why more women are clinically depressed and are more unhappy now than ever before.

That’s systemic misogyny!

Related

• Σ Frame: 16 Qualities of an Irresistible Woman (2017 December 1)
• Chateau Heartiste: Misogynist, Sexist SJWs Bullycide A Sexually Empowered Young Woman (2017 December 6)
• Chateau Heartiste: Supreme Gentlemen Are The Real Misogynists (2018 March 22)
• Σ Frame: The Ten Commandments of Feminism (2018 June 5)
• Chateau Heartiste: The Biggest Misogynists Are Other Women (2018 June 17)
• Dalrock: Warhorn interview: Does work like yours attract misogynists? (2019 February 18)
• Pushing Rubber Downhill (Adam Piggott): Bring out your misogynists! (2020 October 22)