Friday, October 2, 2009

The Network of "Enlightened" Women


I recently came across the following website, NEW: The Network of Enlightened Women.

At face value, much of what this group represents is a somewhat positive development - they are a conservative-based backlash against the feminist liberal culture of college campuses across the country...a reaction to religious-minded women to the Womyn's Studies curriculum.

What's wrong with that, you might ask?

Plenty, if you read further into their agenda and their ideology.

The most glaring point for me is the assumption these "enlightened" women advocate - while they oppose the liberal/libertine excesses of modern feminism, that they reject promiscuity as empowering, that they oppose the inculcation of victimology in women, that they encourage their members to revel in femininity and modesty (all of these are good things), they still accept the basic premise that is the foundation for promoting the feminist movement: that women are morally superior creatures to men, that men were oppressive, and that the initial feminist movement was just and necessary because women were in-equal and oppressed in the past.

In this way, they are actually just as subversive and destructive in promoting their agenda as any other feminist group.

From their "Educate" page, in discussing promiscuity, we get this gem:

By women’s view of empowerment being linked to sexual promiscuity we in fact undermine the very foundations of femininity. This promiscuity devalues women by men seeing them as something that can be used for their own ends and women accepting this status as the tools of men.

Feminists threw away the moral superiority of women, a beautiful counteraction to the physical superiority of men.


If they had used any other term, like emotional bonding, or nurturing or some other feminine asset as a superior trait that balances out men's physical superiority, there would be nothing wrong with this statement.

But no...what we get is elitist, hubris-laden femininity.

It is a manifestation of "benevolent" Matriarchy...

..but it is Matriarchy nonetheless.

See, "moral superiority" has nothing to do with gender. It is a personal character trait that does not develop innately...but rather, it is a conscious decision to adhere to an abstract principle, even if it painful or detrimental to the person that decides to adhere to it.

Just how "morally superior" is ANY woman that ascribes moral INFERIORITY to an entire class of people, based on nothing but their gender?

Just like the most ardent, man hating feminazi, these upstanding, modest and feminine women of religious conviction are just as convinced of their superiority over men when it comes to the idea of character.

It gets worse too.

On the next issue of the educate page, they resort to the old shaming language of any other strident feminist...

Since January, students have been nominating male ASU students for performing a gentlemanly act. The ten most-nominated gentlemen will be honored at a catered dinner event.

To promote the Showcase, the NeW chapter at ASU has created a short video asking students four questions: What is a gentleman? What are the characteristics of a gentleman? Are there gentlemen at ASU? Are gentlemen an endangered species?

Student answers range from the serious to the comical. For example, some student responses to the question “What is a gentleman?” include, “just a man that has manners I guess,” “well, we don’t know. We haven’t ever seen one before,” “someone who opens doors, is chivalrous, and a nice guy,” “a gentlemen is a person that likes to do nice things and doesn’t really ask for anything in return” and “someone who is nice and courteous and is always looking out for other people before themselves.”


Oh the irony.

You conservative, modest women long for the days of chivalry! If only Men would be Gentlemen again! If only men would be nice and courteous and look out for other people (that should be replaced by "female"), before themselves, everything would be just fine and dandy again!

See...it's an attitude that is still based on female superiority.

These conceited ladies completely fail to understand the truth of their predicament.

There are no gentlemen anymore, because there are no more ladies.

16 comments:

ganttsquarry said...

This new "conservative" backlash is more offensive, in a way, than traditional feminism.

They are trying to advocate for all of the good "patriarchal" things women used to benefit from, while keeping the privileges of modern feminism and its superior attitude.

They seek to put the genie halfway back in the bottle.

In a contest between feminist sluts and feminist prudes, I think I'll stick with the former. At least its obvious where they stand.

Keoni Galt said...

Agreed.

The feminist "prudes" still ascribe to the same mentality of female superiority.

Ben said...

I remember the term "lifeboat feminism" was being used a few months ago in the blogosphere to describe "Christian" or conservative feminism. Basically, the women want to steer the ship or at least have a 50% say in steering the ship and still get in line ahead of the men for life boats.

While I don't agree with any type of feminism, at least the old school feminism was somewhat intellectually consistent.

I think when conservative women talk about having "male leadership." They mean having the man put in all the backbreaking work to do what a woman wants.

Anonymous said...

I'm beginning to think that by attacking 'Feminism' we attack the wrong target. The term is owned and has become useless as a word to meaningfully describe something - its definition changes with every adherent.

The problem is female moral supremacism, feminine privilege and cultural double standards based on sex.

Even in criticism, 'Feminism' gains currency by being repeated - there are too many positive associations with the word in the minds of too many people.

Every time we say 'feminist' we miss a chance to say 'female supremacist', and frame the argument in language that hasn't already been loaded against us.

Roy Scott Movrich said...

Today's female supremacist, egotistical, narcissistic, hag-ridden she-devil wants her cake and to eat it too.
Witness how she flaunts her "grrrrl power" but also wants Old World customs bestowed on her; or how the empowered female goes on a date and then expects the man to pay for everything!
I don't think so.
These female supremacists fail to realize that in order to be shown such Old World chivalry you must prove yourself worthy to be shown such. In other words, respect begets respect.
The modern female supremacist has disowned any claim to that.

Graham Phoenix said...

Oh you are so wrong. "There are no gentlemen anymore, because their are no more ladies." It is completely the other way round. There are no more ladies because there are no more gentlemen. You see they are superior in a way and always have been. They fill the void we leave behind. Yes they are looking for 'gentlemen' but men with presence that they can trust. That is the trait they long to explore. But men ceased to be trustworthy, they became either weak or alpha, both equally repulsive.

the tent lady said...

Well, there's also the whole issue of the dialectical divide that drives the feminist "debates." Bella Asbug (whose feminist influence went far and wide) signed the Communitarian Platform.

Seems to me like these enlightened prudes are but another fake synthesis leading to the ultimate communitarian fake synthesis.. which quite possibly may be androgenous humanity with no identifiable sexes at all.

The fact that feminst rhetoric is based entirely in the Hegelian dialectic is a clue to the Matrix.

MarkyMark said...

There are no gentlemen anymore, because their are no more ladies.

Ka-ka-kaboom! KG NAILS it! These chicks can go FUCK themselves...

Cerberus said...

You people need to get out more.

Anonymous said...

http://www.luckinlove.com/savethegirls.htm

Talleyrand said...

The morally superior gender is the men, not the women.

Graham does not get it and wishes men to go back to the easy Beta provider that women use. Men became more Cad like after the sexual revolution. He mistakes the words of women, for their actions.

The game is up women, we know that you are parasites and users. You get what you give: nothing.

I think we can just replace feminist and female supremacist with simple "women." It's simple, accurate and inclusive.

Anonymous said...

I agree. Men are morally superior.

The simple fact is that when something genuinely oppressive and barbaric is happening to women (as in, say, Afghanistan under the Taliban), a long line of men will line up to fight against that injustice, either on the battlefield or with their political efforts.

But when something genuinely oppressive is happening to men (US divorce laws, the false rape industry, etc.), I can count on one hand the number of women who even speak out against it.

So yes, men are morally superior. Men with power over women are far less likely to abuse that power than women with power over men are. Patriarchal societies are happier for both men AND women as a result.

Anonymous said...

Graham is the typical social conservative (aka BetaCon) who speaks from a position of no direct experience with women.

Graham - you are not sufficiently experienced with women to comment on this subject.

Anonymous said...

Feminism by any other name, still stinks just the same.

Keoni Galt said...

I have to say, I do not think it is a good practice to simply try to claim that one gender is morally superior to the other.

Folks, you need to understand, just as the tent lady wrote, feminism whether it is the left wing all men are pigs or the right wing variant of women are morally superior, the whole purpose is to divide and conquer the masses by fomenting gender war.

I think it's better that we stick to judging individuals regardless of gender in assessing someone's moral superiority.

Sociopathic Revelation said...

“someone who is nice and courteous and is always looking out for other people before themselves.”

I.e. someone that is ripe for a skank to exploit.

Got it.