Feminism, Atheism, Nazism, Communism

Bear with me here, this one may end up being a bit of a blur. It covers ground I’ve covered before, quite extensively, across more than one website, and if you ask me, some of these arguments make absolutely no sense.

All too often, people conflate certain ideas, even when this conflation has been debunked. They will repeat these ideas, and do so ad nauseum, in the hope that the notion sticks. Just because some end uo being duped into repeated these ideas does not make them correct.

If you want to see some posts I’ve made on the misleading idea that communism and atheism should be conflated (the intent is to make atheists seem as bloodthirsty as religions have historically been), you can check out the following:

Atheism, Humanism, Religion, Morality

Religion, History, Violence and Hitler

‘No Reason to be Hostile Towards Religion’

‘Atheists think murder isn’t wrong’

I’ve also written about feminism, and to equate feminism with Nazism is (to me at least) to play very fast and loose with connections.

Misogyny, Misandry, and the Reactionary Right (Coalition site)

Misogynistic Creeps (Coalition site)

Strange Hills (Coalition site)

With all of that as a preface, I wish to discuss another post from the author I will know as Membrane. He laments the apparent decline of western society, and pinpoints feminism as one of the problems.

To quote:

…For western philosophy, the first principles come from the Bible, not because beliefs are explicitly adapted from Scripture but because the Bible shaped the very psychological structure that allows philosophizing. It is in particular true that western beliefs are all attempts to follow Scripture.

This has been the case until very recently when the very foundations of our civilization was brought into question, almost entirely owing to the feminist philosophy and related social changes. Before feminists, perhaps the only people that broke free of the Biblical structure of our society were Nazis and the Communists.

The Nazis did this by violating the Biblical axiom that all men are created in the image of God: they philosophized that some people had natural dominion over others. We must note that slaveholders rarely believed in something so atrocious: most of slavery was actually evil business practices and did not stem from a belief system that violated Scripture. Nazism was something that belonged to a different level of evilness.

The Communists violated the foundations by explicitly rejecting God and establishing an atheist tyranny. They were the first atheists in history who took over the power of a state, and the result was true chaos. Moreover, Marxism is in violation of personal responsibility which brings it at odds with the notion of free will and God’s promise to men.

I’m not sure I can agree that slave owners acted only out of greed, and not the idea of racial superiority. I mean, they dehumanised their fellow humans to the point that they were regarded as property to buy and sell, which requires a certain level of degradation. Where they got these ideas from is anyone’s guess, but it is worth noting that the Old Testament of the Bible contains passages about the ownership of other human beings (though, in fairness, much of the Old Testament involves God slaughtering, or commanding the slaughter of, human beings, rather than enslavement).

Communism is not atheism. Some communists are atheists, some communists are Christians, and some might follow other religions. If we are to judge all atheists by the actions of communists (especially say, the actions of the USSR’s leaders), shall we judge all Christians by the huge historical bloodshed in the Crusades, and the numerous wars between Catholic and Protestant factions across Europe?

Why feminism gets lumped in with all this is quite fascinating. Feminism is literally about ensuring equality between the sexes, and there are (like with Christianity) different flavours of feminism. Some feminists believe that women should avoid men completely. Some are completely against pornography, and others believe in sexual empowerment. Some want to guide men into understanding how certain actions and behaviours towards women are wrong and harmful. It’s a nuanced picture, yet opposition to feminism often frames things in black and white terms.

How do the feminists follow the same path as Nazis and the Communists? Well, we all know: they question the very foundation of our civilization and attempt to topple it with the goal of starting it all anew. The masculine, patriarchal order is not an “accident of tradition”, it has its basis in human nature, is fundamental to a Biblically oriented society, and is what stops chaos from ensuing.

Well, Nazism was in fact rooted in very conservative, traditional values, as evidenced by Hitler’s ideas of family. The Bible is not actually a basis in nature, nature is the basis of nature, and humanity has continuously evolved its ideas and concepts. There is push-back against feminism because of fear, not that family structures will collapse, but fear of losing power. What happens to us fellas if women get to make their own decisions, and occupy positions of authority? Are we worried women will treat us like we have collectively treated them for centuries? We seek to preserve power, not tradition. There is another term for tradition: old-fashioned. There’s another term: out-dated.

Look, if anyone wants to lead what they deem a traditional life, that’s up to them. If a woman chooses to be a stay-at-home mother, that’s fine by me. If they choose to have a career (either before or after becoming a mother), that’s fine by me too. Let’s face it, in a world run by greedy, power-hungry elitists, both parents will probably have to work in a lot of circumstances. If a woman does not want kids, she should be under no obligation to have them. This is part of feminism looks to achieve, the freedom of choice.

‘Traditional’ modes of thinking might serve some people in some circumstances, but they hardly serve everyone, and they hardly do everyone good. Membrane wrote another post, in which he insists men should never cry. He calls men crying a teaching of feminism; I call it being mindful of one’s mental health. Teaching men to bottle up anguish, anger, sadness… no one wins from that. Chester Bennington and Chris Cornell both died by suicide, and I believe their deaths could have been avoided, if the right support structures for male mental health existed. There will be countless stories of pent-up rage, with nowhere to turn to express emotions, because of antiquated teachings that having feelings is somehow a weakness.

I cried when my daughter was born. It was the happiest, most wonderful, beautiful moment of my life. Would I have been better to have been a cold robot on that day? I cried when my Nan died, and at her funeral. I loved her, she was truly one of the best human beings to ever walk this earth, and her loss wounded me. Would it be better for me to act as though I did not feel anything?

I have said before that patriarchal thinking hurts men as well as women. Some ‘pithy’ (yet ultimately ignorant) commentators have sarcastically pointed to how the patriarchy, supposedly the source of so much male benefit, hurts men, and they have inadvertently shot down their own position in the process. Yes, men are more likely to do dangerous jobs, such as serving in the military. What these pro-patriarchy posters overlook (deliberately or through ignorance) is that historically, women have been banned from the armed forces, by men! This is but one way in which we men shoot ourselves in the foot, whilst desperately clinging to the very way of thinking that destroys us. That’s of no benefit to anyone.

Please follow and like us: