“The woman follows the man. In her youth she follows her father and elder brother; when married, she follows her husband; when her husband is dead, she follows her son.” – Confucius
Aristotle made a cruel observation regarding human nature in his treatise on politics that continues to offend sensibilities to this day. He argued that some people were slaves by nature, and the proper course for such individuals was to subject themselves to the rule of their superiors. Aristotle argued that “natural slaves” lacked the reason to think properly and thus slavery was as beneficial to them as captivity was to cattle (to protect them from wild predators).
He believed that slavery was a perfectly natural condition since too many managers and too few workers would halt productivity, to invoke a modern metaphor. Who are natural slaves? We see them all around us every day. They are accountants, doctors, engineers, construction workers, and all those who possess enough reason to excel at their work without questioning the status quo. They are individuals who want a cushy job while surrendering difficult decisions to the nanny state.
Aristotle understood the limitations of his theory, as some that possessed the souls of free men became enslaved while those that were slaves by nature became free. It is my belief, however, that those that are slaves by nature will choose slavery if given free choice and those that are masters will rise given the same environment of freedom.
A couple of years ago I asked a middle aged female co-worker what she would do if she had a million dollars. She informed me that she would spend the money on repairs and renovation of her house in addition to paying off her mortgage. She had spent the money in a matter of seconds and informed me that a million dollars wasn’t enough to gain financial independence. She concluded the conversation by stating that she would be back at her desk even if she won a million dollars at the casino. This individual is a natural slave. But what does all of this have to do with feminism? We shall examine the connection below.
The first feminist
Mary Wollstonecraft has the dubious honor of being recognized as the first liberal feminist in History. Her major endeavor was “vindication for the rights of women.” One of the central arguments that the work advocates is that society should respect the rational autonomy of women. She formulated this argument in the broader context of women’s education, which was a widely debated topic during her lifetime.
Wollstonecraft believed that women had the same capacity to grow as men did and that a well rounded education could aid women in becoming contributing members of society. Her arguments seem tinged with Kantian ethics, which were quite the rage during the enlightenment. Contemporary feminists are still divided on whether Wollstonecraft should be considered a true feminist or not given that she did not challenge the primacy of gender roles.
Wollstonecraft’s works provided a tremendous ideological thrust for the suffragists, but this nascent feminist movement still lacked a central ideology until the rise of gender feminism in the 60s. Much of the Marxist rot that saturates society today has its origins in the gender feminist movement of the 60s. The suffragists still saw themselves as members of a particular ethnic group and preoccupied themselves with the interests of those groups.
For example, an Irish suffragist was still proud to be Irish just as a German suffragist was proud to be German. Gender feminists would eventually tell women that nationalism was “masculinized history” and that women mustn’t take pride in their ethnicity and culture, but rather from their Marxist class identity: “women.” Unsurprisingly, the average North American feminist is concerned more with the education opportunities of Afghan women than she is with the plight of the homeless man down the street.
The path continues
Betty Friedan famously argued that a woman had no identity outside of a few roles that society had forcefully assigned her, such as wife and mother. To Friedan, these roles were wrongly at the core of a woman’s identity instead of her inner characteristics (such as her intellect) and achievements. So far both Friedan and Wollstonecraft seem to agree that women need to develop their characters and inner faculties independently of the limited roles that society has accorded them.
Where they seem to differ lies in their attitudes toward culture and society. Wollstonecraft never attacked gender roles and saw the education of women as a means to an end: producing a better society. Friedan and later feminists weren’t concerned with the well-being of society so much as they were with re-constructing culture on their own terms. For the sake of brevity let us just say that Wollstonecraft and the suffragists had a holistic objective in mind (the interests of society as a whole), whereas second wave feminists had a solipsistic objective in mind: the interests of women (as a Marxist class) at the expense of society.
The third wave
Third wave Feminism saw the loosening of social expectations aimed at policing women’s behavior. Expectations pertaining to responsible alcohol consumption, sexual behavior, and even appearance were all summarily carpet bombed by feminists under the banner of “choice.” The case of Hamilton and Hylton is worth mentioning, as it sends out a clear signal that women are simply not accountable for their actions.
Put another way, women are treated like children and feminists actually prefer it that way. The modern feminist mantra “Don’t teach me to do x, teach men not to do y” reeks of narcissistic entitlement. Fat acceptance feminist Lindy West illustrates this childish mindset perfectly. To West, it is more logical for society to alter its aesthetic taste than for obese women to go on a diet.
The sentiment “Why should I change? Everybody else should change to accommodate me!” is the thinking of one whose mental faculties have not reached maturity. This is sort of immature mindset that Schopenhauer prophetically criticized as thus:
“Women are suited to being the nurses and teachers of our earliest childhood precisely because they themselves are childish, silly and short-sighted, in a word big children, their whole lives long…”
Third wave feminism has vindicated Aristotle’s views on human nature. That when given unfettered freedom, women choose to yield to their inner nature and become big children. Children, as we all know, need a guardian and that role is fulfilled by the nanny state. It is worthwhile to note that old fashioned liberals like John Locke (Life, Liberty, Property) argued in favour of individual freedom by limiting the powers of government. Contrast classical liberalism with female infested modern liberalism where “oppressed groups” tilt the resources of the majority toward themselves using a bloated nanny state as their lever.
Strong willed men have historically desired small government whereas “strong and independent” women desire the very opposite. It is clear that women subscribe to a very different definition of freedom compared to men. Men desire freedom from government whereas women desire freedom from sociocultural obligations where the cost of their impropriety is borne by society and enabled by the state. Can you guess which definition of freedom would be agreeable to the overlords of the encroaching police state?
Third wave feminism brings the feminist enterprise full circle, as it liberates the very shortcomings of female nature that the earliest feminists believed were the product of patriarchal subjugation. The dementia of the feminist movement extends well beyond the vapid dogmas that comprise its ideological core. The root of its dementia lies in the movement’s belief that women can be free of their nature; that somehow feminism can undo thousands of years of female evolution.
Ironically, the case against feminism is best made by feminism itself.