/lit/ - Literature

>>22285294
I despise the feminists and the incels, both of whom begin from fundamentally the same misogynistic starting point in evaluating Woman with the standard of the Man, and holding up the Masculine as the ideal. The only difference between these groups is the conclusions they draw from this common source. The feminist wishes to “liberate” Woman from her femininity and transform her — if not in body then at least in mind — into the man’s equal. The incel, rightly seeing this project as unattainable, throws up his arms in despair and declares that there is no hope of establishing a harmonious relationship between the sexes. None of them question whether it were wise to disembark from this stream that they both are floating on, which has led them into separate but thorny paths.

Now it is true that in a sense the man possesses a higher existence. He has the quality which Schopenhauer called objective interest, the ability to take interest in things outside of him, in truth, in the ultimate principles of philosophy. Man’s existence is fulfilled in the creative domination of external things; the bringing into his own possession of that which is outside of him and imposing system upon it. For the highest sort of men this expresses itself in philosophical contemplation; for the lower sorts, in craftsmanship, engineering, war, and the like.

Woman, however, is fulfilled primarily in relation to the man. Her greatest life project is her husband and children, and the home she manages and upkeeps. Even those saintly women who abjure the married life and become nuns do not thereby abandon their nurturing role: they become teachers, nurses, carers for orphans; in a word, mothers, not of one family, but of the greater social family.

Woman is the passive part of history; Man is the active. As a rule, the woman is what the man makes her out to be. In our own day we have made them whores through our own folly, our own concupiscence, our own egalitarian inability to comprehend distinction. We believed the woman when she expressed her desire for equality (or rather, when she adopted the feminism that had already been formulated for her by men). We did not realise that this expression of feminism was merely the woman’s act of coy rebellion, by which she sought to incite us to a vital reassertion of our masculine authority, so that she may experience the thrill of being put in her place (systematised), dominated, possessed, like every other object of Man’s love.

I have offered here a global analysis, but it is possible to apply these principles at the individual level. There is still hope for love, for marriage, for family, for virtue, even in our modern liberal world. But it must begin from the man’s individual conquest over his own concupiscence, and the finding of a woman young enough and smart enough not to be tainted by the illusion of equality.

As always I find myself sitting utterly outside the mainstream discussion on this issue. I despise the feminists and the incels, both of whom begin from fundamentally the same misogynistic starting point in evaluating Woman with the standard of the Man, and holding up the Masculine as the ideal. The only difference between these groups is the conclusions they draw from this common source. The feminist wishes to “liberate” Woman from her femininity and transform her — if not in body then at least in mind — into the man’s equal. The incel, rightly seeing this project as unattainable, throws up his arms in despair and declares that there is no hope of establishing a harmonious relationship between the sexes. None of them question whether it were wise to disembark from this stream that they both are floating on, which has led them into separate but thorny paths.

Now it is true that in a sense the man possesses a higher existence. He has the quality which Schopenhauer called objective interest, the ability to take interest in things outside of him, in truth, in the ultimate principles of philosophy. Man’s existence is fulfilled in the creative domination of external things; the bringing into his own possession of that which is outside of him and imposing system upon it. For the highest sort of men this expresses itself in philosophical contemplation; for the lower sorts, in craftsmanship, engineering, war, and the like.

Woman, however, is fulfilled primarily in relation to the man. Her greatest life project is her husband and children, and the home she manages and upkeeps. Even those saintly women who abjure the married life and become nuns do not thereby abandon their nurturing role: they become teachers, nurses, carers for orphans; in a word, mothers, not of one family, but of the greater social family.

The woman is the heart; the man is the head. Though the head is in a sense higher than the heart, and is better fit for ruling, both are necessary to each other. The heart without the head is hysterical; the head without the heart is autistic. Should the Heart cease beating, the Head will soon falter.

Should we despair and say to the heart, “Thou art lower, Heart, and must draw thyself to the level of the Head and become the Head” as the feminists do? Or should we look with fury upon the heart, curse it because it is not the head, as do the incels? What folly! The head requires the heart and the heart the head; this we all know in our deepest recesses.