Men’s Rights Activists, and anti-feminists generally, are forever warning anyone who will listen that excessive feminism could, any day now, bring about the end of western civilization itself.
This is not a terribly new or original idea. And a post on Nazified pickup artist blog Chateau Heartiste today reminds us just how old and unoriginal this notion is.
The proprietor of that blog, James “Heartiste” Weidmann, brings his readers’ attention to a lengthy quotation from a 1911 book by a fellow named Octavius Beale.
[U]nreasonable demands for exaggerated “rights ” of women will always find a limit in the fact that the majority of men will constantly prefer for wives those who do not claim such rights, but who rather seek their happiness in cultivating and developing their specially feminine virtues and attributes, apart from any aim at equality with men.
Take that, feminist cat ladies with no husbands!
These attributes will also therefore be preferably inherited, whilst the extreme tendencies of the women’s rights movement will usually not come into heredity, but will constantly tend to die out.
Well, he was half right. Feminism did die out, for a time, but then it came back.
Notwithstanding, should woman-rule —contrary to all expectations— become so strong in any single State that it will be able to enforce all its demands, even the most extreme, that result could only be possible where the men are completely degenerated.
Degenerated, huh? Can you see where this is going?
Such a nation would soon be supplanted and dissolved by healthier peoples, who might, perhaps, stand on a lower scale of culture.
I believe he is referring to what the Nazis of today like to call “white genocide.” Back in 1911, Beale called it “Racial Decay” — which was in fact the title of his book.
Amazing how quickly and easily Beale slid from antifeminism to white supremacy. Just as so many antifeminists do today.
Heartiste follows up Beale’s dire, racist warning with a dire, racist warning of his own.
After declaring “equalism” to be “a corruption of civilized man’s soul,” he tries his best to rally the troops in defense of their white “tribe.”
[F]emcuntery will only achieve wrecking power in a nation of degenerated men unable and unwilling to act to preserve their culture and protect their tribe. Women are followers and will follow their nation right into the abyss if it guarantees their social standing among peers; as I’ve been saying, it’ll take shitlord men with big balls to bring their women to heel and their nation back to greatness.
Heartiste, seriously, no one wants to hear about your balls.
Noooooo. No.
Guys, I think you have your reasons to think that, and I don’t mind your opinion, but I very much disagree.
As I said, “first, second and third” world was a division made during the cold war era that only made sense in the cold war era. Please drop that completely, it’s useless, outdated and over-simplistic.
Even if the cold war was today (it isn’t, so…), Brazil wouldn’t be first world. To say Brazil is first world or developed is as innacurate as saying it’s underdeveloped. It’s ignoring some very important issues we have and ignoring our role in global economy.
Developed/first world countries sell technology, we “sell” cheap workers and resources. We sell oil for the US to transform in gas, then buy the gas back from them at a much higher price simply because we don’t have the technology to refine it, for example. Or the US put factories here or in Mexico because of smaller taxes, salaries and environmental laws, and we accept because it generates jobs for our people. The US outsource call centers to India for the same reasons. We can’t pretend we are technology producers, our role in global economy is clear and defined and different from the role of developed countries.
Not to mention our social problems. A significant portion of the population here can’t read. We have people dying out of hunger and diarrhea. We have states where child marriages is normal. At the same time, we have boosting metropolitan areas such as Sao Paulo. The differences are huge, one area is urbanized and others aren’t, such is the common reality of developing countries, which we share with other developing countries. I very much accept the label of developing, and with pride, no less, and I believe it’s a very accurate label.
And the US DID fight to have influence over us during the cold war. As I said, we were THE BALL. The cold war was a war of influence. The US INSTALLED A MILITARY DICTATORSHIP THAT LASTED OVER 20 YEARS in Brazil to shut down communists. And this is not a conspiracy theory either, this is a confirmed fact, we have DOCUMENTS proving the US gave our military all kinds of support to reach power. I mean, the only reason we didn’t descent into a “Vietnam War” is that our people are not too fond of war and communism was not too strong here, so, yeah. We aren’t first world for several reasons, which don’t include the US not caring about us.
I mean, generally speaking, we know our place in the grand scheme of things, and we are okay with it, at least I am. I am also pretty realistic about the situation here, and I believe the population in general is too. Brazilians are optimistic people, but we are not patriotic at all, at least not in that sense. I noticed in discussions like these people from developed countries either act like we are cave people opening coconuts with rocks or we are a smaller warmer America and will feel offended if you say otherwise. We are neither, we are pretty well off in some ways, horrible in others, but trumping, falling, and breaking a few bones, we walk forward, and that is okay for me!
I’m pretty sure that the only reason troll hates Ayn Rand is that she was a woman.
That, or he honestly disagrees with her views.
O wait
@Chiomara
Like I said, “first world” doesn’t imply anything about your economic or social situation. It only implies that you are in the sphere of influence of the US (or Europe, but the US in the specific case of Brazil). It’s a political classification, not an economic or social one.
Economically, Brazil is one of the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China) which implies that the country is, so to speak, on its way up but still near the bottom, which in turn implies that it is a great investment opportunity. It’s a purely economic classification that is independent of the old first/second/third world political classification.
First/second/third world classifications have been misused in English to imply certain economic systems/levels of development, but that’s a misuse. The US jealously hoards its influence over the Western Hemisphere and has frankly abused other countries in order to make them little capitalist markets for US goods, as well as to extract resources. The places where this has succeeded are first-world.
@WWTH
That’s undoubtedly part of it, but there’s also a schism among right-libertarians between the pro-Rand and anti-Rand factions (Who call themselves objectivists and libertarians respectively), because Rand talked a lot of shit about libertarians in her writing, and both factions are so ignorant about their own movement’s history that they don’t realize she was referring to left-libertarians*, as that was the default meaning of the term a the time she got started.
*i.e. people of my political persuasion
@PoM
*Shrug* That’s not what I learned at school, but if you say so, I respect that. I have neither credentials nor references to discuss this in a deeper way.
I’ve heard South Africans say that we’re First World because we sided with America during the Cold War. I’ve also heard South Africans say that we’re Third World because we export raw materials and import services and finished goods.
I’m not happy with the word “BRICS”, personally, because those five countries are so utterly different that it seems weird to group them; but then I’m not an economist.
@EJ
I find both these things so weird because… All right, so we are “first world” because we aren’t and weren’t communist, OK. When exactly were we referred to or treated as “first world”? Not in the cold war and not now. Also, what else do we have in common with the US and the EU countries? Nothing. Seems like a very fragile division based on nearly nothing but something that only mattered on the time window from the 60’s to the 80’s/early 90’s.
Also, we are third world cause we mostly export raw goods. Do we seriously think we can compare ourselves to Nigeria, somalia, etc? When we gather to discuss the group of countries in extreme poverty that need our collective help, both humanitarian and financial, to be able to thrive, can we seriously put everyone who is not as industrialized as Europe or the US in the same bag, can we say it’s as important to help Brazil as it’s important to help Somalia? Sounds very weird. I mean, this kind of division is not made because of semantics, or based on a single characterisc, it’s based on several things that are relevant at that point of history with the point of making the study and discussion of common characteristics and problems easier. It’s not this simple, and if it was, the division would lose it’s purpose.
But I am not an embassador, a president or a economist, and the category people decide to put my country in matters as much in my life as my opinion and what I learned at school matters to the ones responsible to categorize it (which is not at all), so meh.
I think BRICS is not one of those socioeconomic divisions. You see, ACCORDING TO WHATEVER I LEARNED AT SCHOOL (which may or may not be correct), in this multipolarized world countries decided to make alliances to become stronger and have more competitivity in the global market. See the EU, the thing between US, Mexico and Canada, the Asian Tigers, Mercosul. Now, those are economical blocks, but are the examples I know, sorry. BRICS are not an economical block nor seeks to be one, it’s a bunch of countries who decided to cooperate with each other economically, mainly because they want to grow and be a bit less independent from the US. Brazil, India, and South Africa come with the raw materials and consumers, China and Russia comes with the technology and industrialized goods. Basically, we are buddies because we decided to be, not because a random economist looked at us and said “And now I shall call you… BRICS!”
I am sorry if I sound like a complete idiot, everyone! I’m just saying what I was told to write in tests!
Oops, I said idiot. Sorry.
You don’t sound like an idiot, Chiomara. These concepts can be, and perhaps should be, criticized.
I’m pretty sure the definition of “first world” and “third world” and shit is very loosely defined so Britain and America can lord superiority over other “less developed” nations, whatever “less develop” means at whatever time. The terms are also becoming less and less meaningful when world-wide the standard of living is rising, along with lots of non-labor intensive jobs and careers to choose from.
Also, question for my HZD playing peeps, is the game opened ended or the quests not really that time sensitive? Because honestly looking at the game and I just wanna go around, exploring and hunting.
@Jack
Absolutely nothing is time sensitive. You can go around as you like, and it’s actually encouraged in a number of ways. Straying too far can be dangerous ’cause some Machines can be deadly to someone who’s never encountered them before and/or isn’t properly equipped, but otherwise traveling is a damn pleasure and exploration is rewarding. You can still try your luck in the more dangerous environments and play it safe by making use of all the save points scattered around.
Hell even after finishing pretty much everything else kept just wandering around and hunting the big ‘uns. The world’s not that big but every inch of it is worth a trip. Plus you can still find yourself sorely overmatched even in post-game* if you get cocky, which adds substance to the wandering.
Damn I wanted to post a quick reply and go to sleep and this turned into a wall o’ text again. Buuut HZD .-.
Edit : *dammit I meant post-game.
It’s a good year for sandbox RPG fans. As soon as I’m done with FO4, I’m moving on to Horizon, then Zelda… Of course, I put about 1200 hours into Skyrim (that is not a typo), so it might take me a while.
This pleases me.
Gotta concede I was astounded at the “your non-US nation don’t make a difference” contention. It’s sufficiently awful that he tosses in simply world and relative privation in the meantime, however then he moves the goalposts in coordinate logical inconsistency with relative privation. Alright, beyond any doubt.
Like, man, I know you adore “misrepresentation” yet you’re precisely the sort of individual who ought to be prohibited to articulate or compose it. A fucking critic is the thing that.
“HZD?”
Spambots are becoming sentient.
*notes down the address in the just in case file.*