Feminism and the Western cultural legacy

[ibshambat]

A major claim of feminism is that the Western cultural legacy is racist and patriarchal. There are problems with that claim.

One is that these people have not produced anything that compares to Western cultural legacy. Probably the only feminist movie of merit that I have seen is the Bratz. Nothing coming out of feminism compares to Michelangelo, Shakespeare, Mozart, Tchaikovsky or Dostoyevsky. They are a destructive influence much more than they are a transformative influence. And until they produce anything comparable to these people, they have no business attacking Western cultural legacy.

Secondly, while there are racist and patriarchal influences in the Western civilization, there are many things of merit in the Western cultural legacy. That the Chinese used to bind women’s feet or that the Hindus used to burn widows does not mean that nothing stands to be learned from the Hindus or the Chinese. Most people are right about some things and wrong about others. That there are some in the Western cultural legacy who did wrong things does not mean that the Western cultural legacy is worthless.

There have been influences in the Western culture that were racist and patriarchal; however there were also many that were not. There has been a lot of painting, sculpture, film, theater and poetry in the Western cultural legacy that celebrates women. And then of course there have been major contributors to Western cultural legacy who were women.

In damning the entire cultural legacy of the West because some influences in it were racist and patriarchal, these people fail to avail themselves – and let other avail themselves – of a vast body of wisdom. And that impoverishes people’s minds and does vast disservice to themselves, but more so to their students and other people who take them seriously.

Most people who contributed to the Western cultural legacy were rebels and saw many things wrong with the world around them. Renaissance, Enlightenment and Romanticism were all movements opposed to what was going on in the world at the time. Most committed their own errors; however all have been major contributors while operating in hostile climate. Our civilization is based on the work of rebels. Which means that people who are rebels stand more to learn from this legacy than from militating against it.

I have translated a vast body of poetry by a Russian woman poet Marina Tsvetayeva. I cannot be accused of being patriarchal; I put in a vast effort into translating the works of a woman. Here is a brilliant, strong-minded woman who contributed to Western cultural legacy. Her works are neither racist nor patriarchal. They are both beautiful and profound, and she has much more claim to respect than do most feminists.

Are there things wrong with the Western cultural legacy? Of course there are. But there are things wrong with anything that is out there, including feminism. Damning the legacy of a whole civilization because some of its influences were racist and patriarchal is absolute foolishness. Once again, one fails to avail oneself of a vast body of wisdom, and that impoverishes one’s mind.
 
If feminists really want to remake the Western civilization, they will produce works comparable to those of the great Western masters. So far they have done nothing of the sort. So far they have been a destructive influence and not a transformative influence; and only when they produce anything comparable to Shakespeare or Michelangelo will they have earned the right to claim cultural leadership of the world.

[Walker]

Women at the Speed of Life
https://thenewjerusalem.substack.com/p/ ... ed-of-life

Feminism arose in the 18th century in response to a problem. The Industrial Revolution had destroyed the home industries (see Proverbs 31 for a list) that gave women an economic presence in society. I believe the feminist solutions to that problem — promiscuous sterility and baby killing — were bad solutions, and I submit the crazed, unhappy, immoral females showing up in support of Lindsay Clancy as exhibit one in defense of my position. More social honor for wife-hood, homemaking and mothering, along with a return to home industries through the wonders of the internet, strikes me as one wiser course.

[mickthinks]

lol

[Walker]

”The female body is to human freedom what the speed of light is to human travel. It is the limit beyond which we cannot go. The poet William Blake dreamed of “Love! Love! Love! happy happy love! free as the mountain wind!” But due to the vicissitudes of the female body, women overreact to these delights by transforming them into human beings with souls made in the image of God.” - Klavan

https://thenewjerusalem.substack.com/p/ ... ed-of-life

[Walker]

(continued)

Materialists Karl Marx and Friedrich Engles believed “the reintroduction of the entire female sex into public industry,” was necessary to “emancipate” women, end private property and individual freedom, and put the raising of children into the hands of the state. It was for this reason that leftist feminist Simone de Beauvoir once told Communist-sympathizer feminist Betty Friedan, “No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Society should be different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.”

To realize the Marxist utopia requires some technological assistance. Pills to transform the fertile female form into a sterile sex toy and, in the case of an equality-destroying pregnancy, the standing right to slaughter the child either before it’s born or, as in Clancy’s case, any time after. -Klavan