The Evil Behind Feminism

"Men are such scandalmongers, so unjust where women are concerned, that they make fun of all of them, whether they are virtuous or whether they have lost their virginity, at an age when the burden of it becomes too much to bear" - Fourier: 'The Theory of the Four Movements'

Socialist philosopher François Marie Charles Fourier, known as the “Father of Feminism”, published works on the emancipation of women from the patriarchal family social order, arguing that women are being deprived of the means necessary to transform into their best selves, forsaken to meet the demands of their husbands/men. Fourier viewed the patriarchal family at the time as being a man-made social construct, underpinned by the notion of marriage, to mitigate the jealousy men had over his ravishing partners. Fourier saw marriage as a means abused by men to prevent their love from courting other men. Women’s deprivation of sexual intercourse with other men, according to Fourier, was holding them back from releasing pent up desires and understanding the true nature of men. The lack of experience also holds back women from realising what true passion and love is absent of human sexual desire. Ultimately, Fourier believed that the more sexual encounters a woman has, the better partner she will be to the man she loves.

The co-writer of the Communist Manifesto, alongside Karl Marx, Freidrech Engels, also published works on the significance of women in the approaching revolutionary social order. Engels proclaimed that the women’s position in the new social/economic order will no longer be limited to their household duties. The household which was a private industry in the previous oppressive order, will be transformed into a public industry. Engels said “The care and education of the children becomes a public affair; society looks after all children alike, whether they are legitimate or not. This removes all the anxiety about the “consequences,” which today is the most essential social – moral as well as economic – factor that prevents a girl from giving herself completely to the man she loves.”

Feminism is a socialist ideology with the purpose of abolishing the notion of the family from modern and future global social/economic orders. Children will no longer be raised by their parents but instead be raised by the state. Goal 5.4 in the  2030 United Nations Agenda for Sustainable Development provides, to “recognise and value unpaid care and domestic work through the provision of public services, infrastructure and social protection policies and the promotion of shared responsibility within the household and the family as nationally appropriate.” I must say here that this article does not purport to deliberate on the modern relationship between men and women in the workplace, friendship or romance. This article is mainly concerned with the upbringing of youth and the means justifying the state raising children instead of their parents.

Women's Sexual Liberation

In Fourier: 'The Theory of the Four Movements', it is said that the female character would be raised to perfection in a social order in which the female sex enjoyed full amorous liberty. Society dazzles women and they are all the more easily seduced by it because it is new to them; whereas women who have had some experience before their marriage will be less infatuated with pleasure and, being aware of the wiles of men, will be more attached to the household and their husbands, whom they will regard as protectors against the importunity of other men. If they do take substitutes it will be for relaxation rather than passion; their affairs will not make them forget the interests of their household, and they will do all they can to mitigate the inevitable disgrace of cuckoldry.

In Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State, Engels said as regards the legal equality of husband and wife in marriage, the position is no better. The legal inequality of the two partners, bequeathed to us from earlier social conditions, is not the cause but the effect of the economic oppression of the woman. In the old communistic household, which comprised many couples and their children, the task entrusted to the women of managing the household was as much a public and socially necessary industry as the procuring of food by the men. With the patriarchal family, and still more with the single monogamous family, a change came. Household management lost its public character. It no longer concerned society. It became a private service; the wife became the head servant, excluded from all participation in social production.

Not until the coming of modern large-scale industry was the road to social production opened to her again – and then only to the proletarian wife. But it was opened in such a manner that, if she carries out her duties in the private service of her family, she remains excluded from public production and unable to earn; and if she wants to take part in public production and earn independently, she cannot carry out family duties. And the wife’s position in the factory is the position of women in all branches of business, right up to medicine and the law. The modern individual family is founded on the open or concealed domestic slavery of the wife, and modern society is a mass composed of these individual families as its molecules.

But if monogamy was the only one of all the known forms of the family through which modern sex-love could develop, that does not mean that within monogamy modern sexual love developed exclusively or even chiefly as the love of husband and wife for each other. That was precluded by the very nature of strictly monogamous marriage under the rule of the man. Among all historically active classes-that is, among all ruling classes-matrimony remained what it had been since the pairing marriage, a matter of convenience which was arranged by the parents. The first historical form of sexual love as passion, a passion recognised as natural to all human beings (at least if they belonged to the ruling classes), and as the highest form of the sexual impulse-and that is what constitutes its specific character-this first form of individual sexual love, the chivalrous love of the middle ages, was by no means conjugal.

Opinion

Both Fourier and Engels sought to give rise to the fulfilment of selfish sexual desires in women synonymous to the way in which man fulfils his selfish sexual desires without the consequences of public or moral shame. Modern-day feminism, broadly speaking, seeks to achieve equal rights and opportunities for women. Thus, in order to flourish in a socialist order, women must undergo personal growth to be productive agents in the development of civilisation. To achieve this in a socialistic paradigm, women are encouraged to exercise their right to sexual liberation as opposed to monogamous marriage. 

Unlike men, women are less likely to act on their libido. I think that even if society fully recognised women’s sexual liberation, women would not be more likely to participate in sexual intercourse out of lust. In my opinion women are more timid in this regard. I don’t intend to be prejudicial in saying this but I think women are intimidated by the prospect of laying with a man they have no emotional attachment to. So for women to exercise their sexual liberty, they would need to muster up the courage to go against their natural instincts. The idea of bringing upon oneself what they fear most is prevalent in the esoteric teachings of the Jewish Kabbalah. The rationale behind this idea is to promote individual growth. Without chaos, there is no cause to restore order. The process of restoring order is the agent for individual growth. In relation to women's sexual liberty, women are encouraged to engage in what is chaos to them and thus by overcoming the chaos, it is one less thing restricting their individual development.

I think it is outrageous for Fourier and Engels to suggest that a women cannot actually love a man without first experiencing sexual relations with other men. I cannot contemplate how sexual experiences will result in a woman loving a man for the rest of her life. What if a woman came across the man she will love for the rest of her life before exercising her sexual liberty? What can the sexual experiences offer to make her realise that she loves that man? Will the sexual experiences help her see that man in a particular light which could have not manifested without the sexual experiences? The same also goes for men.

As for women being participants in the public social order, what is the benefit in that? A girl’s transition into womanhood occurs with child birth. Not working a job for money, power and status. The idea of family being the oppressor of women is preposterous. Socialism is the most evil construct befallen mankind. The fact that over 100 million people were murdered under socialist regimes in the 20th century demonstrates how demonic socialism actually is.



Article By Adham Tebbie

Click or Tap on Opinions for more articles by Adham.