The Anatomy of Female Power | A masculinist dissection of matriarchy by Chinweizu (1990-05-03)
I just finished a wonderful, yet not so well known, book on male / female issues called the “Anatomy of Women’s Power.” The author is a Nigerian philosopher and social critic Chen Weizu Aikwe. The Anatomy of Female Power The book is available for download here.
In particular, the book is instead a detailed analysis of how human civilization has always been primarily marital, even though it has worn an ideal mask. This is: while men appear to be rulers, women, in fact, rule over rulers, and thus indirectly throughout civilization. Although his general thesis is provocative and well-argued (and despite the reminders of Stuart Weller’s “manipulative man”, more organized in nature), my main interest here is about the current situation in Chenvizu. The idea is to explain – which I see as real and important. Amazing, especially when it involves the author’s experiences in diverse scenes in North America, Europe, and Africa.
Against this backdrop, which he sees as the basic fundamentalism of human society, Chen Weizu sees feminism as a rebellion of few women, not against patriarchal power, Contrary to the rule, the patriarchal veil is termed “rebellion in paradise” He explains that, in terms of strength, there are basically three types of women: The Anatomy of Female Power
Marital politics – Women who believe that men should serve women, and the most effective way to do this, is to think of men as “in charge” while in fact controlling women.
Tomboys – Women who want to be men
Terms – Women who openly urge to show that they are “in charge,” and who find pleasure in openly speaking and harassing men.
Chen Weizu stipulates that all three types are always present, but that marital females are always in the majority. He described feminism as “a movement of angry extremists, frustrated tomboyish and natural backward”, saying that “each of these causes dissatisfaction in marital paradise.” The woman has a traditional world. ” He described the second wave of feminism as:
Bored martial artists (such as Betty Friedan) and desperate Tomobees (like Simon de Beauvoir) kicked it.
Terminals (such as Andrea Dworkin) publicly cared about this.
Satisfied mate orchestras (such as Phil Shuffle) oppose this.
The non-militant Tomboy (female yuppies) have quietly taken advantage of this.
He explains that what he calls “Fredanite feminism” started out in anger and expected something more satisfying than suburban housewives, but disappointed Tomboy and housemates quickly added to it. Under the united front of the feminists, the militant Tomboy expresses his frustration at not being male by expressing anger and resentment over “male privilege” and “male power,” while non-militant Tomboy for an atmosphere. Feel the joy in which she can play a male role. With less resistance than in the past – “She goes to all-male fields first, and still uses women to the full advantage of her abilities and weapons.” The Anatomy of Female Power
And when it comes to distressing people, Chen Weizu’s analysis is as follows.
Serpas (disturbing, scared, and Harden) is an abusive sadist whose greatest pleasure comes from batting and killing humans. She sends the marijuana code again, showing her that she is not her man. Under the flag of women, she can really flourish. … It has been stated that she asserts herself completely independent of her conduct, and will punish any reaction, of course, she is natural, but she is provocative of men. She’s the kind of woman who wore a mini skirt without panty, a blouse with no sleeveless blouse and swinging her legs up and down her ass as she paraded up and down the road, and still insisted on it. Not that anyone should be surprised by the outrageous sex display. Whoever plays the whistle on sight is bent on male chauvinism. … In the guise of “radical feminism”, some terms, in their gross misconception, have stepped back into the homosexual ghetto, and from there as women traitors, they are the other women who are contradictory, Do not completely refrain. Have sex with men. Under the flag of women, all of this is treated as legitimate human behavior. The Anatomy of Female Power
Chen Weizu notes that feminist monarchists viewed feminism as such reluctance and had no interest in surrendering to the traditional bases of female power. Therefore, he finds that most women’s rights are supported by femininity only to the extent that feminism has disrupted women’s traditional privileges and powers. In other words, women are sympathetic to a system that enhances women’s power and privilege, unless they abolish or disturb existing power and privilege. For example, he claims that this is why so many marital women organized to defeat the ERA – a constitutional amendment that was supported by feminists as well, but in many areas traditional women’s rights What can be discouraged (such as drafts)? Therefore, his analysis of feminism is that women generally endorse aspects of it that have led to profits (psychological and economic opportunities, greater sexual freedom, easier divorce), but they have Emphasizing that women’s privileges should be maintained. , Male responsibility in the form of child support and custody, etc.). So he views the current system as a strange kind of musk whereby women expand their power base for men into the world of men without any power.
This is evident from the overlook of most weddings today. One man is encouraged to do housework and especially share the responsibilities of raising children – and many men are doing it – but at the end of the day, in the case of divorce, women But absolute power is employed, even in cases where the father was the primary caregiver during the marriage!
What about men?
Chenoweth also divided the men into three groups:
macOS – Almost all men, are trained to believe that they are strong and in charge, but in fact serve women.
Mushroom – “is a diverse generation of men who have been subjected to bullying, crime, ego-based and erotic pushing, changing diapers, and breast envy.” This is the classic “manga”. The Anatomy of Female Power
Male Men – A small section of men with free rights, and insist on abstaining from marriage, which they refer to as “nest slavery.”
Chen Weizu calls his masculine brand based on the idea that the world is material, not mercury-rich, and that imbalances are based on organisms. They say those masculine men will try to redirect feminism against femininity, instead of wearing the veil of the face. Its census supports a form of equality that requires the elimination of all women’s powerful bases and sources of privilege. As women should work on the front lines in the infantry, be subject to the draft, work in dangerous jobs like mining, and usually not. The social benefits of them should be increased (fortunately). His masculinity is against marriage (which he sees as slavery of men), against male violence against other men, against women violence against men (Jane Harris, Lorena Bobot), in a hypersexual society. It is accompanied by firmness that weakens male resistance to male manipulation and power, against divorce racket and so on.
He describes his masculinity as sympathetic to feminism because feminism represents a rebellion against the marital system (as explained above). He called the one between “tomboy feminism” (which he describes extensively on the equal opportunity) and “alien rights feminists” (what he describes as the strains of female supremacy or hatred of men). Discrimination and they believe that a useful alliance can be formed between some. Tomboy feminists and masculine men provided the effort is against the old marital order, not its ideal veil.
This is clearly a provocative article. I think many traditionalists will not care about him because of his insistence on criticizing the old order, as Willard did too. However, to me, it is the color of reality.
I’m not sure our society can “go backward” – at least not until everything around our ears is broken and we somehow get into the “crazy max” phase. Yes. I don’t think we’ll ever see a restoration of marriage any time soon, and as Rizpal points out, almost certainly not on the basis of any democratic process. In light of this, I think some of Chen Weizu’s ideas are useful. The Anatomy of Female Power
We can and do bridge with some “team boy feminists”. Christina Huff Somers, Kathleen Parker, Dr. Helen, and so on -> These are women with whom men can work, and who are sympathetic to our affairs in different ways, while clearly taking advantage of greater facilities for women. Are. More importantly, if Chen Weizu (and Villar) are right that the old, traditional order was obsolete, and subjugated men to slavery, why would we want to see it revived? Wouldn’t it be better for men to have this model and its latest?
What would that model look like? This is another post article, and one I plan to write soon. But in the meantime, I think it’s worth reading this fascinating, provocative book, reading the original article about where we are, how we got here, and where we want to go from here.