Feminism and the Bro Code. Part One.

Feminism and the Bro Code. Part One.

Feminism is an ideology used by the female ego to justify poor behaviour. Contemporary feminist rhetoric just lends women arbitrary maxims idioms and pathos in order to secure the woman in a position of illusory entitlement. In this way women can use this rhetoric to justify amoral and at times immoral behaviour by pretending towards victimhood or asserting their own Will to Power as the audience turns a cheek to the corrupting influence of Power. She escapes moral retribution from the community and from the law (which ever would be appropriate in a given circumstance.). Like Estelle in Sartre's No Exit, she uses Romanticism to justify her own bad behaviour in ignorance of basic Moral Universals that would other wise burden her conscience, so she acts in bad faith and has dignity only so long as her audience corroborates her. Why should it? As one internet meme reads: my rights end where your feelings begin. We all know that Romanticism is a precursor to Fascism. That two individuals decide to consentually harm a third does not render the act in any way just; two wrongs do not a 'right' make. (So enough talk of 'inherent (a priori) rights' in such a case. We all know that Relativists only speak of Inherent Rights because Relativism cannot transcend the A Priori and be given flesh in mortal life.) Morality must come from Reason. It is to be INFORMED by affect, yes, but a balance of yang and yin, the masculine Reason and the feminine Affect, is essential, how ever dynamic and dymonik the balance may be. Emotions by their selves do not justify action; moral reasoning, COUPLED with pathos, does. Yet pathos is so radically subjective that it cannot be universalised without becoming Fascism. Or rarely so, for of course moral universals do exist. Yet they too are substantiated by Reason; affect only re-Veals them.

Feminism pre-disposes us to emotivism. Consider the example of two men who had ostensibly been best friends now in competition for a lover. Feminism dictates that the woman's choice is to be the just arbiter. Yet this be-smirches the entire notion of fraternal loyalty that defines a friendship: that friends must not be rivals in a zero-sum game decided by whim. That would render friendship meaningless and there by intolerable; pragmatism would lead us thus to simply treat all men as enemies inwardly and to PRETEND towards friendship outwardly. If the woman is innocent, by that same token her decision is not the Arbiter in whether or not what follows is morally justified or a destructive and amoral if not immoral affair. Her affects have no sway in this consideration; they are biases, and even if they are facts we cannot derive ethics from facts alone. That is a Naturalist Fallacy. If she is innocent, what ever she chooses is right For Her to Choose. This does not guarantee an out-come; it merely preserves her innocence in the attribution of blame. But by the same token that she is right no matter whom she chooses she is not the arbiter in a matter of right or wrong. Her decision is neutral; either way, she is ethical. But that does not entitle her to the outcome of her choice, and it does not therefore exempt other parties from blame simply because she FEELS that they ought NOT to be blamed and only has her desires and her sense of entitlement to back up this position. The arbiter is the man of her choosing. If he chooses her over his best friend, he will harm his friend and break a moral code so ubiquitous that over the course of human history it has rarely ever been broken except in times such as ours of moral decay. It is because it is so ubiquitous that we cannot provide any instances there fore of historical examples for it, because so rarely did it even need to be invoked in conversation in the wake of an offense. One does not betray one's friend for a mate. The way that this conflict of interests is decided is NOT by the whims of the woman but by a very care full and prolongued weighing of the hearts of the two men, to deem which of them actually loves her. Once this is clear to all involved no further conflict is necessary. The truly virtuous is chosen and the other admits that his desire was fleeting. Time alone usually settles this matter, and every one knows that impatience destroys even the most fated of relationships.

Thus feminism steers away from Love, either in the sense of fraternal love or marital love, and towards power, competitiveness, debauchery, decadence, lust, and insecurity. The spiritual dimensions are lost to the followers of this ideology who use it to justify such amoral behaviour, and only the three 'animal' chakras remain. Loyalty, Virtue, and Dignity, as well as a genuinely stable Commitment, can only occur with connection to the Higher Levels of not only (Moral) Reasoning but Consciousness. And of course one cannot hope to cheat and to have attained Marital Love without transcending first the rung of Fraternal Loyalty. And transcendance does not mean circumvention, but honoring the passion of brotherhood to the point that it burns to its own destruction. Were it never there, the moment of treachery would make it(s absence) obvious. What ever the bewitched woman might attest to in bias to her 'chosen' lover does not hold sway in what weighing these hearts endure in the after-math. As Jung said, speaking of a man and his Anima: The woman 'of his choice'. He HAD no Choice! He has been captur'ed.

Dm.A.A.