1. Christina Hoff Sommers’ most famous book, written when she was a philosophy professor at Clark University, poses a question: Who Stole Feminism? And the answer to that question is, “Nobody.” Lesbianic sociopaths, radical Marxists, anti-Christian man-haters, abortion lobbyists, perverts, weirdos, freaks and wicked, evil Jews (“Christ’s most violent enemies.” – John Calvin) did not “steal” feminism; they were in control of the Women’s “Liberation” movement right from its very inception. Trying to re-define “feminism” for conservative and/or Christian purposes is both futile and dishonest. Our proper goal is to utterly oppose feminism, and to destroy it from the face of the earth as an ideology of devils.
2. Likewise, there has never been a good and an appropriate “wave” of feminism, and it is therefore pointless if not even deceitful to differ between “third-wave” and “second-wave” feminism, between “modern” and “traditional”(?) feminism, implying that previous “waves” were justified. Besides, the majority of women do not even identify as feminists, which is true for both the US as well as the UK. Most Western women are not blue-haired majors in lesbian dance therapy, and they will not speak to you directly about feminism. Rather, they will say something along the lines of, “I’m not a feminist, but…” The tirade that is then to follow involving all the common feminist believes and talking points. There are hardly any self-identified feminists outside of college campuses, while the antifeminist camp is gladly frequented by homosexual Jews and overweight atheists who put bananas in their asses. Let us hence simply identify our enemy as the false god of “equality” and as the devil of those so-called “women’s rights.” So-called “women’s rights” were a grave mistake and only time will tell if the white Western world will ever survive the mistake of granting women even the very right to vote.
3. I recognize that the Puritans don’t have the best reputation these days. As a matter of fact, one can make a movie about a Christian farmer’s family with children, goats and a dog being haunted and then murdered by Satanic forces, and people be like, “Man, these Puritans, they creep me out! They really had it coming! Thankfully, Satan murdered that girl’s whole family so she could become a rootless cosmopolitan and a feminist witch!” Still, at least in Reformed circles it shouldn’t be too controversial to encourage the prayerful study of the Puritans and the Reformers themselves. Unfortunately, the appreciation of the fathers is often narrowly limited to matters concerning prayer, spiritual crises and to rather abstract topics such as the importance of distinguishing between necessity and compulsion to understand what is implied when it is deduced that human will is “of necessity either drawn or lead into evil.” (Calvin, Institutes, II. iii. 5) But we should also consider what the fathers taught in regards to more juicy topics such as Jewry and (the monstrous regiment of) women.
4. Listen, for example, to John ‘Decalogue’ Dod expounding the duties of a wife in his 17th century bestseller A Plaine and Familiar Exposition of the Tenne Commandements: “The duty of the wife is constant obedience and subjection. As the church is in subjection to Christ, so let the wife be to her husband in all things. If she rebel against his commandment, she rebels against God. The wife must persuade herself that her husband’s charge is God’s charge, and when he speaks, God speaks by him, and that which was a thing indifferent before the husband required it, is now become a bounden duty unto her, after the husband hath once enjoined it. And therefore she must resolve to obey him in all things, (…) must obey her husband in all things cheerfully and willingly, without gainsaying.”
5. Thankfully, men like Dalrock regularly point out how antifeminism has been hijacked or is at least often misused by what I call “man-up cuckservatives”. You know the type; the type that loves to go on about how a “real” man never touches a woman, even to brush her out of the way when she’s obstructing our Lord Jesus Christ, how “real” men actually like stronk womyn, how nothing is the fault of women themselves, nothing the fault of society as a whole but everything the fault of some individual guy who himself is just not strong enough to appreciate the strength of these stronk womyn. It’s the type of men who promote a kind of heterosexual gay marriage between masculine women and masculine men; the type who believe that there are individual solutions to structural problems: “Man up and pull yourself up by your own bootstraps.”
6. Likewise, despite their many, many flaws, some pagans such as weev over at the Daily Stormer, rightfully point out that “traditional gender roles” aren’t some sort of moderate feminism and not about “real” equality. (For instance, the right of a husband to inflict “moderate corporal punishment” on his wife was only removed in 1891 in the UK; in Germany, husbands could legally terminate their wives’ contracts with an employer and forbid them to work outside the home until 1958.) Now listen what weev has to say: “Coverture was the reality for all of European history up until the late 19th century. The basic principle of coverture is that the rights of the woman are completely subsumed into that of her husband’s. A married woman could not own property, sign legal documents or enter into a contract, obtain an education against her husband’s wishes, or keep a salary for herself. (…) Men gave women full legal independence, and then they even stopped giving them the basic boundaries of discipline. What did women do with all these new rights and comforts? Well, you see how that graph goes. They whored like never before through the sixties and seventies, and Western civilization has been rotting ever since.”
7. If you’re still fixated on Islam, still believe that the main problem with open borders is that some people might come in who don’t particularly care about sodomy, and still don’t get that the Islamization of Western Europe is merely a symptom, not the actual disease, you honestly deserve to be thrown off a roof. Islam is like the common cold, a disease you can get easily rid off. But modernism is like AIDS: weakening your immune system up to a point where even the common cold can kill you. Just because Islam is opposed to this or that element of degeneracy doesn’t mean that it stops being degenerate and wicked. Some Imam being opposed to gender equality and sodomy doesn’t mean that we should support it. “Moslems do something so we should do the total opposite of it” is like building your civilization on sand. And when you say that a husband’s right to discipline his wife is some “backward sandnigger shit”, you essentially imply that our Christian ancestors up until very recently were “backwarded sandniggers.”
8. Finally, although tradition must not rule our interpretation, it should nevertheless guide it. If, upon reading a particular passage of Sacred Scripture you come up with an interpretation that has escaped the notion of every other Christian and every other man of the Covenant for 3000 or so years, or has been championed by universally recognized heretics, chances are pretty good that you’d better abandon your interpretation. As a rule of thumb, everything that was published after 1968 is wrong. If your Biblical exegesis results in a St. Paul that could just as well join the faculty of Berkeley’s Gender Studies Department, because he’s just as concerned about equality as Hillary Clinton and has performed just as few miracles as her, you might want to rethink your theology.