The Laws of Manu, in the section afterwards elaborates further on the issue of 'independence' so I am aware what context it is applied in. My point with that quote, is that people often quote things out of context (as I did there) to distort the meaning of a passage and colour it with their own interpretation.
One does not even read to read Evola to realise that a Gynaecocratic Society is already in place, though obviously it does help. Feminism, won completely about 15 years ago true - however, the women that call themselves feminists today, and I assure you that there are plenty, are a far more insidious bunch,
because they are still demanding more concessions long after the initial victory. Perhaps these are the 'Ultra-Feminists', but they really are a disgusting collective and definitely worthy of further complaint.
There is a very valid reason for my use of the word 'feminist' instead of the word 'female' to relate to this issue. That reason being initially related to the distinction between a Devi and Deva (though admittedly Savitar instead of Savitri can be confusing). It would sound more than a little odd if a female were to adopt a stance against females would it not? To save any further confusion, I am not an Indian or a Hindu either, though obviously I lay a great deal of stock in the Vedas and their progeny (so no need to use that
stick).
evola_as_he_is <evola_as_he_is@...> wrote:
That excerpt from the 'Law of Manu', which is actually quoted quite
often by people who work themselves to death to prove that ancient
Hindu society was not misogynist, applies to women who are in
accordance with their inner nature, whereas the excerpt from
the 'Brihadaranyaka Upanishad' which was quoted the other day applies
to representatives of the weaker sex who have betrayed their inner
nature, and, more specifically, to the steps which should be taken by
a Kshatriya to put them back where they belong.
As for the opinion according to which "Evola seems to be dedicated
more to a critique of non-conventional females, as opposed to actual
women as a collective group", those who are of it are invited to read
again texts such as 'Do we live in a Gynaecocratic Society?', which,
as any of Evola's writings on the 'woman question', works on the
principle that "non-conventional females" have become the majority.
Those who are not fooled by the word 'feminism' won't be surprised to
hear that the word 'feminism' is almost completely absent from
Evola's writings on modern gynaecocracy. 'Feminism ' is only a
catchword, a trap into which anti-feminist books like 'The Myth of
Male Power' and anti-feminists site like www.savethemales.ca (sic)
fall merrily. Admittedly, Feminism as a verse collection of social
theories, political movements, and moral philosophies motivated by or
concerning the experiences and the interests of women, especially in
terms of their social, political, and economic situation, still
exists, chiefly in Anglo-Saxon countries ; certainly, it is still
striving, as you know, to "eradicate and promote women's rights" in
those three fields, in which it has managed to get everything it
wanted on issues such as reproductive rights, i.e. the right to
choose an abortion, the elimination of legal restrictions on
abortion, and access to contraception, maternity leave, equal pay, so-
called sexual harassment, so-called sexual violence, you name it.
Certainly, that kind of movement always wants 'more' and will never
stop until it gets even 'more' ; women don't know what they want, but
they want it badly. The point is that the claims of feminism have
gone far beyond the context of feminism and that, today, not only
feminists are convinced that they have all those rights : in fact, is
there a female in the Western world which is not 'deeply' convinced
that she's got those rights, so to speak, by birth and by the mere
fact of being a woman?
Feminism as an ideology no longer exists in its former aggressively
activist form for the simple reason that it has achieved most of its
goals and, besides, it has turned any Western female into an
unconscious feminist, who may condemn feminism, but behaves and
thinks as a feminist, without her being aware of it. Unnaturality has
become, so to speak, natural.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://in.messenger.yahoo.com