|
What
is the Anglobitch Thesis?
Simple:
the Anglobitch Thesis contends that the brand of feminism
that arose in the Anglosphere (the English-speaking world)
in the 1960s has an ulterior misandrist (anti-male) agenda
quite distinct from its self-proclaimed role as ‘liberator’
of women. This derives from a distinct component in Anglo-Saxon
culture, namely Puritanism. This puritanical undercurrent
gives women an intrinsic sense of entitlement and privilege
as ‘owners’ of sex in a cultural context where
sex is a scarce commodity (we call this sense of entitlement
‘The Pedestal Syndrome’). Because of this, the
advance of women’s ‘rights’ across the
Anglosphere has not been accompanied by a corresponding
reduction of their traditional privileges – indeed,
those privileges have only broadened in scope and impact,
leaving men only with obligations and women aglow with rights
plus privileges. This has been accompanied by an obsessive
vilification of men in the Anglo-American media, and across
the Anglosphere generally.
The
Anglobitch Thesis differs from conventional men’s
studies, in that it considers the present debased condition
of Anglo-American men not to be the product of recent agendas
in politics and culture, but the ultimate expression of
a centuries-old anti-male animus hardwired in traditional
Anglo-Saxon culture. Our contention is that the present-day
Anglosphere is in fact a matriarchy, in all but name. However,
in the modern context the fall-out from Anglo-American matriarchy
has precipitated serious social crises that threaten not
just the Anglosphere, but the whole of the West. Anglo-American
feminism is in a transitory state where women retain the
best of all conditions, men the worst of all conditions,
and which women will not change without external compunction
as the whole thing favors them too much, right now.
Western
women from the late Sixties on were given rights to study,
improve themselves and so on - not a bad thing, in itself.
The problems began when they were allowed to retain the
privileges they enjoyed before emancipation after
acquiring these rights. This has led to absurd double standards
like women wanting access to male organizations/occupations
like military academies or the fire service, while continuing
to exclude men from their own bastions at every opportunity.
Consider also divorce, which retains an archaic view of
the male as an evil ogre, while assuming the female to be
a penniless damsel. Sooner or later women are going to have
to choose either rights or privileges before male alienation
from contemporary arrangements renders western societies
irredeemably dysfunctional (a process already well-advanced).
What
is to be done? I suppose it relates to how we want to take
practical action against the issues that oppress us. There
are two core approaches to attacking any problem - the velvet
glove or the iron fist. The glove may be good for manipulating
our opponents as we wish, but ultimately it cannot really
bite deep into the problem with sufficient force. The iron
fist can seem ridiculous if one has a meager power base
(as we do), and the titanic energies it engages can soon
dissipate if not released with decisive intent. The best
strategy is a combination of glove and fist, using both
as appropriate until an opportunity arises for a decisive
strike. That said, withdrawing consent from the existing
order is a potent technique of passive resistance. Men should
withdraw their consent from whatever Western society they
live in, refusing to marry, have children, pay tax or even
reside there until the issue of female privileges is forcefully
addressed. This is especially potent when functioning members
of the middle class adopt it en masse. Cut the supply of
tacit goodwill, guys. But then, considering the Marriage
Strike, this is already happening. |
