Zinoviev Letter wrote:
It's been a while since we've had a foaming at the mouth misogynist here
Yes, of course, anyone who dares to criticise even the most lunatic claims of the feminist movement, or who suggests that someone might not actually be guilty of sexism must be a 'misogynist'.
Truth is, my main issue is not even with feminism, let alone women. Rather I don't like the 'mob rule' mentality that usually accompanies any claim that someone has behaved in a 'sexist' way. To point out, for example, that Tim Hunt was treated in a disgraceful way is not evidence of 'misogyny'.
Even more fundamentally, I have deep concerns about the way 'Enlightenment' values such as reason, logic, rationality, empiricism and so on stand for so little in this relativistic, post-modern world, where all that matters is creating and pushing a narrative that serves one's own (often political) ends. George Orwell saw that this was the pathway to totalitarianism, as when even science is held to be just another 'way of seeing the world, no more valid than any other, then the 'truth' is whatever the most influential say it is. In short we live in a world where reason counts for little and much of what happens in the world is based on politically motivated myths. (Even pro bike racing plays this game, explaining unbelievable performances by the myth of 'marginal gains', the 'plucky, honest Brit', and so on.)
It just so happens that when it comes to myth-making and hostility to the 'White western male' values of the Enlightenment, the feminist movement has been one of the most determined and effective.
A good example is the myth that the suffragettes in Britain won ordinary women the vote. The reality is that not even men were granted universal suffrage until 1918, with the suffraggetes such as Emmeline and Christabel Pankhurst essentially running a terrorist campaign (planting bombs in places such as Westminster Abbey, arson, vandalism, assault and even trying to kill the prime minister with an axe) with the goal of winning the vote for the women of the privileged, land-owning classes, like themselves.
They were not fighting for votes for ordinary women (or men) with the exception of Sylvia Pankhurst, who was thrown out of her mother's Women's Social and Political Union for her socialist values. Apart from Sylvia the Pankhurst's were a pretty nasty bunch, running the 'white feather' movement in WWI and being involved in various right-wing and even proto-fascist movements. (For example, Adela Pankhurst was a founder of the Australia first movement.) Biggest irony of all is that women eventually got the vote not because of the suffragettes but because the huge sacrifices made by (mainly) men in WWI made it impossible to deny ordinary people the vote any longer.
Myths are powerful and they persist even when it is widely known that they are false.http://time.com/3222543/5-feminist-myths-that-will-not-die/
As a certain German politician once wrote..
The size of the lie is a definite factor in causing it to be believed... The primitive simplicity of the minds of the masses renders them a more easy prey to a big lie than a small one, for they themselves often tell little lies but would be ashamed to tell a big one.
The function of propaganda is, for example, not to weigh and ponder the rights of different people, but exclusively to emphasize the one which it has set out to argue for. Its task is not to make an objective study of the truth, in so far as it favours the enemy, and then set it before the masses with academic fairness; its task is to serve our own right, always and unflinchingly.
...all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan.