Has Feminism Always Been Around?

Listen to this post:

Like listening to the audio? You can now get The Book of Pook Audiobook and The Pook Manifesto Audiobook - over 28 hours of human narration! The quality is FAR superior to the machine generated TTS on this site, so if you're going to spend hours listeing to the content - get the nice human version!

You can also get all 4 of Pook's books (with audiobooks) as a bundle!


An emailer asks a series of very important questions:

You heavily concentrate on feminism as the root of the problem, but weren’t men like this before feminism? I have a hard time believing the way I naturally am (AFC) is because of the cultural influence of feminism. It seems like I’m just “hardwired” to be completely clueless and inept regarding females. It seems more like I’ve been playing a predestined role in society, just like an ant would, but luckily I have a higher consciousness that has allowed me to escape AFCism.

Don’t we see over and over again in pre-feminist literature, the story of the AFC that secretly loves a prize woman and never professes his affection, while she is attracted to the alpha-male character that isn’t deserving of her?

Haven’t men always been like this for thousands and thousands of years? What about the concept of chivalry that originated from ancient Germanic tribes who paid great reverence to women and their chastity in pre-Christian times?

When I refer to ‘feminization’ or to ‘Matriarchy’ I do it for reasons of simplicity. Everyone knows what I mean if I say ‘feminization of society.’ I don’t believe Feminism is the mother of all evils. It is a tentacle attached to some other beast entirely (though I’m not sure what this creature is).

Chivalry was an aristocratic notion from the Middle Ages that has long since died out. Today, women demand chivalry without a clue of the origins of the word and what it means. When woman demand chivalry, they are actually demanding noble status. This is why chivalry must be opposed because it perceives one sex for being “noble” while another sex to be “peasant.”

I tell women, “Chivalry only existed because of courtly love.” Women DESPISE courtly love today. Also, back then there was actually stigma and restraints on woman’s behavior. Today, before a date with you a woman could be giving a BJ to a guy at Jack-In-The-Box. This is why they do not deserve ‘chivalry’ anymore.

And you bring up an excellent point with the pre-feminist literature. Dicken’s “Great Expectations” is a guy who is practically living his life to obtain some girl (and even then people despised Dicken’s original and more accurate ending). Jane Austen novels also show the jerk and nice guy issues as well. It is safe to say that males have always struggled to become men.

But there are two definite changes: one soulful and the other economic that ushered in feminization of society.

Castration of the Soul Allowing Feminization

Today, there is much talk about people being more ‘tolerant’ and ‘getting along’ with each other. With all these religions and ethnicities mixed together, only a century or two ago those differences would have us at each others’ throats in war. People back then, at least the non-peasants, actually had a soul. They would be willing to fight for something. Today, people have no fight in them. The typical ‘Day of Culture’ shows where some ethnicity has a carnival to show off their food and clothing. This is a joke because these things tell us nothing about their beliefs. Food and clothing do not make cultures, beliefs do. The wars between men have been a difference of the idea of Good and Evil, not these superficial differences of appearances or foods.

 Why do Democracies never war with one another except with dictators (and terrorists)? The answer is because of different ideas of good and evil. Peace as defined to a Democracy is very different than peace defined as a dictator. Peace to a dictator is “no resistance” and “absolute rule.” This is why war breaks out between dictators, democracies, terrorists, and communists. All have different definitions of what peace is. It is the height of stupidity for people to claim that war breaks out because of superficial differences between clothing and food.

Look at today’s politicians versus those of fifty years ago. Notice how politicians even used to be passionate and manly? Today’s politicians seem like wimps looking for approval from everyone. With the collapse of the Humanities, there is now no longer a cultivation of the soul. We have all become the castrati. This allowed a vacuum which feminists could largely expand in.

Economic Origins of Feminism

There is one undeniable great change in history: the Industrial Revolution. Before the Industrial Revolution, most people lived and died on their farms. Even the shopkeepers managed their own businesses. What I found shocking was that before the Industrial Revolution, everyone had a sense of business and had more financial sense then we do today (after the Industrial Revolution, we were all taught to work for someone else).

The home was vastly changed with the Industrial Revolution. Before, the home was the farm or the shop. Everyone produced: the husband, the wife, and the children. No one was expected to become idle. The family could see how hard the father worked since he was right there.

Afterward, the father went to the factory and wealth built within the nation to the point that children and the wife didn’t have to work. No one knew or cared what the father did. He simply brought home the money.

The home went from a producing area into a consumption area. Advertisers and merchants pounced on this opportunity. It became that the husband would make money which the wife would spend.

It is in Human Nature to want to matter. We have urges to produce since a life of consumption gets old quite quickly. Before, women would manage and work the farm. Now, they honestly had little to nothing to do. (Some women love being nothing which Vilar warns to avoid.) So after the 1950s, the Home buckled to the economic pressure. Women sought careers to fulfill their ‘production’ urge.

So we end up with two types of Matriarchs. One is the woman who wants to stay home to do and become nothing. Her mind will rot. Her talk will become duller. Her idea is the husband works while she puts her feet up (as housework is done now in seconds). The other is the woman who is ambitious for a grand career because she doesn’t want to become ‘nothing’ (but most of the time it is youthful narcissism propelling her).

We are currently in the midst of a third great economic revolution (the first is agriculture and second is industrial). This is the Internet or digital revolution. With this revolution I’m noticing that the clock is being turned back to the way things were. It is no coincidence that the Men’s Movement was born with the Net savvy men but the second wave Feminist movement was born in the industrial age universities.

The ultimate solution may be having women working at a home based business. This wave of people seeking financial freedom and independence will soon change the home from being an area of consumption to an area of production once again.

I think that is a key to preventing a woman to become feminist is having her producing by her own designs (rather than some ‘job’). One happy marriage I know is that the wife makes pottery at home and sells it. It is simple, but it does provide some extra money for the household. I have also noticed that women who work (at a real job, not a job where they can paint their nails) resist the brainwashing of feminists.

With the Industrial Revolution, women began to define being a ‘woman’ as not working. As Vilar points out, in woman’s eyes the definition of a man is someone who works while the definition of a woman is someone who DOES NOT work.

There is a natural desire in people to want to be producers, to be merchants of a sort. When women were left idle, they began to use love in a bourgeois fashion. Today, Western Women believe their love, beauty, and presence is ‘produced’ by them and sold. Virginity, to them, is now seen in a bourgeois mindset that is increasing their market value. The only reason a woman does not become a slut today is because it would decrease their market value. Women see love entirely in a business sense (which is why men must think of marriage and relationships as a business transaction today).

Western Women’s financial education seems to be little more than either a career or to  manipulate a wealthy man to provide for them. If women were educated in the financial freedom sense, they might realize that they could become producers at home and create their own industry (as opposed to the career or prostitute type lifestyle).

Keep in mind that Woman’s Industry, of sewing things, painting little things, and so on was absolutely destroyed by the Industrial Revolution (now we buy those things in the store). A vacuum was created. So now women either chase careers or believe they are producers of love selling at the highest giving price. Once this vacuum is filled again with a proper woman’s industry (some digital incarnation of the old sewing and such), I think we’ll see a restoration towards what was the old producing home and an utter collapse of modern feminism.

This explains why foreign women become corrupted in America. They begin to think of love through a bourgeois mindset. This means rationing sex and always looking for the ‘bigger, better, deal.’ If woman’s bourgeois urges were set to a real industry (like in the old days of farming and sewing), they would not and could not apply it to love.