Reader corvinus paraphrases a recent Chateau contribution to our collective understanding of feminism:
Feminism: teaching women to be second-rate men rather than first-rate women.
An earlier Chateau definition of feminism stated the following:
The goal of feminism is to remove all constraints on female sexuality while maximally restricting male sexuality.
The two CH definitions are related, the first being a subset of the second. To the second, I would only add “sexuality and morality” for completeness, as the sexes in their natural states tend to stress accordance to differing, yet complementary, moralities.
The goal of feminism is thus the destruction of the feminine in women and of the masculine in men. Feminism as an ideology seeks the annulment of sex-based distinctions and dichotomy, to be replaced by an androgynous slop that vulgarizes women and enfeebles men, and is at its heart dehumanizing.
Brief historical aside: The origin of American feminism as an organizing principle goes back to the 19th century, although there were rare, individual (European) women who lived well before then authoring proto-feminist books, and probably not coincidentally, these women were usually ugly and/or forced by circumstance to provide for themselves.
As was the case with Rome, the rise of feminism parallels the accumulating wealth and prestige of nations or empires. Affluence may be a causative factor of feminist idiocy, or it may be a correlative factor. Either way, once a nation has succumbed to materialism, it has succumbed to feminism, and once a nation has allowed feminism a toehold in the body politic, decadence and decline are not far behind.
The roots of feminism are found primarily in the suffrage movement, and secondarily in the effects that growing wealth have on the behaviors of men and on social equality. (It’s not well-known that many of the American first-wave feminists were Evangelical Christians who wanted the government to have a stronger role promoting morality, e.g., the temperance movement. These ur-feminists were in many respects decidedly conservative women.)
As the wealth disparity between the mass of beta male providers and the fat cats grew, women began to feel insecure that marriage to the average joe would save them from a life of penury. It was from this seed that the feminist “careergrrl” movement germinated, and it was this seed that the proto-globalist cosmopolitan fat cats wanted so eagerly to plant, to enlarge their customer base and divide families against themselves.
Whatever righteousness there could be found in the ideology’s original intent, feminism regressed rapidly (in nation-state life-cycle times) to a twisted, brutish, stupid dogma, that today has reached its inevitable nadir in campus rape hoaxes, Title IX, and fat acceptance, among many other bizarro world feminist social incursions that blatantly defy human nature. Inevitable, because as with all leftist missions, satisfaction from earlier victories only encourages more bloodlust, and the course of conquest always ends in desolation when the last enemy of the movement has been picked clean to the bone.
So we have as explanations for the rise of feminism affluence, wealth and income inequality, and decadence. To this we can add out-breeding, the marriage pattern among White Europeans (and, later, Americans) that split cousin-marriage kinship ties and created evolutionary selection pressures leading to a people with a high degree of trust and out-group altruism. Taken to extremes, this characteristic feature of Whites, genetically embedded for maximum staying power, promotes the beliefs and consequent social policies of “gender egalitarianism”, which is nothing less than the total rebuke of the existence of natural, organic, and psychologically healthy sex-based differences in mind and body.
Feminism is lies, ugliness, and malevolence, and that is why it must be opposed by any shiv necessary.