Il legame tra divorzio e società dei consumi

[Finnegan]

Leggete anche l'importante post in basso.

L'eterna scontentezza induce all'orgia – Il Messaggero in settimana ha fatto uscire un reportage sul fenomeno dello "scambismo" in Italia. Pare sia diffusissimo e pare che raramente esso consegua a fantasie particolarmente spinte appartenenti a una coppia che, fatti i suoi giochi, poi resta coppia. Il più delle volte è un modo per bypassare o legittimare il tradimento, a riprova che la cultura della coppia, per non parlare di quella matrimoniale, è tramontata da tempo. Ci si mette insieme e ci si sposa con grande leggerezza, per poi trovarsi insoddisfatti a tal punto da cercare surrogati o vie di fuga. Ma c'è dell'altro, che emerge dalle analisi delle visite al sito "Pornhub" da parte di uomini e donne italiani. A quanto pare sono le donne a cercare di più video riguardanti rapporti di gruppo, orge, terzetti e similari, e nel concreto a spingere per realizzare le loro fantasie multiple tramite lo scambismo, mentre gli uomini sembrano più attirati da clip dove siano presenti particolari tipologie di donne (quelle molto giovani, quelle di una certa età, quelle particolarmente pettorute, e così via). Non riesco a non vedere in questa smania del "multiplo" da parte delle donne una parentela stretta con la cultura del consumo. Quel meccanismo per cui si acquista qualcosa che non soddisfa mai e che dunque va subito sostituita o cui va aggiunto ancora qualcosa in più. Lo status e la soddisfazione personale ci si illude che dipendano dalla quantità di cose che si hanno, e di cui ci si circonda in un'orgia di inutilità che in realtà lascia insoddisfatti e incompleti come prima o peggio. Un meccanismo che è tracimato, a quanto pare, anche nelle relazioni umane per le donne, soggette come sono alla cultura del consumo fatuo, per le quali l'orgia di cose tende a diventare anche un'orgia di persone, con lo stesso circolo vizioso in esito: senso di isolamento, incompletezza, solitudine, insoddisfazione, che si affronta ammucchiando ancora più cose o persone. Se il mio paragone ha un qualche senso, allora ha senso anche la tesi che sostengo da tempo: le donne sono il gancio a cui il sistema lega tutte le azioni di demolizione degli elementi stabili della società: le relazioni o la famiglia. Con l'obiettivo di rendere sempre più l'orgia consumistica fine a se stessa la cifra dell'esistenza di tutti.

https://stalkersaraitu.com/?p=14835

[Finnegan]

le donne sono il gancio a cui il sistema lega tutte le azioni di demolizione degli elementi stabili della società: le relazioni o la famiglia

...Come scrisse Wyndham Lewis un secolo fa (questo è solo un assaggio di quest'opera eccezionale):

The sex war led off, naturally, as a war to free the woman. The woman was the chattel or slave of this terrible little despot, the father of the family. There were millions of such despicable little despots. Their power must be broken. The "despot" smiled indulgently; he knew he was not much of a despot, he didn't know what all the fuss was about, but concluded that "those women" had become possessed of some obstinate piece of illogic that they had better be allowed to "get on with."

"Socialism wishes to abolish family life, because it costs too much," was Proudhon's explanation of feminism. And that in one sense must be accepted as the true one, on the economic side. Feminism in that sense was simply the conscription, under a revolutionary egalitarian banner, of an army of women, for the purpose of the attack on and destruction of the home and the family. There is much more in the war on the family than the economic factor. But it is certainly the economic factor that persuades capitalism to favour the feminist movement and urge the conventional socialist to this form of "war."


Men as a "class," the masculine class, have recently had to support a great number of wars all at the same time: the "Great War," which was of a traditional type, and yet very novel in its barbarity; the "class war," of course; and then a war that was regarded originally as a joke, the "sex war."


When feminism first assumed the proportions of a universal movement it was popularly regarded as a movement directed to the righting of a little series of political wrongs. Woman had been unjustly treated, had been a chattel to be bought and sold and disposed of: men were free, women in chains ― chained to the hearthstone in the home, which was also referred to as the castle of the male gaoler. A thousand chivalrous gentlemen leapt to arms and rushed to the assistance of this matron in distress. With great gestures of magnanimity they divested themselves of all traditional masculine authority or masculine advantage of any sort. Tearfully they laid them all at the feet of the dishonoured matron, who dried her burning tears, and with a dark glance of withering indignation picked them up and hurried away. The general herd of men smiled with indulgent superiority. So that was all settled; it was a bloodless revolution. Feminism was recognized by the average man as a conflict in which it was impossible for a man, as a chivalrous gentleman, as a respecter of the rights of little nations (like little Belgium), as a highly evolved citizen of a highly civilized community, to refuse the claim of this better ― half to self ― determination. There were spectacular "wrongs" that had, "in all decency," to be righted. The issue was put to him, of course, in a one-sided way. He accepted it as a one-sided thing. Ever since it has continued one-sided, in the sense that, although the "wrong" has been "righted," the man is still in the ashamed position of the brutal usurper and tyrant. He finds his rôle in the "sex war" something in the nature of the immense conventional figure of the "boss" in the neighbouring "class war": although there in the "class war" his own rôle is probably a very humble and far less imposing one.


How the sex war links up with the class war, the age war, and the war of the high and the low-brow, is as follows. "The prevalent dominance of men" is a phrase used commonly. Man in himself is a symbol of authority. Masculinity (in a state describable as above) is in itself authoritative and hence arbitrary. The most miserable and feeble specimen of the male "class" is in that paradoxical position of representing the most devilish despotism and symbolizing brute force. He suffers from the accident that he symbolizes "authority" in an era of change and militant revolutionary revaluation.


So, in the sex department (conterminous with that of administrative political power, or of the master-man relationship in industry or in domestic life, and with the family relation of parent and child), the revolutionary attack would, in its most generalized form, have the character of an attack on man and on masculinity. For, apart from man as father, or man as husband, or man as leader (in tribe or state), there is an even more irreducible way in which man is a symbol of power and domination. Man as man tout court is an anachronism, is "unscientific."


When Christ said to the Rich Man, "Give all to the poor and come along with me, barefoot, and I will show you the road to heaven," the Rich Man usually laughed and went his way. Man, or his political representatives, when recommended to give up all his privileges enjoyed at the expense of "woman," did not show this cynical front at all, except a few contumacious figures here and there. He immediately disgorged everything, in a true christian and chivalrous spirit. He considered himself most amply rewarded with the nice kiss that his generous action earned him. Had someone asked the same man to give all he had to the poor, or to hand over a thousand pounds of his capital to a distressed friend, he would, like the Rich Man in the Gospels, have laughed. Yet effectively he was doing the same thing in his sentimental capitulation to the feminist propaganda. This is merely noted as a matter of historical interest. Had men resisted, the struggle would have been more bitter, but would have had the same result. It was very lucky in this particular case that the usual veil of stupidity let down over their eyes obscured the issue: and anyone looking back on these events when the movement is complete, at some future day, will agree that the feminine combatant was even blinder.


So man gave up his privileges "like a lamb," but, needless to say, it is not the Rich Man, either of the Bible story or of any other story, who is the loser in these or any similar transactions. He gives nothing up ― quite as in the days of Christ.

The object of the capitalo-socialist promoters of the sex war was dual. One object was the quite temporary one of discrediting authority, and reducing this smallest and feeblest of kings, the little father of the family squatting rather miserably in his shabby, uncomfortable little castle, like a "king" of Alice in Wonderland. But the break-up of this expensive and useless unit, the family, and the releasing of the hordes of idle women, waiting on little "kings," for industrial purposes, was the principal object.


In the mind of the most villainous and black-hearted of "capitalists," no doubt, it presented itself solely as a problem to get hold of cheap female labour. The hordes of unmarried women would be formed into a third sex like the sterile female workers of the beehive. This could not be done without the displacement of an equal quantity of men. So a "sex war" would be a good thing. Funds were forthcoming for feminist equipment. Such an attitude did no doubt exist, and does, among a certain type of men. But that does not affect the ultimate utility of the movement; nor is it any reflection on the motives of such a man as Fourier, who recommended a social reorganization on these lines a century ago in his phalansterian system.


At all times there have been a host of men who performed a simple work which a woman, or a child for that matter, could undertake equally well. On account of the sex prerogative, and sex privilege, they claimed a wage superior to what a woman would claim for a similar employment. It was for this reason that male privilege had to be broken. "Woman's rights" was, from the point of view of many of the most influential of its supporters, simply an expedient to reverse this position. The pretentious claims of the white male had to be broken.

The writer of this particular article starts by mocking the "feminist" and partisan of the sex war as an "unsexed," rawboned, unattractive tribe of "female" cranks. No wonder, he says, there is a "sex war" for them! But does any pretty girl think there is such a thing as a sex war?


The result (of the fact that "the female constitution is of sterner stuff" than the male) is the well-known surplus of women, roughly 2,000,000, in this country.


There is nothing more curious than the way life adjusts itself to local conditions. Since a large number of women are plainly condemned to sterility by the fact of the surplus, a percentage of the female population automatically and instinctively makes a type that can be seen in large numbers at any university, and with all the plausibility it can command it preaches a career and celibacy for woman, and hatred of man.


... The "sex war" of the feminists is a thing of which no woman of average good looks and pleasant temper is ever conscious. No pretty woman ever complained of the hostility of men as a sex. No normal man ever complained of the "sex war" waged against him by woman.


There the poor disappointed "feminist" type, claiming her "rights," which she had secured in her "war," gets it "straight and strong." The industrial boss ― in the person of his journalistic employee ― laughs at her, of course.


"You poor, hard-featured, unsexed drone, that no man would have ― who goes alone down the street, envying all the pretty girls hanging smiling on the arms of their beaux ― or, if in company, in the company of another female much like yourself ― so you want more money, do you? Well, you won't get it. You have slightly misunderstood the significance of your 'famous victoree.' It was a victory for me, not for you!"