Posted 9 марта 2021, 08:26

Published 9 марта 2021, 08:26

Modified 25 декабря 2022, 20:57

Updated 25 декабря 2022, 20:57

On bondage values and the new feminism

9 марта 2021, 08:26
Алина Витухновская
I watched a spectacular clip of the beautiful Nadezhda Tolokonnikova "Sexist". And this is what I want to say. Feminism is okay. Especially in terms of social and economic preferences. But radical feminism in the domestic version is just a caricature of the writings of Kraft-Ebing.

Alina Vitukhnovskaya, writer

What do we see? The samsaric looping of Russian sadism & masochism. In spheres from social (“First you shock us, then we convoy you”) to sexual. Well, here, in general, everything is as simple as two or two and therefore boring. "Did you hear Justine screaming?" - Dugin, still a young conservative, was acting up, trying to become like De Sade. Who have you surrendered to with your Old Believer beard?

In the video for Pussy Riot, we see an attempt to compensate for one violence with another. And by gender. This is a dead end road. Moreover, gender in its extreme forms has already exhausted itself. Humanity still drags sexuality along with it like a suitcase without a handle, which is both hard to carry and a pity to leave. Of course, you can try to sell it. This is exactly what the radical feminists are doing. They update and sell outdated discourse.

"How is it that you don't have female problems?" - outraged feminists in the comments under the post of Arina Kholina. This is a purely socialist property - to wish others their own problems, to try to get rid of them by distributing them to society.

The less you position yourself in terms of gender, the less you focus on it, the more chances that others will not see you in this paradigm.

By constantly repeating, saying “I am a woman”, you create an artificial assemblage point to which various accompanying social neuroses cling by themselves. Simply put, this very statement is the problem.

Feminism itself is to a large extent a neurosis that creates difficulties for its adherents and brings unnecessary tension into the public field. If we claim something as a problem, it must have a solution. Simple is desirable. Feminism problems are solved by voluntary, conscious rejection of the clichéd distribution of gender roles.

“And you, children, will also have a holiday on the street if you live with those you like, engage in interesting, and not radio, testimony, in the false dichotomy of “academic degree or stuffed fish?”, “Family or work?” (off) choose everything at once, and according to personal characteristics and moral qualities you will not be like a 60+ age stratum according to Levada, but exactly the opposite. Then, children, there will be eternal spring for you, too”, - says the “progressist", Yekaterina Shulman.

That is, again in "Russia the eternal" conditional progressives, under libertarian cover, smuggle through bondage values, traditionalism and latent patriarchy. Someone reflects and blames their structure of consciousness for being unprepared for a “happy life”. But whether this "happiness" is happiness is the question.

I believe that the brain and psychotype of a particular subject cannot be changed. I just spat on the search for some "better states". I must confess that I do not understand their necessity. I am only interested in the implementation of my ideas and self-affirmation from the metaphysical to the social. This pseudo-dichotomy "family or career" is well for very simple people, archaic, primitive-stubborn. People are different! Why did I even give up this family, which I have to drag on itself like a camel's hump? What kind of social obligation is this?

Yekaterina Shulman in her judgments, alas, is like any post-Soviet person who does not understand the obvious fact that people are different.

Just yesterday, a feminist psychologist wrote to me:

“Well, how can sexuality, one of the basic biological instincts, become obsolete? Only the bearer of sexuality can become obsolete, and sexuality never disappears, everything is fine with it.

Neither Kholina, nor Tolokonnikova, nor the "feminists in the comments under Kholina", of course, are any feminists. But on the other hand, they are the bearers of the "popular" female protest in those epochs when the male state begins to significantly encroach on women's rights. This is a category of flappers, “evil impudent girls”, similar to Limonov's reckless youths. Just as Limonov's anarchist fools will never run out, this type of virgin will never run out.

It is ridiculous to reproach them for allegedly trying to compensate for one violence with another. So what, what are they trying to compensate for? Aren't men always trying to compensate for one violence with another? They do it all the way. Nobody comes out to them and says ayyayay, how you behave badly, you disgrace the appearance of a man, right?

Women can do everything that men can - that's the main thing of feminism. I mean, they can not only do what makes them good flexible, all comfortable women, but also what makes them bad. And so, in general, in purely theoretical terms, yes: "The problems of feminism are solved by voluntary, conscious rejection of the clichéd distribution of gender roles. It's true. By the way, you, too, would not hurt to voluntarily and deliberately give up a lot of cosmetics, which spoil your rather beautiful face".

An amazing psychologist does not understand the obvious fact that people do something for themselves in the first place. I also paint for myself. From the very morning and even in those cases when I am not going to leave the house. I'm just not a supporter of so-called natural beauty.

Fighters for natural beauty - and there are many of them now, not only among local body-positive women playing for impoverishment and decline, but also among Europeans, apparently tired of an excess of proposals, proceed from an outdated concept where the human body is viewed as an object of desire, reproduction, that is , in essence - a social function.

Whereas modern civilized man is the highest degree of human development (!) - in a certain (better) sense, both a narcissist and an egoist. He makes himself for himself - first of all - for himself. He wishes to please himself. And only then to the public and society. Moreover, he considers it more rational, especially if he has a business with this very society.

From this point of view, for example, non-monetized eroticism looks like an atavistic profanation. And, in fact, it is.

It is difficult for people to explain such a simple thing that if I paint my lips, this is not a social-erotic manifestation. I want to please myself and only myself. In addition, I do not see the best and most pleasant "overcoming the human" - other than what modern pharmacology and plastic surgery can offer.

I want to end this article with an old poem, a little ironic, but essentially true.

ODE TO THE GOD OF BOTOX

Old age smells like Bosch's nightmares.

But, god - you're a god,

So, you are doing godhood -

BOTOXBOTOXBOTOХBOTOX!

You killed your god so easily.

And here we fell in love with the god of Botox.

The pain and Russian melancholy

We do not feel with the help of a light botox hand.

Glamorous youth lasts and lasts.

We'll have to pray like this one day

And the bill to pay, and the bill for the doctor.

We believe in Botox as we believe in calculation.