Read on Twitter
This is a complicated question, because like all priestly questions, it assumes a vast edifice of doctrines, teachings, scriptures, assertions, and assumptions. You are not a priest, only a parishioner, but your question is a theological question. https://twitter.com/fioccoun/status/1065929427274686465
To ask the question, enmeshed as we are in the discourse of The Current Year, is to know its answer; priestly questions are not the inquiries of a seeker of knowledge, they are rituals, litanies dressed up in epistemological garb
Asking a priestly question creates tension, which is released upon receipt of the ritual answer
By way of analogy, suppose I were to visit a remote island in the bay of Bengal, and using my powers as an omniglot, ask them, "at what point does the eucharist become the literal, physical body of Christ?" There is, as they say, a lot to unpack here
Lest this become too abstract, we will speak plainly. Without Christianity, there is no sin, salvation, or redemption. There are not even questions about sin, sin is a non-concept, sin is something that Christianity manufactures in order to sell you salvation
By the same token "oppression", "misogyny", "consent", and even "rape" are theological terms in a secular and gynolatrous orthodoxy which has emerged in the 20th century. I can see your hackles are rising, stay with me for a moment
This isn't to say that there is no historical definition of "rape", only that the word has multiple, distinct meanings and that there is a priestly one that stands apart from the, shall we say, "mechanical" meaning of the word
You can't be sinful if you don't have the Law of Moses, and you can't be a misogynist if you don't have the feminist epistemological framework (catchy name needed: Fempistemology?)
There's this stuff called sin, you see, and it came out of a volcano after we were banished here by the evil space emperor xenu, and it causes you to objectify women with your male gaze. Wait, I think I crossed the streams, I was up all night boiling goats in their mother's milk
Questions about Christian theology are only legible from within Christianity and questions about Feminism are only legible in The Current Year. Every revolution makes the past a foreign country by changing the meanings of common words https://twitter.com/0x49fa98/status/1027199741241651201
Christians may become upset by this, and their ire makes my point: ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, not merely Christians. And yes, from within Christianity that is true. Oppression of women is everywhere, feminism only reveals it. Is it becoming clearer?
It's maybe a tremendous disservice to us that we read 1984 in highschool; we are innoculated with caricatures of dystopia that make it harder to take seriously the social mechanics Orwell was describing; but the power to redefine words is the essence of ideological control
Oppression in the orthodoxy of the current year is defined in a very particular and curious way: A person is free if xe able to participate in capital-generating auto-catalytic loops in a way that is quantiatively indistinguishable from that of a white man https://twitter.com/0x49fa98/status/1054376830839345153
Isn't this a strange definition of freedom? Inhuman. And yet this perspective has become so ubiquitous that the average person does not even have the language to dispute it except on its own terms.
https://twitter.com/parallaxoptics/status/1062084066592387073
https://twitter.com/parallaxoptics/status/1062084066592387073
There were in the past societies where women werenât emancipated in this highly idiosyncratic way; this is evidence that they were oppressed. Who could argue? On its own terms, this moral framework is entirely correct. The only escape is the outside view https://twitter.com/0x49fa98/status/1019264243244228608
Let me ask the question a different way: did men love their wives and daughters and mothers prior to the year 1920, when women's suffrage was ratified in the US constitution? When did this love become possible? The 19th century? The 18th?
This may all sound a bit flippant. For those who already understand me, it's a bit of fun, for those who don't, it's incoherent babbling that conflates love with emancipation, another priestly term. It's possible to love someone while oppressing them, though it is a lesser love
The thing I'm trying to convey, and it's almost impossible, as with our poor Christian friend who wanted to share the good word with the Sentinelese, is that you will never be able to understand my answer to this question from within the ideological framework that asks it
Who could forget that old saw where the two young fish are swimming along, and an older fish swims by and says "the water's fine today!" and then one young fish turns to the other and asks "what the hell is water?"
If you think that women "as a class" have been the object of some âhistorical injusticesâ, and that those injustices can be mitigated in some way by suffrage and the exchange of CAPITAL for LABOR, then you're so mired in cultural marxism that nothing I say will unstick you
I fear that unless one already has the reactionary temperament, the only way to grasp my meaning without hurling stones at me would be to see my ideals held aloft from a place of effulgent power
