I LOVE articles like this because they prop up all the worst aspects of an ideology and try to present them as their best aspects.
Have they no self awareness?
According to this article:
* Feminists worship the devil
* God himself is patriarchial
and therefore feminism is counter to God's will
* Science is witchcraft
* Intellectual enlightenment and freedom of thought come from Lucifer, and are therefore sin
Have they no self awareness? Do authors of articles like this actually think that aligning themselves with Christianity's representation of evil incarnate helps their cause? Do they think these arguments help advance their feminist ideals amongst Christian's?
It's scheudenfreued, I know, but this might be my favorite article about feminism of all time!
I don't think this article is trying to take the worst aspects of feminism and portray them as the best ones. It's certainly not trying to advance feminist ideals amongst Christians.
The article simply recounts a period in history when feminists defined themselves not only in opposition to patriarchy, but also to Christianity.
That association itself is not terribly novel, as Satanism is the obvious choice for rebels in a predominantly Christian society and Lucifer is literally the "light-bringer". Nonetheless, I would probably have failed to imagine it when prompted to think of feminism in the 19th century.
Well to be honest the book is a historical examination of how some amazing women rejected the modern Christian patriarchy (and good on them for doing so). But the website hosting it is definitely intending it to be taken as 'women are the root of all evil'. Just look at some of the other articles posted on the site, like the one saying that Australia Aboriginal History is made up, or that George Pell (one of Australia's worst pedophiles) did nothing wrong.
The article is an outline of historical events, not an opinion piece.
Also,
> come from Lucifer, and are therefore sin
The point of this kind of rhetorical inversion in Satanic groups (including nontheistic religious groups such as the Satanic Temple who do not believe there is a literal God or Satan) is to frame the very concept of "sin" as a tool of oppression that confuses actual moral imperatives with the arbitrary dictates of the powerful.
Maybe you don't understand why they chose their symbolism the way they did. Maybe you've made an unwarranted assumption about their goals or how that symbolism was interpreted 100 fucking years ago.
Should we post “left bias” from The NY Times, Washington Post, Citylab, et al? This is exactly what’s wrong with society, especially among the so-called smart people.
What’s wrong with a right bias? Doesn’t that enlighten the conversation? Is it possible that there a lot of good ideas from another side of the spectrum of ideas? Why do we call out “right bias?” Why not just let people think for themselves. Apparently that’s not allowed — anything veering even a slight bit right from the left of center or far left gets belittled and chastised. Open your mind. It seems the tolerance of the left is a myth.
It's possible to have a right wing bias piece without it being claptrap, which this clearly is.
There are plenty of conservative writers at the NYT/Wapo and dozens institutions like Hoover, if they write something HN relevant, submit it. In fact, I'll submit some myself right now and see how they fare. But don't choose this article as the 'HN is too woke' hill to die on.
What claptrap? Satanism and occultism on particular is intricately interleaved with many of the greatest thinkers from that time period. These influences are generally understated and coming to understand this relationship has done a great deal to improve my regard for the value imparted by both both of these ideologies.
If you take a minute to step outside your kneejerk reactions, you might learn something here, regardless of any bias by this particular author.
If you think this article (or the book) is a serious exploration of the clash of ideology inherent in feminism in a time of deep religious oppression, well bless your heart.
Quadrant is biased in the same way that Jacobin is biased.
It should extremely obvious to everyone who reads it that it takes liberties when picking and choosing sources, that most of the authors have an axe to grind, and that it's exactly the kind of rag that would publish climate change denial just to be contrarian. It also has a reasonably high standard of writing, cites sources, and digs up some fascinating things in its attempts to wage war on the left. It's an interesting propaganda machine, which elevates it above boring propaganda machines like Breitbart or the Daily Kos.
> digs up some fascinating things in its attempts to wage war on the left
Oof. You've missed the point. They don't want anything except clicks and your reasons for giving them what they want don't matter to them. You're just another sucker who clicks around in the void of misinformation and bias.
I think it is a mistake to give more credit to sites just because they can engage in sophisticated sophistry, have MAs from reputable old universities, and have their citations done neatly.
Personally, I find the propaganda the Quadrant writers spout rather boring. Breitbart at least has joie de vivre.
I don't really think people reading HN should be subjected to pseudo intellectual hate speech like this. It doesn't add to any meaningful debate in society in general or the tech sphere.
It sent me down a rabbithole of wikipedia articles about theosophy and satanism, so I like it. The framing of satan as representative of rebellion, personal agency, and freedom in the face of established order interests me, regardless of how much mileage Quadrant can get out of it.
You can find it boring, and that's fine, but you can't make me find it boring.
I said that their polemics are boring, not the topic of feminist struggle. It's so tired that they love the idea of feminists being seduced by Satan and lesbianism, but it is also harassment of women, and no doubt offensive to Christian feminists.
Lots of arguments about whether this is purely historical or disguised opinion. The last paragraph suggests the author’s intention is to discredit feminists imo. Note the use of “God the Father”, “bravely” and “demonstrates” (the lattermost implying that something is factually true and being proven therein). Sure, maybe this was a part of early feminism. But also, buzz off dude. Don’t need this here at least.
> Dr Faxneld provides a most compelling account of how Satanism played a crucial part in early feminism—primarily between 1880 and 1930—as something employed to vilify and denigrate Christianity, and transform God the Father into an oppressive creator and the ultimate enemy of women’s liberation. This book makes for fascinating reading as Faxneld bravely endeavours to demonstrate the centrality of Satanism in influential feminist narrative during the period in a way nobody before him has ever dared to do. His most enlightening book makes a significant contribution to scholarship.
The author went on a Christian radio station[1] to talk about White Christians being oppressed by allowing same-sex marriage in Australia. I thought the article reeked of preachy double-speak from the first sentence so this was hardly surprising.
Isn't the "God the Father" used to show the maleness of the Chrisitan God?
While I think you're correct the authors opinions do appear to shine through in that last paragraph, it seems that efforts have been made to show this history without framing.
Does the article make the case that an alignment with Satanism is a bad thing? Many modern western values align closely with Satanism. Satanism in its modern form was a deliberate effort by some to oppose Christianaities stronghold on the western world at the time.
Is the opposition to Christianity a problem for modern Feminism? Even an historical opposition?
To me this article simply reads as early feminists rebelled against a society they felt was oppressive to them by adopting what they saw as their enemies enemy as a mascot. I don't think that is particularly disparaging of feminism is it?
Sorry I thought I acknowledged the author had a bias? Simply that they’d made an effort to write something other than an opinion piece.
I’m trying to challenge the notion that this article sheds a negative light on feminism. That the opposition between feminism and Chrisitanity, especially Christianity at that time should be obvious.
I would like to raise the question; is that opposition a problem for non Christians and if so why?
As a non-Christian I find it interesting and not at all a problem if true. I think the same basic thing is common in some punk circles today (partly due to some racist Sweedish metal bands, but that is a different topic, although maybe not coincidence that it looks like the author of the book in question is Sweedish). I don't know anything about the author and maybe it is a interesting book, maybe not.
However, I did quickly get the feel that this article was not what it appeared to be (e.g. "nobody dared to do", which seems an unlikely phrase for actual historians) and after very quickly scanning and reading the last paragraph I didn't read it. I would be interested in a historical look at this topic, but not something written to whip up bigots. IMO this particular article should not be on HN.
> Isn't the "God the Father" used to show the maleness of the Chrisitan God?
No, the maleness of Christian God is not something that needs clarification. Appending “the Father” signals the author’s personal beliefs, asserts god’s righteousness, etc. all with plausible deniability
> Does the article make the case that an alignment with Satanism is a bad thing?
Technically correct, persuasively irrelevant. Satanism is without a doubt seen as something blatantly “evil” among his target audience.
> Is the opposition to Christianity a problem for modern Feminism? Even an historical opposition
Aside from abortion probably not. But most religious groups preach conservatism, and are thus anti feminism.
> To me this article simply reads as early feminists rebelled against a society they felt was oppressive to them by adopting what they saw as their enemies enemy as a mascot. I don't think that is particularly disparaging of feminism is it?
Intentions matter. The author’s goal is to create an association between satanism (-> Satan -> evil) and feminism (-> progressive social movements). If we look at this guy’s other works we will find the same agenda. It is enabling a justification of pre-existing beliefs of the basis of rationality because now there are facts, even if those facts have literally zero salience to the issue at hand. To state facts neutrally, but obscure, irrelevant, and persuasively chosen facts is a dirty technique because it’s effective and it gives everyone plausible deniability upon accusations of having a bias
31 comments
[ 4.7 ms ] story [ 71.5 ms ] threadHave they no self awareness?
According to this article:
* Feminists worship the devil
* God himself is patriarchial and therefore feminism is counter to God's will
* Science is witchcraft
* Intellectual enlightenment and freedom of thought come from Lucifer, and are therefore sin
Have they no self awareness? Do authors of articles like this actually think that aligning themselves with Christianity's representation of evil incarnate helps their cause? Do they think these arguments help advance their feminist ideals amongst Christian's?
It's scheudenfreued, I know, but this might be my favorite article about feminism of all time!
The article simply recounts a period in history when feminists defined themselves not only in opposition to patriarchy, but also to Christianity.
That association itself is not terribly novel, as Satanism is the obvious choice for rebels in a predominantly Christian society and Lucifer is literally the "light-bringer". Nonetheless, I would probably have failed to imagine it when prompted to think of feminism in the 19th century.
People should be more careful of where they source their links from. For example the Amazon link is actually non-biased. https://www.amazon.com/Satanic-Feminism-Liberator-Nineteenth...
Also,
> come from Lucifer, and are therefore sin
The point of this kind of rhetorical inversion in Satanic groups (including nontheistic religious groups such as the Satanic Temple who do not believe there is a literal God or Satan) is to frame the very concept of "sin" as a tool of oppression that confuses actual moral imperatives with the arbitrary dictates of the powerful.
Maybe you don't understand why they chose their symbolism the way they did. Maybe you've made an unwarranted assumption about their goals or how that symbolism was interpreted 100 fucking years ago.
It's a history piece, about feminist movements of late 19th century. What "cause" do you think it's trying to "align" with, exactly?
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
>When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names.
What’s wrong with a right bias? Doesn’t that enlighten the conversation? Is it possible that there a lot of good ideas from another side of the spectrum of ideas? Why do we call out “right bias?” Why not just let people think for themselves. Apparently that’s not allowed — anything veering even a slight bit right from the left of center or far left gets belittled and chastised. Open your mind. It seems the tolerance of the left is a myth.
There are plenty of conservative writers at the NYT/Wapo and dozens institutions like Hoover, if they write something HN relevant, submit it. In fact, I'll submit some myself right now and see how they fare. But don't choose this article as the 'HN is too woke' hill to die on.
If you take a minute to step outside your kneejerk reactions, you might learn something here, regardless of any bias by this particular author.
It should extremely obvious to everyone who reads it that it takes liberties when picking and choosing sources, that most of the authors have an axe to grind, and that it's exactly the kind of rag that would publish climate change denial just to be contrarian. It also has a reasonably high standard of writing, cites sources, and digs up some fascinating things in its attempts to wage war on the left. It's an interesting propaganda machine, which elevates it above boring propaganda machines like Breitbart or the Daily Kos.
Oof. You've missed the point. They don't want anything except clicks and your reasons for giving them what they want don't matter to them. You're just another sucker who clicks around in the void of misinformation and bias.
Personally, I find the propaganda the Quadrant writers spout rather boring. Breitbart at least has joie de vivre.
I don't really think people reading HN should be subjected to pseudo intellectual hate speech like this. It doesn't add to any meaningful debate in society in general or the tech sphere.
You can find it boring, and that's fine, but you can't make me find it boring.
Some actual feminist satanists, and how misogynistic the Church of Satan is: https://thefront.tv/read/holy-hell-jex-blackmores-satanic-fe...
Not even the Church of Satan is safe from #MeToo!
> Dr Faxneld provides a most compelling account of how Satanism played a crucial part in early feminism—primarily between 1880 and 1930—as something employed to vilify and denigrate Christianity, and transform God the Father into an oppressive creator and the ultimate enemy of women’s liberation. This book makes for fascinating reading as Faxneld bravely endeavours to demonstrate the centrality of Satanism in influential feminist narrative during the period in a way nobody before him has ever dared to do. His most enlightening book makes a significant contribution to scholarship.
1. https://vision.org.au/radio/2018/03/07/australians-why-aband...
While I think you're correct the authors opinions do appear to shine through in that last paragraph, it seems that efforts have been made to show this history without framing.
Does the article make the case that an alignment with Satanism is a bad thing? Many modern western values align closely with Satanism. Satanism in its modern form was a deliberate effort by some to oppose Christianaities stronghold on the western world at the time.
Is the opposition to Christianity a problem for modern Feminism? Even an historical opposition?
To me this article simply reads as early feminists rebelled against a society they felt was oppressive to them by adopting what they saw as their enemies enemy as a mascot. I don't think that is particularly disparaging of feminism is it?
Full disclosure, I’m a fundamentalist Christian.
So is the author. You can't recognize a bias that you share. If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit.
I’m trying to challenge the notion that this article sheds a negative light on feminism. That the opposition between feminism and Chrisitanity, especially Christianity at that time should be obvious.
I would like to raise the question; is that opposition a problem for non Christians and if so why?
However, I did quickly get the feel that this article was not what it appeared to be (e.g. "nobody dared to do", which seems an unlikely phrase for actual historians) and after very quickly scanning and reading the last paragraph I didn't read it. I would be interested in a historical look at this topic, but not something written to whip up bigots. IMO this particular article should not be on HN.
But I don't know if there is an attempt here to whip up bigots.
I don't think it's trying to be impartial either. This is clearly written by someone that disagrees with both Satanism and feminism.
No, the maleness of Christian God is not something that needs clarification. Appending “the Father” signals the author’s personal beliefs, asserts god’s righteousness, etc. all with plausible deniability
> Does the article make the case that an alignment with Satanism is a bad thing?
Technically correct, persuasively irrelevant. Satanism is without a doubt seen as something blatantly “evil” among his target audience.
> Is the opposition to Christianity a problem for modern Feminism? Even an historical opposition
Aside from abortion probably not. But most religious groups preach conservatism, and are thus anti feminism.
> To me this article simply reads as early feminists rebelled against a society they felt was oppressive to them by adopting what they saw as their enemies enemy as a mascot. I don't think that is particularly disparaging of feminism is it?
Intentions matter. The author’s goal is to create an association between satanism (-> Satan -> evil) and feminism (-> progressive social movements). If we look at this guy’s other works we will find the same agenda. It is enabling a justification of pre-existing beliefs of the basis of rationality because now there are facts, even if those facts have literally zero salience to the issue at hand. To state facts neutrally, but obscure, irrelevant, and persuasively chosen facts is a dirty technique because it’s effective and it gives everyone plausible deniability upon accusations of having a bias