Reader Mailbag: Secular, Modern Feminism Has Puritan, Religious Roots


Modern, secular feminism is a new twist on an old religious doxy

There’s a common misconception when we discuss latent Puritanism in a spiritually dead, modern Anglo-America. Jonathan Castle writes The New Modern Man with an astute question:

Love the site and your writing. But there seems to be a central contradiction:

1 – America is spiritually dead
2 – America has ‘puritan’ sexual repression

I probably don’t understand what you’re saying, or what you mean by spiritual, but if you want America to not be spiritually dead, shouldn’t you embrace some form of traditional faith – which necessarily puts boundaries on sexual expression?

Have you set up a catch-22, a no-win situation?

Rookh Kshatriya, creator of the Anglobitch blog and the Anglobitch Thesis, provides Jonathan with a succinct reply, describing how feminism and Puritanism are intimately linked to one another.

Jonathan, there is no contradiction. The puritanical repression persists as a residual legacy of Anglo-American religion, albeit shorn of its religious roots. Its modern strongholds can be found in secular mass culture, for example Disney movies about perfect princesses or horror films in which all men are villains and women are all saints. Now, these cultural artefacts are not religious in any way, but the old religious puritanism persists in them, albeit in secular form. Similarly, feminism is not an explicitly religious movement, but Anglo feminism has exactly the same anti-sex, anti-pleasure stance as the temperance movements of the 19th century which it claims to despise. The Anglobitch Thesis teaches that Anglo feminism (and much Anglo culture in general) is essentially Victorian puritanism in secular guise. This explains the intellectually vapid and contradictory nature of Anglo feminism; it embodies what it claims to oppose.

Spending a good amount of time outside this culture makes one appreciate the utter brilliance of that analysis. Modern, secular feminism has directly resulted in an echo of the religious days of Puritan America, and is an embodiment of an anti-sex, anti-pleasure world view.

When I’m in Latin America, sex is everywhere, it is not viewed with shame and scorn as it is in Anglo America, and the culture is one of living one’s life to the fullest, interspersed with periods of work – not the other way around – work at the expense of everything else that makes life worth living.

As TNMM detailed in The Puritan Roots of American Feminism, feminism has foisted upon Americans the same doxy the Puritans once held sacred: Sex is evil, hard work for the benefit of women is sacred, and indulgence in sex or refusing to work hard is a sin punishable by fire and brimstone.

Only in modern times, the fire and brimstone of the legal system and judgments from talking heads in the media rain down on those men who indulge in sex with willing whores or who pursue women for sex or who are “deadbeats” because they don’t adhere to the “work until you drop over dead” mantra.

It’s helpful to think of the nightly newscasters on your local station as self-appointed “priests” up on high dishing out condemnations and judgments on the populace as actual priests once did on their flocks. Also, think of how culturally taboo it is becoming for men to approach women and the legal noose a man can have wrapped around his neck via sexual harassment code and public shaming for something as innocent as an off-color remark.

This is, of course, the case because Anglo-America has embedded within it the core belief that sex is evil, and that sexuality is a “blessing” bestowed upon women (who are “better” than men) only they can choose to share with men who are “blessed” to receive it.

The legal system also forces males into financial servitude via frivorce lotteries/alimony and child support annuities, a new spin on the Puritanical, sacred value of hard work for the explicit benefit of women.

Lifelong hard work being forced on men for the material benefit of women is a claim supported by statistics of who benefits the most under the current paradigm. The current government spends far more revenue on women than it does on men, around 66% by some estimates, and the economy is 80% driven by female purchasing decisions according to Harvard University.

Feminism was supposed to be about liberation, but it has turned into a goddess cult, as one would expect in a sexually repressed, gynocentric, female-worshipping culture. Only the religious aspect of the belief system has been dropped.

Help us grow by making a purchase from our Recommended Reading and Viewing page or our Politically Incorrect Apparel and Merchandise page or buy anything from Amazon using this link. You can also Sponsor The New Modern Man for as little as $1 a month.


  • Today I bought a book titled ‘Marilyn’. Yes, about Monroe the Sex Goddess who teased and tamed two Kennedys and a nation. The book’s commentary was provided by Gloria Steinem. Yes, that Gloria Steinem. Do we see a contradiction herein, or, a conspiracy? The current situation has been a set up for a very long time.
    Nonetheless, my mother was a saint. She raised 4 boys and a girl in perfect unity with my father and his guidance. She also worked outside the home whenever she could or had to help. She made our clothes and meals from scratch. She was beautiful in every way a man could desire.
    She said I could leave the church at 13 if that was my decision. She made no mention of the whores, in her mind and rightly so, that I dated or lived with. She was extremely pleased when I brought home my wife who could have been a carbon copy of her but was unique.
    My father was everything he should be; breadwinner for all of the basics; baseball coach; scout leader; would pay our tuition if we chose to go on for a degree; strict discipline tempered by the mercy of mom. He was so pleased and honored when each of his sons succeeded in their pursuits and when his daughter married a straight up guy and not an asshole. I could go on but the point is that this is still possible in Canada, America, Europe. Are we, men, judicious. Is SMV everything? Or just a component in a construct that WE are ultimately in charge of creating?
    There are four things, yea five, that I know not; the way a man wins his way with a maid is #5.
    It should be recognized that if men were men then women should and would be women. Maybe not that woman you think you want but the other one who is watching out of the corner of her eye. They do have much better peripheral vision than us! And maybe not for you but for another man’s benefit will your actions and words be taken seriously.
    Water another man’s garden and your garden will be watered too.
    The man who leads the field is not yet quite where he wants to be but when he is he will have no time for those who cannot see.
    He will only have time for his bride, his love, his match and mate.
    Pay attention to the mistakes and successes of others so you may reap your reward in due time.


  • Nice write-up RF, but I would consider the possibility that these traits, that we again and again observe in Anglo-culture(white knighting, pedestalizing etc.) are in fact consequences of our particular evolutionary heritage, and that culture is a sort of superstructure built on top of our genetics.

    The main argument for this is that these features seem to always pop up in Anglo cultures, no matter what time period or geographical area you look at, and that the opposite is true in most other people`s, for example Asians.

    It`s just that technology and the comforts and security it provides exacerbates these trends.


    • Rookh Kshatriya

      While these characteristic features of the Anglo-Feminist Matriarchy are ubiquitous and probably do have genetic foundations, leaving or opting out of the Anglosphere instantly removes a man from the clutches of hyper-hypergamous women. Anglo women and their rabid hyper-hypergamy are surely the decisive factors in maintaining the Anglo-feminist Matrix; remove them from your life, and blessings will follow.


  • “Feminism was supposed to be about liberation”

    Bullshit, it was always about fat, ugly, and old cunts trying to get more power and influence. Whatever so-called noble ideals it started with were just window dressing for something obviously more sinister.


Join the Discussion | Leave a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s