Despite the State’s unstinting legal support for false sexual abuse claims and misandrist divorce settlements, very few manosphere writers discuss the strong links between law and Anglo-American feminism. This is a startling omission, when one considers how many prominent feminists are lawyers, legal academics or politicians with legal backgrounds.
In fact, it must be said that law contains the intellectual ‘cream’ of the Anglo-feminist movement. Of course, the subaltern wing of academic feminism resides in the social ‘sciences’, with its non-patriarchal mathematics and other nonsense. The manosphere expends much (digital) ink discussing these poltroons, largely ignoring the legal wing of academic feminism. This is a pity, because the legal profession contains the best feminist minds; it is also the strongest feminist link to official institutions, the conduit through which feminism is imposed on the wider society.
Men always enquire, ‘How did this come about?’ whenever some misandrist agenda is arbitrarily applied to schools, public washrooms or sentencing procedures. More often than not, the answer is feminist legalism acting directly on ‘official’ institutions without reference to electoral processes.
Manosphere scholars seldom address feminist legalism for several reasons. First and most important, law is an obscure field full of specialist jargon. Second, manopshere scholars prefer easy conceptual victories against the (much weaker) arts-humanities wing of academic feminism. Third, the anti-Marxist fixation of the traditionalist manosphere blinds it to the intimate links between Anglo-American feminism and ‘traditional’ Anglo-Saxon culture. In this case the link is obvious, since ‘rule of law’ defines Anglo civilization. Indeed, law ‘rules’ Anglo-American society in a very literal way: think how many prominent Anglosphere politicians have a legal education or worked in the legal profession. In Continental Europe, a far higher proportion of politicians are scientists and economists (Angela Merkel is a scientist, for example).
Feminist legalism should therefore not surprise us, since the Anglosphere is defined by its legalism. The US is legalistic above all other nations; it has countless branches of law, all ever-growing like a vast tree. To pursue a biological analogy, if Anglo-American societies are the phenotype, law is their genotype; that is, they are regulated by pharisaic legalism above any other structural principle. Indeed, it might be said that the Anglosphere is law, in essence. Not only does Anglo-American feminism derive its legalistic character from this fact, it also derives much of its power from it. Curious, then, that the manosphere remains blind to feminist legalism and its power to engineer dramatic social change.
Some admiration is called for: dissident males in the Anglosphere raise a lot of rhetorical dust, while their feminist counterparts infiltrate the cultural genotype – namely, the legal system – and proceed to systematically fashion society in their own image. Equally important is their domination of legal education, since it will shape the next generation of lawyers, judges and judgements. Unlike the social ‘sciences’, law is one of the oldest and most prestigious of the university subjects: all elite universities have law departments and these attract high-status students who will become active members of the future ruling elite.
Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren and a host of other political feminists all trained at elite law schools. In sum, feminism has been wise to infiltrate Anglo-American jurisprudence, for whoever controls law has the true keys to power. Feminist sociology might be the yeast, but feminist jurisprudence is the finished loaf.
Legalism Begets Social Engineering
My research for this article unveiled a veritable hornet’s nest of feminist jurisprudence. Nearly every major law school in the Anglosphere has powerful feminist representatives, as we can see from the following website:
It is no surprise that the site unambiguously links law to social engineering. Since no one really understands law except for specialist experts, it is perfect for the underhand manipulation of society in this way. Even more disturbing is the close link between law and politics, a seamless association in the Anglosphere. RF and other American dissidents talk a lot about America’s lapse into a police state: Feminist Law Professors is where that process really begins. The following passage gives some idea of the kind of articles posted there:
The U.S. Feminist Judgments Project seeks contributors of judicial opinions rewritten to reflect a feminist perspective, and commentaries on the cases and rewritten opinions, for an edited book collection tentatively titled Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Torts Opinions. This edited volume is part of a collaborative project among law professors and others to rewrite, from a feminist perspective, key judicial decisions in the United States. The initial volume, Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Opinions of the United States Supreme Court, edited by Kathryn M. Stanchi, Linda L. Berger, and Bridget J. Crawford, was published in 2016 by Cambridge University Press. Subsequent volumes in the series will focus on different areas of law and will be under review by Cambridge.
It is easy to see what these legal activists are doing: rewriting legal precedents in order to create a corpus of pseudo-precedent for future judgements. In so doing, the future will be theirs (for as long as this dysfunctional civilization lasts).
The Anglo-feminist domination of the legal profession is of seismic significance, when one considers the vast power of jurisprudence in the Anglosphere (not to mention its deep historical links to politics and social administration). Conversely, masculinist activism in the English-speaking world lacks any legal wing, let alone an organized one. Instead, it assumes being ‘right’ will automatically confer ‘victory’ over feminist lawyers and politicians; sublimely missing the point that law, not truth, is the key to the Anglosphere.
Perhaps the fact that most male rights activists are engineers and tradesmen explains their political impotence; after all, engineers and tradesmen do not create/interpret laws or become politicians. To be blunt, Anglo-feminists are winning all the battles because they fight on the right battlefield, namely the legal one. Unless the Anglo men’s movement adjust to this reality, they will always be marginalised and powerless.
Unless they leave the Anglo-American Matrix, of course.
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.