7 ms·

Women Under the Spell

42 points by magnifique 7y ago

derp_dee_derp 7y ago
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!
- yorwba 7y ago
  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.
  - t-h-e-chief 7y ago
    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. 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-Century-Esotericism/dp/0190664479 https://www.amazon.com/Satanic-Feminism-Liberator-Nineteenth...
- crooked-v 7y ago
  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.
- danharaj 7y ago
  "Haha feminists sure are dumb." 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.
- ajross 7y ago
  > Do authors of articles like this actually think that aligning themselves with Christianity's representation of evil incarnate helps their cause? It's a history piece, about feminist movements of late 19th century. What "cause" do you think it's trying to "align" with, exactly?
  - derp_dee_derp 7y ago
    Feminism
  - klyrs 7y ago
    Apple farmers. Big Apple, as it were. We've got the crispiest, juiciest sins... just don't tell your husband.
- t-h-e-chief 7y ago
  I think in your christian rage, you've missed the point of the book. And swallowed instead, the hook, line and sinker that the site set out for you.
elliekelly 7y ago
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/quadrant-magazine/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/quadrant-magazine/
- voldacar 7y ago
  right wing bad! https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html >When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names.
- briandear 7y 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.
  - briandear 7y ago
    And the downvotes prove the point.
  - angry_octet 7y ago
    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.
    - shkkmo 7y ago
      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.
throwaway66920 7y ago
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.
- gatherhunterer 7y ago
  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. 1. https://vision.org.au/radio/2018/03/07/australians-why-abandon-our-freedoms-augusto-zimmermann/ https://vision.org.au/radio/2018/03/07/australians-why-aband...
- xupybd 7y ago
  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? Full disclosure, I’m a fundamentalist Christian.
Mathnerd314 7y ago
Another book review. Maybe we need an "HN Reads" monthly thread, there's not much to discuss on an individual book level.

42 points by magnifique 7y ago

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!

yorwba 7y ago
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.
- t-h-e-chief 7y ago
  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. 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-Century-Esotericism/dp/0190664479 https://www.amazon.com/Satanic-Feminism-Liberator-Nineteenth...
crooked-v 7y ago
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.
danharaj 7y ago
"Haha feminists sure are dumb." 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.
ajross 7y ago
> Do authors of articles like this actually think that aligning themselves with Christianity's representation of evil incarnate helps their cause? It's a history piece, about feminist movements of late 19th century. What "cause" do you think it's trying to "align" with, exactly?
- derp_dee_derp 7y ago
  Feminism
- klyrs 7y ago
  Apple farmers. Big Apple, as it were. We've got the crispiest, juiciest sins... just don't tell your husband.
t-h-e-chief 7y ago
I think in your christian rage, you've missed the point of the book. And swallowed instead, the hook, line and sinker that the site set out for you.

elliekelly 7y ago

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/quadrant-magazine/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/quadrant-magazine/

voldacar 7y ago
right wing bad! https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html >When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names.
briandear 7y 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.
- briandear 7y ago
  And the downvotes prove the point.
- angry_octet 7y ago
  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.
  - shkkmo 7y ago
    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.

throwaway66920 7y ago

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.

gatherhunterer 7y ago
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. 1. https://vision.org.au/radio/2018/03/07/australians-why-abandon-our-freedoms-augusto-zimmermann/ https://vision.org.au/radio/2018/03/07/australians-why-aband...
xupybd 7y ago
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? Full disclosure, I’m a fundamentalist Christian.

Mathnerd314 7y ago

Another book review. Maybe we need an "HN Reads" monthly thread, there's not much to discuss on an individual book level.