I recently encountered the AngloBitch site, and find its ideas compelling - though not quite exclusive to AngloBitch.
The question is why has feminism found its strongest expression in ANGLOPHONE countries?
People like to lay blame on the current condition of American (and British, and Torontian lol) women at the feet of feminism. But the real question is why did those places become so susceptible to it in the first place? The pattern of feminism's spread suggests that there is something about Anglo culture that led to feminism's rapid ascension there. And that is what Anglo Bitch is trying to answer.
A lot of men are fond of blaming modern feminism. This falls short, for at least two reasons. One, Scandinavian feminism, while at least as extreme, is not quite as dysfunctional -
http://www.rooshv.com/the-hypocrisy-of-a...n-feminism . Two, the flaws attributed to modern American women were also attributed to American women of previous generations - the passage below is from 1945:
- The much-vaunted sex appeal of American women is drawn from films, reviews and pin-ups, and is in large print fictitious. A recent medical survey in the United States showed that 75 per cent of young American women are without strong sexual feeling and instead of satisfying their libido they seek pleasure narcissistically in exhibitionism, vanity and the cult of fitness and health in a sterile sense. American girls have no hang-ups about sex; they are easy going for the man who sees the whole sexual process as something in isolation thereby making it uninteresting and matter-of-fact, which, at such a level, it is meant to be. Thus, after she has been taken to the cinema or a dance, it is something like American good manners for the girl to let herself be kissed — this doesn’t mean anything. American women are characteristically frigid and materialistic. The man who has his way with an American girl is under a material obligation to her. The woman has granted a material favor. In cases of divorce American law overwhelmingly favors the woman. American women will divorce readily enough when they see a better bargain. It is frequently the case in America that a woman will be married to one man but already engaged to a future husband, the man she plans to marry after a profitable divorce." Civilta Americana
In the spirit of that passage, you'll notice how Anglo women don't seek out love for its own sake - a husband is merely a necessary accessory for achieving their ideal life. Other key accessories of at least equal importance are children, granite kitchen countertops, foreign vacations at four star hotels, regular spa visits, Equinox (high end gym) membership, orgasms and so on. Their attraction and love for a man is a function of how much of this dream life he can deliver to her. Romance as devotion to the man is rare to non-existent. It is said in some monarchical countries that one serves at the discretion of the crown, at the discretion of the king or queen - the dynamic is much the same with Anglo women - you are hers, serving at her discretion. When you cease to be of use, you are to be discarded. The princess designation is apt.
In certain monarchical countries, there is also the idea that a king is wedded to his people, that he and his nation are inseparable, the bond eternal. And romantic relationships in certain cultures mirrors that ideal, as with ancient India (which Evola mentions), where a woman would immolate herself to death at her husband's funeral, to join him in the afterlife.
Evola actually faults Western romance in general (
http://www.returnofkings.com/7451/modern...ed-herself ), but it's clear, by our own eyes and Evola's, that Anglo 'romance' is far more flawed than that of the Continent.