Contents:
1.) Introduction
2.) The Alienation of Male Perspective & The Manosphere As Surrogate
3.) The Square Root of Feminism is Marxism
4.) Family or Career: She Can’t Have Both
5.) Creating A Culture of Female-Federal Co-Dependence by Replacing Men with Government
6.) In Closing
7.) Relevant Reading
1.) Introduction:
Recently I was asked this question: “The red pill subreddit seems to be a space for men who have had negative experiences to vent and further their base interests. If you agree, why do you think that is?”
My answer to this question dominates the topic of this article and has been split into sub-sections. My answers and ideas are not all-encompassing, I leave many stones unturned. This is not a thesis. This piece is a general overview that will elucidate some key points pertaining to the contemporary adoption of the feminist political movement. In places, the article is tongue-in-cheek. With that aside, onward!
2.) The Alienation of Male Perspective & The Manosphere As Surrogate:
The majority of modern boys and men have had resoundingly negative experiences with girls and women. Modern women are effectively raised not to view men as human beings with wants or needs. Modern women are devoid of positive femininity, instead the majority are cold, narcissistic and uncaring, viewing men as nothing more than a mere means to an end. The feminist ideology outlawed male spaces by using its influence to effectively demonise them as “vehicles for oppression.” An absurd and rather sexist assumption came to be accepted: “if men are excluding women from their social activities it must be because they wish to discuss how they can better oppress them!” Men don’t want to gather in the absence of women because, you know, women are notorious for their nagging. It’s not that men like to talk without worrying people’s women’s feelings are going to get hurt. No, it’s definitely not that. Women are of course infallible creatures who would never drive men away to congregate in respite. It’s definitely that misogynistic oppression thing instead.
With the odd sports team, construction sites and the Freemasons being the last vestiges of male space in the physical world; communities such as The Red Pill Subreddit and Roosh V Forum have stepped in to fill the masculine void that feminist ideology has imposed for the best part of a half-century. By using the power of the internet and relative anonymity, men have managed to effectively recreate and regulate spaces where male-dominated perspectives are welcome. These are spaces where logic, reason and distinctly masculine self-interest dominate over the emotional sentiment and social politics typical of the feminine.
These communities are consciously self-imposed microcosms of male mentality. They communicate thoughts and strategies conducive to rational male self-interest. They cater for not only the male viewpoint of women and society, but likewise the male sexual imperative. These communities are a manifestation of man’s yearning to exercise the freedom to think and converse without the threat of censure from the feminist iron fist. These communities are all too self-aware of how the “masculine way of seeing things” is bigotedly unwelcome in mainstream society. As such, these communities ruthlessly segregate and self-regulate themselves. Unproven outsiders cannot be trusted to understand their viewpoints in an age of all permeating radical feminism. Insular in its nature, the manosphere is steadfast in kicking out feminist sympathisers who attempt to disrupt discourse and peddle rhetorical hogwash. Bearing all these things in mind, I believe the lack of tangible real world male spaces is one of the underlying social issues that led to the creation of the manosphere. However, this is merely a symptom of a far bigger problem, the breakdown of the traditional family.
Single motherhood is detrimental to both sexes, although the absence of a father in childhood is something I believe to be particularly deleterious for young boys. The statistics available out there (increased risk of drug abuse, suicide, committing a violent crime et cetera) seem to back me up on this line of thought [1] [2]. Of course, we (the manosphere) attribute the blame for the normalisation of single motherhood on the destruction of family as championed by feminism. It was feminism and its “class-warfare system” as borrowed from Marxism that led to today’s sociopolitical climate. To better understand the nature of this we need to deconstruct modern history with a red pill lens. By observing feminism’s adoption by society and the wider implications it has since had, we may better understand the butt fuck mess we are in now.
3.) The Square Root of Feminism is Marxism:
It was under the feminist ideological construct that “the bourgeoisie” became “the patriarchy” and “the proletariat” became “oppressed women.” By conning men and women of the then-time with this oppressor-oppressee rhetorical construct, ideological feminism could be normalised via institutionalisation. Institutionalisation is the process in which an ideology becomes a part of the teachings and cultural underpinning of a society. Institutionalisation embeds ideology into the core pillars of societal influence, which are: the family, government social policy, public education and depictions in media. With the combination of these institutions working in tandem to perpetuate the feminist ideological lie, there was a cultural shift from conservatism to liberalism. With such ideological hegemony came the memetic and vacuous reinforcement of feminist principles via peer group pressure: “Like oh my god, Becky, feminism is so ideologically in right now! Let’s call men pigs and burn our bras it’ll be fun!” (refer to the above image.)
The need for civil rights (something the majority of women did not care for or even disagreed with,) was not historically considered to be a human rights issue. Women would enter the workplace only in wartime when there were labour shortages. They worked in factories (eg: Rosie the Riveter) because they had to, not because they wanted to. Have you ever worked in a factory? I suspect not now they’re all in China, but needless to say working the production line conveyor belt is infinitely less rewarding than watching your children grow. There was no society-wide systematic oppression of women. Women were simply not required to be tax slaves for the state in the way that men were. Women were under the care and provision of men rather than government (from father, to husband.) Feminist “independence” today, is for many women, especially those at the lower end of the socioeconomic strata, a farce. They are not truly independent, there has simply been a change of hands in who governs them.
Rather than pledge allegiance to a man in the context of common goals, love and family creation, women have instead vacuously pledged their allegiance to ideology. This ideology is then used by government as a tool for power consolidation. Women have effectively been used by government as a demographic of “useful idiots.” Frame something as a woman’s issue and you can get them to agree with anything. Government married itself to feminist ideology because it was an effective way to divide and conquer. It allowed government to better control the population by playing on woman’s instinctual and irrational fear. By doing this and painting all the blame on men, government can justify the subjugation of man by portraying itself as “the protector of women.” Historically feminists were a loud but small minority who did not like the status quo, whilst most women were content with it. Women were not chained up in kitchens, forced to pop out babies and obey the every desire of man in the way that vitriolic feminist rhetoric would have you believe. Such rhetoric is not only farcically and factually incorrect, but likewise deeply disrespectful of our ancestors.
Owning property, working in the factories and voting weren’t things that the women of pre-feminism were really concerned with. They didn’t care about those things. Modern day women indoctrinated by feminism have been taught to want those things, so they assume that women in history did too. They then continue down this slippery slope and deduce men must have oppressed women by denying them these things. If you don’t want to do something and you don’t have “the legally assured right” to do it, then you’re not going to be bothered that the law doesn’t give you that right.
It’s feminist revisionist history which paints a picture of women on their knees pleading for centuries to get the vote. Such trite could not be any further from the truth. The reality is, as already stated, feminists were a small fringe movement with little traction or support in mainstream society. The majority of women were more concerned with securing a good mate, having children and nurturing their loved ones. Not going to work in the factories or fighting in wars. Feminists/suffragettes have been around since the late 19th century and were predominantly upper middle-class white women allied with a radically misandrist lesbian minority who were perceived by larger society as an obscure subculture. It was the ideological rhetoric peddling that “men are evil so women need civil rights” which acted as a superficial front for the legitimisation of the culturally destabilising movement known as the “woman’s rights movement.”
The majority of women pre-feminism were in loving relationships where they were taken care of by men who worked very hard. These men were vetted rigorously by the young woman’s mother and father to ensure he was of noble character and worldly means. Their fathers were not spousally raping their mothers on a whim and nor were they selling off their daughters to the nearest salacious man for a goat and three oxen. Women were not the sex objects they have become today: the sluts of marketing, the prostitutes of job promotion and the eager cum buckets of wealthy male harems. Instead they were respectable people: mothers, wives and supportive members of their local community. In part this was due to a lack of effective contraception which acted as a natural safeguard in quelling the volatility of the female sexual appetite. Women had consequences biological and sociological for indulging their promiscuity, so giving in to instinct came with harsh disincentives. In essence, men and women were expected to forego vices and defer gratification for what was considered to be the greater good: the betterment of the family.
Women of the-then time commonly enjoyed monogamous commitment/marriage, multiple children/grandchildren and aside domestic chores and child-rearing, had very few significant problems plaguing their everyday lives. Just because women did not go out to factories and get their hands dirty or go and fight on the front lines in wartime, it did not mean society did not value women. In fact I would argue, pre-feminism, that patriarchy treated women far more righteously than feminism has. Women were valued for their femininity and encouraged to embrace their instincts. They were not shamed for their lack of masculinity and encouraged to “be independent from men by becoming more like men.” Women pulled their weight, but in contrast to men: they led simpler lives.
Business, politics, academia, law and making sure the world didn’t implode were all the purview of men. Men built and furthered civilization whilst women helped to maintain it – they worked in tandem. It was not oppressive, it was cooperative. In return for this cooperation, women got to live out their sexual imperative by having children and being a part of a family that cared about them. They were not relegated to corporate wage slavery, cat herding and watching episodes of Sex In The City whilst crying into a bucket of comfort-inducing, waistline-widening Ben & Jerry’s. They were not alone or “left on the shelf” because they got married young. They invested in their families in youth, and in turn their families invested in them when they reached their elder years.
4.) Family or Career: She Can’t Have Both
Women have always had to choose between family or career. Contrary to feminist dogma, women did work before feminism. Pre-feminism, the majority of women prioritised family. Post-feminism, the majority prioritise career and play Russian roulette with their fertility in the process. Pre-feminism, very few women were genetic dead-ends. Even today, in spite of feminist propaganda, settling down and having a family is high on the list of priorities for the majority of women. It is through naivety and indoctrination that women continue to buy into the feminist lie that “they can have it all.” Women do not opt to start families in their peak fertility window anymore (their 20’s.) Instead they indulge in drug-fuelled parties and casual debauchery, leaving the creation of family until their less fertile 30’s. This is a topic with its own Pandora’s box of social issues which go way beyond the intended scope of this article. In light of that I do not wish to digress any further on this tangent.
5.) Creating A Culture of Female-Federal Co-Dependence by Replacing Men with Government:
The destruction of the family unit via the replacement of the father would create a need for a bigger more powerful government. This was the core agenda (and chief political reason) for the endorsement of what once was perceived to be a “wacky, niche social movement.” By emancipating women from men, women would be alone in the world for the first time confused and vulnerable. Effectively they were “abandoned” but it was for their own good “because men are evil pigs anyway!”
It is then that government could present the solution (the welfare state) and step in as the heroes that came to save the day. Even though they were the same assholes who helped to socially engineer the ideology pioneered by the suffragettes. It was they who got on board with the philosophy and convinced the collective masses that there was a “cultural problem” to begin with. You didn’t think feminism was a grass-roots political movement did you? Yes it would quite laughably be the government who would come along and protect women from all those nasty, evil men who had worked oh-so-tirelessly to historically enslave womankind. Even though, you know, the government was predominantly male too. If men are so evil, why trust one set of men over another? Looking after your family and putting your life on the line in case of national conflict in order to vote. Making sure your government represented you and didn’t become tyrannical via political participation. Defending your culture/way of life from foreign invaders. Yes, these things all sound like the psychological make-up of an oppressive demographic of people don’t they? Oh I think not.
In reality the government pitted women against men (a divide and conquer tactic) by making women believe men are intrinsically immoral creatures out to exploit them. Thus in turn it could be said with a straight face that men do not deserve the same level of empathy and that big government is the answer to women’s collective problems. These ideas are what paved the way for providing women with the vote, and with a female voter base government could undermine patriarchal/male power. By using all the feminist-indoctrinated women to outvote men, government could “democratically pass” radical social policies that they knew the men of the then-time would not agree to. Then as feminism became culturally embedded, men would slowly come around to team feminism only further compounding feminist dominance. All of this has led to today’s dysfunctional socially engineered society where broken homes and poverty are a cultural norm [1] [2]. Having a father around whose balls haven’t been metaphorically cut off? A luxury not afforded to the majority of today’s children.
Feminism was never truly about empowering women. It was about disempowering men. By using the boredom of socially influential and ambitious upper-middle-class white women, the perverse political philosophy of feminism could come to fruition. Of course as so many men die at war and at work in toil to provide for their families, women always have and always will continue to outnumber them. So under “the rules of open democracy” male perspective can be effectively undermined by targeting policy along a gender line. This is incredibly rich and ironic of an ideology which tries to give itself democratic legitimacy by saying “without feminism, society ignores half of the population!” My response to such banality being: “even if society did ignore half the population, which it didn’t, feminism didn’t stop that – it just changed who got a voice.” Of course the more men there are out there willing to sell out their brothers-in-arms for the promise of some paltry pussy, the better! If we have men who will encourage feminist decadence because “it helps them get laid” or whatever, that’s an extra vote for team feminism! You go girl idiots!
With the product of the ideological lie beginning to yield its intended dividends, the size of government could be justifiably increased. This afforded government more control over the nation, more tax receipts, more civil servants etc. Civil liberties could be more easily curbed by promoting safety over liberty to women, who in their instinctual fearfulness of boogeymen (or rather crudely: men,) would obey the system “for their own protection.” Through legal revision and feminist legislative enactment, exclusively female entitlements could be brought into law, effectively turning men into second class citizens via exclusion (see: severity of criminal punishment, divorce law, child custody law etc.) Women are far more easily manipulated than men in matters of fear, and politics are by no means an exception to this phenomenon.
All it takes for a government to control a majority female voter base is some scaremongering and the promise of free handouts. Put this formula into play and women will concede to a predetermined federal agenda like ideological cattle; all whilst being completely self-assured that they are the ones who are in control. Despite having betrayed women with the feminist ideological myth, women are government’s contemporary primary interest. By ideologically ruling the women, government may consolidate power on behalf of the economic elite and subdue the common man (oh how ironically Marxist!) Feminism is not entirely about women; but rather the ideological weaponisation of women against men to destroy the traditional family.
Feminism was used as a way to wage war on a class of men (white European men) who were as a group even at the lowest economic strata, beginning to amass more power than the economic elite were comfortable with. Unfortunately, feminism has got too big for it’s boots stilettos and is completely out of control. Now it’s starting to cause problems for the African american community, the middle class of India and other men and children around the globe, such as those in Argentina. The anglosphere and Europe were just the beginning. No longer is feminism the exclusive problem of the white man, through globalisation it is infecting and disassembling culture everywhere.
6.) In Closing:
Modern western governments weaponise women against men by selling feminist policy as “a protection in women’s best interests.” Government can dominate women by keeping women reliant on government. Government makes women reliant on them by making sure she is kept distrustful of and emancipated from men (thus depriving her of romance, family and a man to provide for her.) Of course with the single mother epidemic having already taken hold (these women being the first generation of women to be “successfully” emancipated from men,) women can now effectively self-regulate their own disdain and distrust of men without the need for government propaganda. We have groupthink and sermons from feminist ideological lieutenants to ensure this cultural disease continues to self-perpetuate itself now. Radical feminism is but the latest in a long line of destructive political dogmas that the world must attempt to cleanse itself of.
7.) Relevant Reading:
– From Illimitable Men:
The Feminist Thought Police
Feminism Is Socially Acceptable Bigotry
Feminism, Family Destroyer
Feminism & Women’s Logic
– From other Writers:
Buy “Is There Anything Good About Men?: How Cultures Flourish by Exploiting Men” in the USA
Buy “Is There Anything Good About Men?: How Cultures Flourish by Exploiting Men” in the UK
Buy “Is There Anything Good About Men?: How Cultures Flourish by Exploiting Men” in Canada
Buy “The Manipulated Man” in the USA
Buy “The Manipulated Man” in the UK
Buy “The Manipulated Man” in Canada
Reading old, pre-feminist fiction books (Russian in particular) such as War and Peace and Anna Karenina has really opened my eyes to the pre-feminist of viewing women. In these books, although they are fiction, you realise how much has been lost.
An example, in Anna Karenina, a female character has an affair. Her husband, although furious, decides he cannot divorce her as this will be a black mark on her name which will mean she will never marry again. This of course contrasts with today, where a divorce is becoming more commonplace.
Marriage used to be a prize, and for the women in these texts seemed to be the be all and end all. The beginning of their new lives, in the society that their husband was in. All the time leading up to this was preparation for attracting a husband (preferably for the family, a rich one of status). A thought while writing this: could it be that the de-emphasis on marriage (by both sexes) has also played a part in it being less the prize than it once was, therefore nothing to strive for. This would leading woman to do what IS glorified, sleeping with multiple guys.
Interested in your thoughts. Very crudely laid out.
*My points are crudely laid out.
This is very well written. I like your style. One question though: How has pick up/game been feminized?
>How has pick up/game been feminized?
Men think they must “impress women” and try to train themselves up to become the best dancing monkeys around in the hopes they’ll get laid. The masculinised version of game is “if she doesn’t like you, next the fuck out of her.”
Basically: men, specifically PUAs, thinking that women are the prize rather than them. This causes them to pedestalise women and obsess over them rather than make their own lives awesome, become awesome and invite women along for the ride. Men should be concentrating on the self, not on women, if they want to get women. It may sound counterintuitive, but it’s true.
As always, great article IM. Your logic is systematic and methodical.
Where do you see western society heading in the next 15-20 years? Do you think we’ll reach a tipping point and experience a major anti-feminist backlash or will men and masculinity endure further trials before that happens?
>>Where do you see western society heading in the next 15-20 years?
Higher crime, more unemployment, more immigrants, more government debt. The generation of kids coming up are even more dysfunctional than the generation before them. We’re in full-decline. I don’t think we’ll be out the other end in 20 years. Divorce rate is high, unemployment is high (particularly youth unemployment,) we have more single parent families (mostly single mothers) than ever before. I don’t see any of that being fixed within two decades, even if real action was taken to combat all of these things tomorrow. Taking a positive outlook, the economy may be better and unemployment may go down, but I don’t think the state of men will be all that much better. Even if feminism started winding down, it’d take a long time for it’s effects to wear off. It has effectively been institutionalised for the best part of 50~ years. Some men are already beyond help.
>Do you think we’ll reach a tipping point and experience a major anti-feminist backlash or will men and masculinity endure further trials before that happens?
I think anti-feminism will grow in sentiment online, but I don’t think it’ll bloom into a fully fledged movement within two decades. For the record, I don’t like the idea of anti-feminism becoming a political protest movement.
Men of the manosphere need to realise they’re incredibly lucky to have found the manosphere. It’s a way out of the darkness. Most men are locked away in blue pill purgatory and have to stumble onto the manosphere by typing the right thing into Google. The mainstream media is not going to help bring the manosphere into the mainstream because it shits all over the religion of the now-time: feminism. If they did bring us into the mainstream they’d try to change/hijack everything we represent and tear it down. They’d label us women haters and try to ruin what I believe is a very special part of the internet. A part of the internet that gives a shit about men and gives them a fighting chance to be sexually and socially successful when the majority of developed societies fail to do either at present.
To really answer your question: No, I don’t think we’ll hit a tipping point within the next 15-20 years, anti-feminist sentiment will continue to grow and the manosphere will get larger, but I don’t think it’ll go mainstream. Society isn’t ready for it and the effects of feminism are still very widespread without any signs of remedy.
Not entirely sure if you have discussed this is in other articles, but HOW can we use all this wisdom you’re laying on us (like a ton of bricks to the face) to OUR advantage?
And…
Could you do an article on “bifurcation point” it seems as though you would greatly know about this subject and your thoughts would be wise to explore as I find myself in a low shit point the depths of the ocean deep, vigorously attempting to get out and conquer life. Any help on getting out of a synthetically created shit storm would be massively appreciated.
Thanks IM
>HOW can we use all this wisdom you’re laying on us (like a ton of bricks to the face) to OUR advantage?
This article is more an abstract piece looking at history than it is a vocational/how to. I don’t strictly write “how to” articles although they’re popular. I get a little handsy on the creative-side sometimes too. The main takeaway from this article is as follows:
– Men need the manosphere because they have nowhere else to go to say what they really think.
– Realise feminism is completely unfettered bullshit and has no place in a functioning family (every aspiring Patriarch needs to recognise feminism for the bullshit that it is.)
– Realise women need you a lot more than they let on, your position in the sexual market is a lot stronger than you think it is.
– The government doesn’t give a fuck about men or families, it uses feminism to fuck the prior and destroy the latter.
>Could you do an article on “bifurcation point” it seems as though you would greatly know about this subject and your thoughts would be wise to explore as I find myself in a low shit point the depths of the ocean deep, vigorously attempting to get out and conquer life.
This was a bit cryptic and metaphorical so please correct my interpretation if it’s wrong: Is this your way of saying you have problems with your energy levels and despite an ambition to improve yourself you’re struggling to get anything done?
> Any help on getting out of a synthetically created shit storm would be massively appreciated.
See I’m not sure if you’re talking diet or social here. Or both. Or neither. If both, what are the specifics? If neither, what are you talking about?
I’ll simplify my questions because I kind of confused myself re-reading them just now.
1. Do you know anything on the subject of a ‘bifurcation point’ and how hitting rock bottom has been a necessary trait amongst some of the most successful men to ever live? I believe I read about a bifurcation point in the book: Profiles of Genius. An article on this would be epic.
2. I’ve hit rock bottom, or very close to it in health, wealth and relationships (including women) because after my 6 year long term relationship with my ex ended about a year ago I was left shattered, broken and depleted of life. So I did an experiment on myself to see how I could make the pain of oneitis, worse by purposely quitting my job which indirectly fucked up my health too. I synthetically created a bifurcation point for myself since that seems to be a common but necessary trait to make it in life. Now that I think of it, it sounds kind of masochist which I’m not, or don’t think I am.
So my question is if you have any advice on how to overcome this, like where can I start or how can I start living again. I have the energy, dedication, hunger, desire to succeed in life like no one’s business. I have competely rid myself of all the negative people in my life including family. I am ready to mold myself into the very being I know I am capable of being.
Currently:
-24 years old
-I am doing a cleanse on ridding myself of candida albicans
-Full time door to door salesman (6 months in to this new hustle)
-I read A LOT
-I’m couch surfing cus I left my parents nest
-Working on myself like a mad scientist
Got a little long winded here, but hope this gives a clearer understanding sir. Any advice from you will not be taken lightly. Thank you.
What do you say of the view that feminism is the manifestation of negative female nature which is combined with the ideology of marxism.
Sounds about right.
Sir IM, you say “although the absence of a father in childhood is something I believe to be particularly deleterious for young boys” why boys and not girls? Also, what is a safe age that once it’s passed they should be okay, where the parents are relaxed and confident that they took their sons to a safe shore? After 16 maybe?!
Note: I am a girl and I am not sure if you are ok with me clarifying/commenting on your articles.
Please let me know. Thanks
An absent father is deleterious for all children, however, the particularity I refer to is that the absence of a father affects a boy more emphatically for he lacks the role model and guiding force necessary to help him learn what it is to be a man. Sure, a girl feels absent of a protector and guardian too, but that was not what I was getting at.
A girl learns to be a woman from her mother, a single mother can teach her the ways of women (assumedly.) A boy learns to be a man from his father. A lot of boy’s don’t have access to a father anymore, which means no access to masculinity and too much coddling from the mother. Single mothers make weak boys (unless he is lucky, and say, comes from a big family of uncles and such who can act as surrogates.)
Women can’t teach masculinity to boys, and so boys brought up by single mothers are deprived of a lot. That was my point, which I hope is clear now.
It is much clearer and makes a lot of sense.
I ask as I noticed so in western countries (not where I am from originally) and was wondering about the reason behind boys being so wussy, soft spoken and most of all not interested in doing their duties, that is studying.
So, thanks.
I completely and totally agree with what your observing, much of the Western world, especially America and Brtain, have become cesspools of literal weakness. Being an American myself, I am actually wanting to go to an Eastern European country, like poland or some of the balkans, to live, as it seems there are many more women there that actually appreciate men that arent pussies. So, ill be sure to say hello to you if i do live there
Cocoa “and most of all not interested in doing their duties, that is studying.” . I was born in 1992 and from the beginning of grade school I’ve noticed women topping the ranks of the classes because they are better at being told what to do. Boys are more rebellious. I hope that is better reasoning than them not doing it instead of lack of interest. I don’t think many are genuinely interested from subject to subject, I think some children do what they’re told better than others.
I Thank God every day I found the Manosphere!
I had most of the pieces of modern western society in front of me and had pieced some of it together over the years. The point of government utilizing feminism as yet another vehicle for “divide and conquer” just slammed everything into crystal clarity. What a fucking masterpiece and thankyou.
My pleasure.
Frenchman, Alain Soral (English subtitles) elaborates on why Feminism is Bullshit.
I mainly don’t like feminism because of the split between men and women it presupposes. I do believe women should have a career if they want to. But then, I also believe men should be able to choose to father full-time if they want to. Instead, we’ve ended up in a situation in which women are pretty much GUILTED into working AND having a family, and men still expected to have a career without really having the option to father full-time (unless willing to face the cultural consequences). It’s a loss for women because expectations have doubled, and there is no win in it for men, either.
I would much prefer a reality in which both women and men would just be viewed as ‘humans’, both being able to choose to live the life they prefer for themselves, without risking being viewed by their cultures as failing. Frenchguy in the YT video is right: nowadays, a household needs two salaries to get by instead of just one, which shows we’ve experienced social regression. Nobody won. (Except maybe a handful of higher-ups who received twice the workers for equal the wage (relatively).)
I was thinking of leaving this out but seeing as the perceived separation between men and women is going pretty far (in feminism, but als on this website it seems, which I find very unfortunate), I guess it might be relevant or useful enough to mention that I am a women myself.
Now it’s starting to cause problems for the African american community, the middle class of India and other men and children around the globe, such as those in Argentina.
Why the specific reference to India? (I live in India, btw.)
This is a very good piece of wrting! excellent!
I found especially the Part 3.) The Square Root of Feminism is Marxism – very illuminating.
The alliance between feminism and the government and with all the so-called “elites” (e.g. government, corporations, academia, established Media, entertainment industry etc.) already leads and will lead to the following:
a) destruction of the most basic and stable unit of society – The family!
b) Atomization of social cohision
c) degeneration of values which were the only binding mortar of cultures and societies
d) producing dependent, konformist, cowerds, intelectually degenert citizens
e) less and less productive citizens with no positiv goals
f) more and more men will have no reason to be virtous, productive and law-obiding
when a society losses its men strength/work/inginuity/energy and these men are no more believing in the social contract and the old-aged Man-Women contract and when men have nothing more to strive for then meerly sexuall gratification (be it by consent or be it by force), the society will get the following
g) anarchy will spread through
h1) such nation/society will be governed by a tyranical regime
h2) such nation/society will be weakend and be occupied by outside (barbarien) forces
in any case ( g/h1/h2) women will need protection and support and will pay their due for a such protection and support.
There will be no more nagging, no more lack of respect towards fathers/brothers/spouses and no more entitelments and accusations that man are useless!
above all they will finally understand how wrongheaded was their attack on the men from their own nation!
that is the problem with feminism in western culture – they can allow themselves to destroy the only protection they have against the barbarians. that is because they are living in (yet) strong nations.
a normal clever woman from a small tribe which is trying to survive the elements, dieseases, starvation, predators (animals and humans a like) and enemy tribes warring for resouerces, will certainly will do all she can to support the men from her own tribe!!!
why?
because she knows what will happend with her and with her children when the enemy tribe will conquer her own tribe.