Rant warning. Read at your own risk.
We don’t live in a patriarchy. Once, we did, at least in a de jure sense. Women have long possessed a measure of de facto power through their husbands and sons. However, in my own lifetime we have lived in something else. I won’t call it a matriarchy, because it isn’t quite that. Rather, today we live in a society dedicated to fulfilling all the fanciful wishes of women. Interestingly enough, women do not like living under a matriarchy despite all the feminist calls for such, and so we have system that outwardly resembles a patriarchy, with superficial trimmings of male enfranchisement. Yet this only exists insofar as it serves the interests of women.
Consider the male artists, actors, and otherwise for whom women swoon. Consider the political leaders, corporate executives – the very people feminists claim to loathe the most – for whom women maintain affection and attraction. Next to this we have the so-called ‘body positivity’ movement, which seeks to render all women equally beautiful. This is, of course, a farce – something all women know but rarely admit. To prove their points about fat beauty, they will pull a model like Ashley Graham out of their proverbial hats. And, true, Ashley Graham is a very attractive woman – especially given her weight. But the fallacy is assuming she represents the norm for her BMI. It would be like saying all skinny women are the equivalent of Uma Thurman in her prime.
For every Ashley Graham, there are dozens of Lena Dunhams: overweight, slovenly, disgusting trollish women whose man-hate, stupidity, and vacuousness renders them unfit for any kind of meaningful companionship. We are supposed to accept them as equal to beautiful, intelligent, and kind-hearted women. Consider body positivity as the participation trophy system for female beauty. And just as everybody knows the participation trophies are bullshit – but ardently pretend otherwise – we all (including the women) know that equality of beauty is a myth.
So why does it exist? It makes some women happy to pretend they are beauty queens, I suppose. It makes them think they deserve a Brad Pitt millionaire with a Lamborghini just for existing. It gives them a target to rage against, too. All the men who aren’t interested in them aren’t bypassing their affections because they are overweight, or mean-spirited, or possessing of various personality flaws. Instead, the fault is with men who are fatist, or something to that general effect. And naturally, should a man of roughly their same level of attractiveness try to get with them… well, how dare he! All men are shallow pigs, naturally.
But the phenomenon of catering to female delusions is far greater than merely enabling that particular movement. We are supposed to see the raised pink fists, the pussy hats, the women dressing up as giant vaginas as somehow changing the world by their mere presence. All the millions of marching Starbucks drinkers; all the hopey-changey bologna spouted by the feminists achieves nothing, but we are supposed to believe otherwise. As if a woman chanting “I am fierce” somehow makes it true. Various vaguely female trolls say “this pussy grabs back” as if Donald Trump has some kind of interest in having sex with them (itself a delusion). None of this means anything in the great political struggles of our age, but the media ardently pretends otherwise.
A more accurate headline might be “a million cat ladies descend on Washington to complain about something they can’t do shit about.”
A woman can say any idiotic, delusional thing, and a dozen white knight, thirsty soy boys will pop out of the woodwork to confirm her idiocy. This, in turn, enables such women to increasingly distance themselves from reality, as they are insulated from its effects by hordes of pathetic liberal man-children hoping for a taste of radical feminism’s hairy table scraps. Left wing men are busy ruining women, and patting themselves on the back for how enlightened they are, sucking up to the bizarre, increasingly disconnected demands of hairy, overweight radfems.
It goes beyond the radfems too, however. Every TV commercial is catered to women, pretty much. Watch how the commercials shit on men. Clearly all men are idiots who can’t drive, can’t ask for directions, and need a Strong Empowered Woman to tell them everything. And oh, by the way, here’s an overpriced product shipped from China that proves how Strong and Empowered you really are. For a bunch of Lefty Commies, they are certainly Capitalist enough when it suits them. Some women are agitating from government-funded tampons, because clearly women need taxpayers to fund their hygiene products. You didn’t see a drive for government-funded jock straps for men, last time I looked. But as usual, a horde of thirsty Lefty virgin soy boys will descend and tell the rest of us that not funding tampons for every woman is sexist. And probably transphobic – after all, even transwomen who don’t need them should be provided them at my expense.
When female college enrollment exceeds that of males by a wide margin, college is nonetheless sexist because not enough women are enrolling in STEM programs, despite every male STEM guy slobbering over the opportunity to bang a female engineer. Go figure that one. Mattress girl carts around a mattress, then shoots porn on the damned thing, and demands national recognition for it. Some idiot Lefty men pop out of the woodwork to tell us that college rape rates are worse than Somalia. Yeah, whatever. Delusion after delusion. But still we cater to them, right? Because what women want takes priority over everything – including reality.
Put another way, society is treating women like spoiled brats – and it continues to spoil them – and people wonder why we have screeching hags and weirdos in vagina costumes running around spouting off bullshit about how they identify as a genderqueer catkin, and the Donald Trump is the reincarnation of Hitler and Genghis Khan rolled into one.
Before my female readers go off into a rage – the usual disclaimer: not all X are like that, etc, etc… But even you have to know how many men are essentially slobbering soy slaves to pretty much anybody with a vagina (and some who don’t even have one of those). We have wussified men who just can’t say “no” to a woman. And on the rare occasion a man grows enough testicular fortitude to say no, women who are unaccustomed to hearing it will fly into a rage. Sexism! Misogyny!
And the thing is, this behavior doesn’t lead to an actual matriarchy. It leads right back to a patriarchy. Think about it. Idiot soy boys aren’t reproducing – and, indeed, are clamoring for the importation of their replacements. I.e. they are arguing for the importation of actual patriarchs from various shitholes (thanks, Donald Trump) around the world. Let’s take more from Somalia and Pakistan, right? Bring back honor killings, because nothing says “I’m for women’s rights” like importing people who like murdering their own female relatives over trivial matters.
Peace, love, hopey-changey-change. And let’s take the world back to the seventh century, while we’re at it. All because some men are too pussified to say “no” to a woman once in a while, on the off chance that one of them might eventually pity him enough to give him a second sexless date. Women, of course, are free to say “no” to men whenever they wish – and indeed are busy recodifying law to make affirmative consent forms every 5 minutes a thing, on the off chance one of them actually gets caught in a situation where she might be drunk enough to be in a soy boy’s bedroom.
It’s all delusion. Guns feel bad. Ban them! But then we have some idiot who silently stands in front of a podium someplace becoming some kind of idiotic trend, and women delude themselves into thinking it’s some kind of existential philosophical healing experience. Whatever. It’s like that scene in Office Space where the couple goes to the ‘occupational hypnotherapist’ for relationship advice, and the girlfriend later admits the whole thing was bullshit and she was just cheating on her man. She knew the whole time that it was all bullshit, but played along anyway – presumably because she had to be seen as trying to make the relationship work, or at least it had to be his fault that it failed. She, after all, did everything she could, right?
All of society is geared toward catering to women. From the ads on TV, to the stupid happy music and bright colors of Youtube commercials. If men still make more money than women (after you control for hours worked, educational attainment, etc…), they certainly don’t get to actually spend it.
I am having a house built, and I was amused by the emphasis put on countertops, cabinet door styles, and water faucet designs. Meanwhile, I asked about the actual materials used in the construction of the cabinets, and the local design center workers looked at me like I was insane. People would routinely spend $10,000 on trendy cabinet doors, never once caring that the boxes and end panels were cheap particle board. I asked for plywood end panels, and according to them, I was the first they had ever met there to request this. It took them two weeks just to find pricing on it (it wasn’t bad). But that just shows you that even when you build a house, the target demographic is female. Everything is about style, trendiness, etc… A man comes in, and asks structural questions, and everybody has to look up the answers because who gives a damn if the cabinet boxes fall apart when they get wet – but everybody needs a name brand quartz countertop with some fancy cabinet door made of imported wood from… wherever.
Even something like the traditionally male space of fast cars ultimately caters more to women. Most people don’t buy Ferraris because they are Italian automobile enthusiasts, they buy them to signal wealth to cater to the desires of women. Pleasing women is at the core of our society, it’s embedded in everything. You don’t see a campaign to buy your man beer, to give him plenty of his favorite sexual favors, or any of that. And if he asks, it’s probably sexist or woman-hating. Maybe it’s even rape.
A woman can berate her man in public, and nobody bats an eyelash. In one experiment, it was even noted that a woman physically attacking her man was applauded. The reverse, of course, was seen as woman-hate and was immediately decried.
The amazing thing isn’t that all this is happening, per se. Anybody who has a clue about sexual dynamics can see how something like this could come about. Women are the limiting factor in reproduction. One man and a thousand women could repopulate the species. The reverse means extinction. They have a lock on the right of refusal, save in various uncivilized shitholes. The fascinating thing isn’t that we cater to women as a society – it’s that so many people are deluded into thinking it isn’t happening, that it’s really men who are being catered to; that we live in a patriarchy. That is beyond delusional. It is insane.
But, sadly enough, this insane behavior will eventually make it true. The feel-good hopey-change will ensure that we import plenty of actual patriarchs more than willing to reestablish that kind of society on their own terms. Somehow, I doubt the soy boys will be able to resist them. If, indeed, they even try at all.
Everything you wrote is 100 percent correct. These are the things that go through my brain every day but I could never put them into words as eloquently as you have. P.S. I am a woman…a real one with a vagina and everything!
Glad to see you back T – your take on the female driven culture is spot on, worst part is they don’t seem happier? I wonder if the “you deserve it all lady” (great fulfilling lucrative job, perfect family life, hopelessly in love every minute relationship) message of bull led to this. Most men learn you have to choose.
This is probably the best summation of the central problem afflicting modern society.
Enlightenment ideals of reason and equality have been taken to illogical extremes. Female ego and entitlement led to women thinking they deserved male status, and complacent, de-fanged men gave them a mile and watched as they took a light-year.
Now, unfulfilled white-trash women are disgusted to realize that their campaign to emasculate and marginalize their own men has actually succeeded, and they’re opening the floodgates to psychopathic Arabian goatherders to get the violent abuse and sexual domination they crave.
I used to despair at the thought of collapse, but the new I realized that if Enlightenment values and liberal/progressive political theory were worth shit, they wouldn’t have created the cultural mindset enabling this clusterfuck. So now fuck it; let the mudslimes inject a little bit of aggressive tribalism back into White society.
If nothing it’ll be worth it to see subversive Jewish social engineers slowly freak out as they realize that an Islamized Europe accomplishes nothing but ensuring that their diasporic centers of power will get torn down before their eyes and that their golden calf Israel has no one on the world stage hold back the escalating calls to wipe it off the map.
A large part of feminists’ notions about “patriarchy” is in reality the consequence of millennia of implicit bargaining between men and women: “Women, if you give us men this, we men will give you that. Sold? Sold!” That allows us to reframe the majority of feminist demands as “We want what we want and we refuse to pay for it!” This illuminates the innate unattractiveness of feminists and feminism better than many other encapsulations.
Precisely right.
Exactly. They believe that they should get everything they want, and provide nothing in return. It’s hard to imagine a more unpleasant person to be around than someone who makes demands like that.
That’s many a couple’s reason for not having children, too. (Whether he is privately of the opinion that “I sleep with one already” would make an interesting data point.)
Men built and maintained all upon the earth, not women. It was men who were socially conditioned by both men and women to sacrifice their lives in war on women’s and the state’s behalf. It was men who were last in the life boats. It was a male-only, not female only draft. Men are disadvantaged in every way and the only systemic, legally codified, institutionalized oppression is anti-male and anti-white. Of course men rule. Why on earth would women rule? Women are human beings. Men are human doings.
The whole “patriarchy” thing usually makes me laugh as its an easy way to pick out the real idiots from the crowd. Anyone who proclaims “its the patriarchy” or a variant shows themselves up to be unhinged because its patently untrue that theres a body of men at the top directing everything.
What you say makes load of sense and is observably true, but these people only have a passing acquaintance withe reality, for the most part)
Whats interesting though is what they perceive as “patriarchy” – socially we’re in a transition period, and appear to be slowly moving from a rigid hierarchical structure to one based more on the notion of equality (I say notion, because while most people in westernised societies have equal rights, they dont have equal responsibilities).
Rigid hierarchies tend to be favoured more in male power structures as theyre designed for getting stuff done – from warfare to engineering. They rely on competence and expertise, by and large, in order to succeed. Socially rigid structures are also designed to protect the most valuable asset – which is a female, reproductively speaking.
Consensus power structures tend to me favoured by females, as the purpose is to let everyone have their say and reach a compromise solution that makes everyone happy – valuing feelings over facts or reality.
Claims of patriarchy exist because many institutional power structures are still rigidly hierarchical on the face of it, which is visible – but behind the scenes it can be a different matter.
Both structures have their place and are needed at different times or in different circumstances. Both types of structure can hurt or help both males and females – in different ways. But there’s no acknowledgement of this by most (all?) feminists.
Which is why we are where we are today.
i.e. We know boys can and do have trouble showing emotion, which can lead to a number of problems such as bullying / acting out, only showing negative emotions etc. We teach boys that its fine to suppress emotion and carry on, that how they feel is unimportant – in all cases. Its an example of applying a skill thats useful for boy thats going to become a warrior being applied on the assumption that all boys will be warriors.
This is why I have come to believe that the female vote was a mistake.
Voting is a way for men to exert cultural power without resorting to direct violence. Violence is the first and last means by which men exert their will upon the social world. Politics is the gradual abstraction of this fundamental male power.
Women always had social power because women have always chosen mates. Women literally bear and shape the next generation of mankind into being, which is an enormous power with no male counterpart. Giving women the ability to vote and hold office gives them 2/3rds of the social power, when things previously were somewhat equitable (but, of course, different in a nuanced way that is more difficult to apprehend than merely a slogan.)
Ever since women have seized power in this way, society has been gradually shifting more and more to align with women’s interests and the destructive overbearing aspect of mothering. Feminist doctrines about rape culture, always believing “rape victims,” and presuming male wrongdoing is the attempt to seize the last piece of the pie, fully bringing to heel the power of individual men by grinding them beneath the institutionalized violence of government wielded for the feminine imperative.
Culture isn’t patriarchal or matriarchal. It’s a negotiation. Always has been.
What’s happened is that the men have stopped valuing the things that produce cultural prosperity, i.e., family, and they’ve forgotten that it’s a negotiation.
Why that is is a lovely discussion in its own right but we can largely blame a combination of environmentalists, feminists, and general short-sighted self-indulgence combined with philosophical rot.
Economic growth, cultural vibrancy, and national prosperity all depend upon population growth, and the problems associated with population growth can only be solved by more of the same, so long as the economic and cultural conditions are conducive, which they are… in most of the world now.
If you can’t convince a woman to have three or four children and together manage to properly care for them then congratulations, you’re a loser. That’s the bottom-line and it always has been.
There is nothing more prestigious than a man with a family. Managed to get a beautiful, intelligent woman to stay at home with the kids? Even more so.
Two kids? Not enough.
Having sex with a lot of women but not raising kids used to be a viable evolutionary path. No more. Not since birth control. They’ve been exposed and we’re suffering the consequences.
Much of the rot we see today is a byproduct of failed evolutionary pathways being exposed. There are a ton of other factors but that’s a big one.
The bottom line is that most women (at least 60% as far as I can tell) would happily stay home and pop out babies if you conduct yourself appropriately.
You need to know their mind. They don’t want to be in charge… they want to be the queen.
And the queen kneels… happily to a king.
There’s a reason why more and more millennial women are choosing a traditional lifestyle… yes, partly it’s because more traditional families have more kids and so that’s their upbringing, but many have actually seen the outcome of the feminist life and it’s terrifying.
Lonely, old, and bitter. That’s the end result of feminism.
No matriarch passing on her knowledge to a young, vibrant family. Just a sad old woman latching on to her one late in life child in a selfish, desperate act to stave off loneliness… if she’s lucky enough to have even that.
The men are even worse for wear but most men aren’t successful at procreation historically anyway so the “loser” man is a familiar category.
The bottom line is that men need to recognize what matters and pursue it.
Don’t hook up like a loser. Get your shit together and ask a woman out. Tell her… on a first date… that you’re interested in a family in “x” time period. Get it established what you want and then determine if she’s worth the investment of time.
If she shows promise, lead her. Within three months she should be willing to have kids, take care of herself, and be willing to take a more natural role IF you continue to deliver on your claims (with the caveat that she needs to show some foundation in reasonable values or be a quick study… no sense in pursuing damaged goods or lost causes… “saving” a girl is for Jesus and you ain’t him).
Lead her.
I don’t mean some BDSM type pathetic BS. I mean LEAD. Take responsibility. Be utterly unafraid of saying what you want. If you want her to knock out five kids and stay home with them and treat you with deference and respect… tell her… but be willing to hear what she’d need from you in order to do it.
Because that’s the trick… most women (and I suspect most people in general) will do just about anything under the right conditions. Want her to fuck like a porn star? Damn near every woman will do that… if you can deliver. Want her to be a stay-at-home wife? Same deal.
Yes. Birth control combined with free-market opportunity made women independent, thus raising the bar. So what? If you can’t get it done, you’re a loser. Doesn’t matter if you lose in the first round or the finals.
Stop fucking complaining and accept the fact that it’s harder now to win than it’s ever been but you can’t win if you don’t play and you aren’t playing if you don’t know what the goals and rules are.
Decide what matters (family and culture and whatever your third preference is) and then make it clear to women that it’s what you want. Then find out what they need to do their part.
It’s a negotiation. Always has been.
It is. However, both sides of the table have forgotten this.
Fslenentine, you gave a long-winded and occasionally foul mouthed rant berating men with what amounts to a shout of “Man up!” Big wow.
By the way, what’s the sex-role reversal of “Man up!” that applies to females?
This bullshit will only end when the barbarians stream across the borders, then women will want to be protected and will find that there are no men left capable of doing so. However, being flexible creatures who care only for themselves, women will gladly spread for the invaders.
Thales has found a way to blame men for female-caused problems.
Very feminist of you, Thales! You go girl!
Calling the cretins in question “men” is a stretch. They act like women.
Some random thoughts (bare with me:)
For a man and woman to get along well enough to marry AND stay together for the long haul, they need to have more going between them than just having ‘something in common.’ They actually need to see the world thru more or less the same eyes.
Having nearly identical cultural, educational, economic and social backgrounds greatly facilitates the occurrence of successful matchups. The very lack of this in the USA is at the heart of the collapsing birth rate and phenomenal divorce rate.
For the past 50 years (and a bit more), America has been distinguished from the rest of the world in many aspects – and especially notable for the purpose of this discussion, cultural. Beginning in, say, the 1950’s, it started to become rather common for families to move from town to town and even state to state for work, with the kids going to several different schools before graduating HS. Concurrent to this has been a collapse in religious observance.
Religious devotion and long term presence in a particular town or neighborhood are fundamental requirements for the development and sustainment of a community. If families are moving constantly, they don’t develop roots in one place. Those who remain in one place may find their roots restricted by the constant turnover of the town’s/neighborhood’s population.
Let’s contrast American social culture with another that is starkly different – that of India.
In America, kids grow up and graduate HS usually with a completely different set of friends than those they had in grade school. They often go to college as singles and nearly always graduate as singles. They’ll then work the singles scene in whichever town or city they find a job, maybe find someone willing to date them for a while and then marry them, and typically lose the ‘spark’ within the first 4 years. They have a 50% chance of divorcing in the first 10 years, with the first 3-4 being the most critical. For each marriage partner, there’s only a 50% chance that their mom and dad are still together. It is highly unlikely that the moms and dads know each other. Support from either side of the married couple’s parents is relatively rare – the couple will mostly need to find a way to survive on their own.
In the subcontinent, by contrast, most marriages are still arranged. Future husband and wife are introduced to each other and have a selection of potential mates. They often enough already know each other, either because they’ve gone to school together since ‘kindergarten’ or thru mutual friends and family connections (cousins and such.) The families orchestrate the introductions, and these families just about always know each other, get along really well already and are from the same or nearby ‘caste.’ These families are also geographically stable. Once the couple choose each other as partners and marry, their relationship will almost always be STRONGER after 3-4 years. Furthermore, whatever rough patches the couple has during their relationship, the families work together to help them get past/thru it. The divorce rate is thus stunningly low.
Let me stop it there before this turns into a 19th century Russian novel. 🙂
Chill, dudes. In the end, might makes right. You can’t undo nature. When it all goes off the rails it’ll all be ours to do as we wish.
There are some women who after I’ve seen them I have an overwhelming urge to pluck my eyes out. This is even after seeing them fully clothed. Lena Dunham does come to mind. All quite inexplicable, but ……………..TRUE!
I remember in my yute being on a few dates where, if I had been carrying a cyanide pill, I would have happily taken it to escape the shrill, schizophrenic harpy with whom I was stuck for the evening.
Unfortunately, I did not possess the appropriate pill on those occasions, but did cut each date short. The gals were always shocked and wondered why I never called them back.
Hah, that brings to mind an old Churchill quote about women and poisin.
The husbands-as-bumbling-idiots meme in most commercials has its complementary distaff side: wives-as-condescending-shrews. Rather than complain to women about how commercials unfairly stereotype men, I prefer to ask women about why they put up with the harpy caricatures of women.
I always make sure to bring up the point that displaying contempt for your partner is a prime divorce predictor (see John Gottman). Women almost invariably respond that women in commercials are displaying something less than contempt. With a little unpacking, most can be made to admit that “condescension” is accurate, and my question is then, in this situation, how is condescension different in a meaningful way from contempt? Is it just mild contempt?
Commercials are training women to act in ways toward their partners that we know greatly increase the likelihood of eventual divorce.
I’ve seen lightbulbs go on from this approach, and I think this insight is one of those things that once seen cannot be unseen.