Patriarchy Pt. 4: Hypergamy – the Root of Patriarchy

Over a year ago, I devoted three posts to the subject of Patriarchy. The first one was published after digesting the red pill, but before “coming out” with it, meaning I tried to sanitize the post and make it as easy to swallow as possible. Then, I wrote the second – thanks to the inspiration of Janet Bloomfield, aka judgybitch – and ended with the third while I still had some thoughts floating in my head on the subject.

 

I never found the motivation to articulate them. Until now.

 

Last week, I enjoyed a few thousand page views from someone linking the second part of the series, entitled Patriarchy Pt. 2: What if Men Disappeared?, to reddit. I’m flattered they’d do so. I think the article is pretty sound. In fact, if you’ve discovered my site within the last year then you might not be familiar with them. I still think they’re worth the read. Just keep in mind that my writing style at the time was to sugarcoat the red pill.

 

On Patrarchy

Patriarchy Pt 2: What if Men Disappeared?

Patriarchy Pt 3: Women’s Contribution to Patriarchy

 

But I still think there is one more aspect to Patriarchy that doesn’t get talked about much, and never ever discussed by feminists. It can be easily deduced after reading the manosphere and groking woman’s hypergamy.

 

It is my belief that, all things being “equal” between men and women like life choices, ability, opportunity, conditioning, etc., there will still be a Patriarchy.  Actually, I believe there will always be a Patriarchy until the end of time or segregation between the sexes. There may be experimental attempts at other models, but they will ultimately fail in the long run. And it’s not up to me to decide this. It is up to women.

 

Truly, I believe that women, and only women, are one animating force that gives rise to Patriarchy, for it is what they truly want.

 

Hypergamy is the essence of womanhood. It is the instinct that sets all other psychological functioning into a semi-ordered operating system. It tells her that her time and her eggs are valuable, yet vulnerable, therefore she must maximize the benefits gained while mitigating the costs. It is why women test men so thoroughly before they agree to a relationship, and why men try so hard to pass those tests. It is why they second-guess their relationships, poking for holes and ensuring that she still has the best deal she can find. It is why they want gold, and jewels, and (most importantly) a man of high status to attach herself to.

 

To put it simply: women are looking up for their men, not down. She doesn’t want a stone to burden her, but a set wings to lift her higher. That is her ultimate goal in life, and if not a goal then the ultimate fantasy (cough Fifty Shades cough).

 

So which social order do you think satisfies this impulse?

 

Patriarchy.

 

Patriarchy is the social order which ensures men stay at the top of society to run the businesses, government, and families. While this may seem (at least at first glance) to deny women what they want – opportunity, freedom, etc. – Patriarchy also ensures that women can look up and have countless options of men available to pull her into the higher strata. In this world, alpha males are abundant, meaning the vast majority of men are more attractive than an equal or lessor male. There is no need for a woman to climb the mountain herself, for a man is able and willing to lift her up. In the end, this fulfills her hypergamy, her fantasy, her inner cavewoman, etc. It is why grandma stayed married for fifty years. Even working at the saw mill cast grandpa as Hercules.

 

This is the true engine that drives Patriarchy. Women want men at the top because they want their lovers to come from the top, and no amount of egalitarian social engineering will change their innate preferences.

 

But before I bury this horse, let’s have a few thought experiments, holding up Patriarchy to Matriarchy or Equality.

 

Matriarchy is the grand vision for many of the world’s radical feminists. However, women have a tendency to ruin their own good time by not looking all the way forward. A great tangential example by heartiste:

 

“Yes, women want to achieve maximum gravitational comfort within relationships, but women are also strangely their own worst enemies in their quest for eternal love and happiness. Women will work instinctively and incessantly toward neutering and domesticating boyfriends and enlarging their LTR comfort zone until, perplexed and full of resentment, they have lost all desire for their men.”

 

Own worst enemies indeed. In this same sense, women want to achieve all that men have achieved, working hard to acquire those degrees and corner offices and fancy suits and bloated paychecks. However, once they succeed they inevitably look around and yell, “where are all the men!?” The men are there… in the mailroom, and because they’re in the mailroom those men are invisible. Every man who is beneath her simply ceases to exist in any capacity beyond human-shaped robot cleaning her drain or putting down her new hardwood floors. Women don’t want to look down and settle for a man in a relatively lessor position. They don’t want a man to pull her down, as dictated by her hypergamy.

 

This means that Matriarchy is actually anathema to a woman’s instinctual drive. She may be a high-powered CEO, or even the president, but every time she comes home she’ll look at her husband and feel disgust, and she won’t conceptualize why.

 

Equality is better, but only marginally better, and it certainly isn’t optimal. A woman’s gaze can come down to the horizon, allowing many women to settle for guys with equal or similar income/status levels, but settling isn’t optimizing by definition. In an equal societal arrangement, women are still looking up, as are the women below her, and above her. The only difference between this and total Patriarchy is that the pool of men at the top has now shrunk and the pool of female competition has increased. It’s not as bad as Matriarchy, where the vast majority of men become invisible (or valued only as fuck toys), but you instead have a situation where the few remaining men at the top have the lion’s share of the lionesses while half of the men below the average are once again invisible. Obviously, this will cause problems.

 

In my view, the only social structure that can satisfy both ends of the equation – a woman’s innate drive for status and a man’s desire for women – is to ensure that men are at the top. That doesn’t mean that women have to be oppressed or mistreated, but it still means Patriarchy, basically.

 

Of course, if you truly want to defeat Patriarchy, all you have to do is rewrite the female condition. Shouldn’t be hard, right?

 

*

These days, every man needs legal protection. Here is an affordable way to get it.

My novel.

My Twitter.

Men and Women Will Never Truly Understand Each Other

The Manosphere has done a massive amount of research, both in formal study and in personal anecdotes to understand how women operate. There are multiple reasons for this, as some men choose to bed them, others to hold onto them, and all are trying to avoid being taken advantage by them. Similarly, we have looked inside ourselves in order to understand who we are as men. Through these pursuits, we’ve generated what amounts to an entire new field of gender psychology (though I’d call it sex psychology, for reasons I will detail later).

 

(Aside: Here I’d like to point out how the supposedly misogynistic manosphere has devoted so much time into understanding how women function on an objective analysis that tries to get to the heart of the female human condition, petals and thorns and all. Ironic, isn’t it, how we wish to understand them, but feminism has not desired to do the same for men. If we are psychoanalyzed at all by the opposing side, then it is through the lens of sophism, projection, and oppression. But I digress…)

 

Months ago, I wrote:

 

“In its most basic form, the male human condition is about becoming a man worthy of reproduction through demonstrable strength, intellect, and/or dominance. That is a man’s purest quest, condensed. However, the female human condition is about holding onto the things that nature, genetics and circumstance have given her without her control.”

 

What I meant by that is, because nature has given us different means and consequences for reproduction, the life’s story of a boy and a girl are so different that they might as well be different realities.

 

But that only scratches the surface. Plumbing is one thing, psychology is another.

 

As much as we men can understand the computations within the female brain, much like how we understand how a motor functions, we cannot get into the mind of a woman and feel what she feels, sees what she sees, think in the way that she can. We can only observe from the outside and understand where her programming will likely take her, but not the journey. Similarly, women cannot do the same for us. Despite all we have learned, there remains the impenetrable barrier of our inability to understand the other half of the species.

 

That is because our brains are different. There are several main considerations when talking about neurology: density of neurons, type of neurons, structure of neurons, and chemical neurotransmitters. Between men and women, all four are different.

 

“Male brains utilize nearly seven times more gray matter for activity while female brains utilize nearly ten times more white matter. What does this mean?

Gray matter areas of the brain are localized. They are information- and action-processing centers in specific splotches in a specific area of the brain. 

White matter is the networking grid that connects the brain’s gray matter and other processing centers with one another.”

 

Think of grey matter as a computer chip and white matter as an Ethernet cable. Men have more processing power in select areas while women connect smaller patches of calculators over a wider network. Thus, it should not be a surprise that, over time, men have been stereotyped as focused and logical while women have been stereotyped as holistic thinkers. Stereotypes exist for a reason, people.

 

“The right and left hemispheres of the male and female brains are not set up exactly the same way. For instance, females tend to have verbal centers on both sides of the brain, while males tend to have verbal centers on only the left hemisphere.”

 

The white matter neurons (the “Ethernet cables”) mainly run from front to back in males while neural pathways run from side to side in females. This distinction is made all the more apparent when examining the female’s larger corpus callosum – the main bridge that connects the left and right hemispheres of the brain, allowing them to communicate.

 

Consider not only neurons (their type, density and structure), but also the chemicals that allow them to send signals:

 

“Male and female brains process the same neurochemicals but to different degrees and through gender-specific body-brain connections.”

 

Testosterone is the reason why men punch refrigerators when we can’t fix them (and feel absolutely justified in doing so), and the neural structure of women is why they can’t understand why we do.

 

But not only can women not understand men, but men cannot understand women. But perhaps “understand” is not the right word. Men and women just can’t grok each other. Remove a person’s optic nerve or visual cortex and no matter how hard they try to see it simply won’t happen. Remove the prefrontal cortex of one’s brain (which governs behavior and holds back our impulsivity) and they will simply not be able to physically stop themselves from certain behavior. The circuit has literally been cut. We cannot think with brain matter we don’t have, and because men and women are both built and lacking in certain areas of the brain means, no matter how hard we try, we cannot get into the mind of the opposite sex. It just isn’t possible.

 

I personally believe that men and women experience two totally different realities. Not only do we process sensory data and memories differently, but the act of processing information itself is different. I have a pet hypothesis that women literally see the world differently than men. Consider two things: men have a much higher rate of colorblindness than women due to the Y chromosome; while research points to women having higher instances of Tetrachromacy (being able to process more shades of color).

 

I wouldn’t be surprised if the world looks more vivid through a woman’s eyes. Stereotypes abound with women fretting over the color of a salmon dress vs a coral dress. We men think this is stupid because we cannot see the difference as well as they can (it’s all pink to us). Perhaps we truly, physically, can’t. The kicker, though, is that we will never know. We cannot prove it. Giving me a woman’s eyes will not change the fact that my brain would still not be able to process it. You simply cannot compare the experiences of man and woman, side by side. This is not the fault of society or education or privilege, but of biology.

 

The word Gender as we’ve come to use it is a misnomer. The word Gender is a deflection from the word Sex, as Sex in the context of man and woman (and not the act) refers to our biological state, the plumbing, neurology, and chromosomes that differentiate us. It has been replaced in favor of Gender, which tries to take the onus of male and female differences off biology (where it actually lay) and puts it on social conditioning, as if biological differences only apply to our genitals. Obviously, they don’t. However the trend is so ubiquitous and so subtle that academics even make this mistake. The freaking article I cited even calls it “Brain Differences Between Genders“. Uh, hello, we’re talking about XX and XY, biology and neurology. It’s Sex, professor. Once again, another example of the conditioning our world puts us through to render men and women as more similar than different.

 

However the more digging we do in the Manosphere the more we end up realizing that this gap between male experience and female experience is wider than we expected and cannot be bridged, although many will try. As a writer, I’ve come across the same question from many an aspiring young man as to how to write female characters. Every time I give them this information there are at least five people – an assortment of PC white nights and feminists – willfully ignoring these facts as they try to force the two separate human conditions into one, egalitarian-friendly worldview. Feminism’s attempt to close this gap between the sex’s personal realities, or even disavow their existence, leads to horrible consequences for men and women (and really shitty novels).

 

In trying to make boys more feminine and sensitive, and in trying to make girls into alpha males, the result ends up deforming them into something neither man nor woman – an offense not to “traditional gender roles”, but to their own biological being.

 

In this egalitarian view, we’re expected to judge each sex’s behavior and attributes via the same metric. However, judging men through the eyes of women only produces the idea that we are angry brutes that think about sex every 6 seconds (thank you, 90’s). In trying to look at women through a man’s eyes we see only an emoting child who can’t do math or logic (thank you, 50’s). Both of these stereotypes result from trying to define male and female out of context, by the opposite standard. It is pure madness.

 

Part of being enlightened requires you to see something as it is, fully and completely, without mental bias blocking your perception, realizing too the limitations of your own judgment. This means we cannot deny the context in which our biological sex resides. We must see that these human conditions are different and should be judged based on what they are, men as men, and women as women. If not, we force upon ourselves heaps of frustration from our lack of understanding and lay upon others undue criticism for the very same reason.

 

The reality is that men and women simply cannot grok each other, for our mental computers run on separate operating systems. Yes we can use logic to make decent guesses about other’s behavior. We can certainly observe and take notes from afar. But we are trapped within our own minds, and thus within our own worlds. In the end, we might not be able to bridge the gap between the sexes, but we can come to appreciate our respective mesas for what they are.

 

And if those who disagree, asserting that we are more alike than different, my response would be:

 

How do you know?

Gnon Hates Feminism

I’m not going to debate which side of the political spectrum has the facts on their side, which group is more educated, or which is morally superior. I could care less about human rights or equality, or which ideology has the most “good intentions”. I don’t care about individualism or communism. None of that matters to me because what truly matters are results. The results show that Gnon’s cosmic judgment will lay its crushing blow on feminism and leftism because they are not designed to be sustainable ideologies. (If you’re a little late to the party and don’t know who Gnon is, read my previous post.)

 

You see, discussions about economic and social policy are like navigating a ship. They explain where we are currently headed, where we truly want to go, how we should go about getting there. But always remember that if the ship sinks then any questions about navigation are moot, and a ship will either sink or float. There are no other options.

 

All the same, our species will either live or die. There are no other options. Moral, political, economic, social, and even spiritual debates are moot if we’re all dead. Given these considerations, we should ask whether an ideology will make us sink into extinction before we entertain their ideas further. It doesn’t matter if said ideology makes us feel good or that we like it, because much of what keeps us alive isn’t pleasant. Candy will kill you. Vegetables suck but they make you strong.

 

Aside from all the criticism and rants I’ve made about the left, or the social just warriors, or feminism and all the other head-cases in the same basket, what ultimately condemns the ideology is that, if left unabated, leftism/feminism et al will end the human species. I call that immoral, because that is the ultimate sin against Gnon’s only Law: survival.

 

From my experience walking around the city of Boulder, a haven of SWPL liberals, I’ve noticed the men and women on thousand-dollar mountain bikes. I see the parking lots filled with new Prius’ and Subaru’s. Everyone has the money to finance their extraordinary educations and organic living blogs while residing in some of the highest cost of living areas in the state. I get to go into their houses and marvel at the new counter tops and flooring, their expensive televisions and furniture. But you know what I don’t see a lot of? Children.

 

The typical size of the SWPL family is host to usually one child, created by a less-fertile mother later in her life, after she’s “settled down”, and her beta husband who might do cross-fit but can’t use a weapon to save their lives. When that single child follows their parent’s teachings and goes to college to become another disciple, they meet their spouse and have their one child. From four people, go to two, go to one. And if that child meets their spouse and builds a family in typical SWPL fashion, then the eight great grandparents’ bloodline drops to one child. It’s not so much of a family tree as a family pyramid.

 

Now, I’m not saying that this one family’s trend equates to their ultimate destiny, for some later generations of children could change the course of their bloodline, as many generations have in the past, but that just emphasizes my point: the SWPL lineage will either die or convert to another ideology. Sink or float. There are no other options. And while some could say that the left doesn’t intend for this to happen, for there is nothing in the ideology that explicitly states you can only have one child, the fact remains that such is the result. You’d be hard pressed to find a left-leaning family, or left leaning country for that matter, that has more than replacement-level population growth.

 

I think there are two main reasons for this: economy and feminism.

 

We in the west live in an economic climate of relative abundance. The amount of toys that our money can buy for short-term gain vastly eclipses our other options, like starting a family. People would rather remodel their kitchen than raise another child. In short, we’re too distracted with the mindset of the here and now, rather than thinking about our future and the legacies we leave behind which will last (hopefully) thousands of years.

 

But I believe the main culprit is feminism. I mean, there’s so much to cover that many of my readers will know what I’ll say before they even read it:

 

  • The life plan of a girl spending their 20’s to 30’s on the cock carrousel only then to settle down with a beta means they’re wasting their most fertile years while using the last of their womb credit at the event horizon. Increased rates of autism aren’t the only results of a child birthed from their mother’s waning fertility.
  • Feminism encourages sexual independence and a high N count. However women aren’t psychologically adapted to handle multiple lovers like men are, leading to alpha widowhood and regret in marriage. The result: divorce. While the genetic component above doesn’t stand in their children’s favor, this environmental one doesn’t either. Broken homes make broken people.
  • Fat acceptance. No need to say more.
  • Feminism encourages female empowerment – the Catch-22 is that when women get more power, more education, more independence, the opportunity cost for having children grows too. If you’re working in retail or customer service, then you miss nothing by leaving the workforce to have a child. If you’re a CEO then taking even a few weeks off could have disastrous consequences. Not only that, but stress is linked with infertility in females. Hence why high-powered women either have no children, or just one (after spending tens of thousands of dollars at fertility clinics).

 

There’s more, but the individual specifics don’t really matter. What matters is that, when taken as a whole, this ideology turns people with great potential, along with their potential legacies that could be created, and erases them from existence. The ideas expressed by feminism lead to a degradation in both the quality and quantity of the human race in favor of giving a select few women the brief image of happiness (I doubt they’re truly happy, or will be once they reach the retirement home with no one to visit them and no one to mourn them after their deaths). I don’t doubt that the iconic Single Female Lawyer is intelligent and empowered, but none of those qualities will be passed on to the countless daughters down her line because the lawyer decided to pursue her own interests and not have children. All of her talent will be thrown into Gnon’s genetic trash to join with the two-hundred thousand years’ worth of genetic deformities that never were. Meanwhile, the trailer trash treasure will fill the seats of the workforce twenty years down the road.

 

My girlfriend’s peers are a perfect example of what I mean. All these women are great people and I respect them all highly, albeit in different capacities. One has a master’s degree in biology (specialization? I don’t know). One is finishing their master’s in marine biology. One is a state safety inspector, with all the degrees and qualifications it entails. Out of all her friends, the one most likely to have more than replacement-level children is a retired MP from the Army, though at 27 there is still no first child yet.

 

All of these women are strong and independent by feminist standards (and are truly good people), yet despite achieving great things the almighty Gnon will punish them as genetic dead-ends. Is that fair? Well, that depends on who’s terms we’re using. I can put myself into the shoes of any of these women and imagine the feeling of accomplishment I get from serving my country or getting that master’s degree. But, often times, what’s good for the individual isn’t good for the whole. By Gnon’s terms these women are failures, despite the fact that many of us individuals, such as myself, don’t see it that way.

 

This is an area where our morals and Gnon’s morals do not coincide. Unfortunately, Gnon is the keeper of the physical universe, and his morals will supersede our own, eventually. The only thing that Gnon wants is a strong species that can survive anything thrown at it. Survival, in whatever capacity the environment may call for, is the ultimate measurement of success. Things that make us happy are immaterial to the grand scale of the species.

 

Feminism as an ideology is against Gnon’s morality in almost every way, for it enables weakness and dysgenics. The “good” news is: that which is not sustainable will inevitably end, thus feminism will eventually end. The downside is that many good women, who would otherwise send their abilities down the line to a hundred daughters, will also go down with the ship.

 

And Gnon won’t weep for them.

Privilege or Oppression?

500px-Yin_yang.svg

From a single action comes evil and good entwined. In every thing there is some darkness and some light. There is never any perfect good and evil. Maybe they those concepts exist purely in the spiritual metaphysics of another dimension, but not here in the real world. When you clear your mind of bias you can then identify the good and evil in all things with just a little shift in perspective.

 

With this in mind, let’s play a game. I’m going to give you a fact of life and your job is to tell me whether that is considered privilege or oppression.

 

Men are physically stronger than women. Privilege or Oppression?

 

Privilege, right? Considering that with greater physical strength means that, in relativistic terms, the world itself and all the objects upon it are lighter and more easily moved, granting men more agency to navigate the world. One would be mostly correct in saying men’s greater strength is a privilege. But you would be only mostly correct.

 

Because of that greater strength, men are now elected and directed as society’s protectors, warriors, and hunters – careers which come with a greater risk of death. Men make up the greatest numbers of workplace fatalities, to say nothing of causalities in war either. Is that true privilege?

 

Here we have a scenario of innate, biological privilege being met with the socially imposed and non-voluntary duty to use it in service of the whole, which some might consider oppression. Just like everything has some darkness and some light, with every privilege comes some sort of balance, whether that be fewer rights, freedoms, or, in this case, forced conscription. So the question for you, reader, do the costs of the oppression balance out the benefits of the privilege?

 

Let’s look at it from the other side. Women are physically weaker than men. Is this oppression of privilege?

 

It’s oppression in the sense that nature itself has left women disadvantaged to a great degree, in defending themselves, in ability, in agency. The feminist would conclude that nature is sexist and that women are oppressed. But just as biological privilege in men is met with social oppression in the form of a duty to protect, women’s biological oppression is met with social privilege. Women are not conscripted to fight in war. The disparity in strength means she has people to fight for her rather than she fight for herself. If a 200 pound man punches another 200 pound man then it is nothing more than a fistfight, whereas if a 200 pound man punches a 130 pound woman, it is a call to arms in her defense.

 

Let’s take another example. Using the words of the feminists themselves, women are the only sex that can “create life”. Privilege or Oppression?

 

Per the female supremacists of the world, the ability to “create life” is a privilege that women hold that men do not. But with that biological privilege (no different than men’s innate strength) comes the social oppression of limiting women’s sexual behavior. In time’s past, societies recognized this power of female sexuality and reproduction, and also realized that some women didn’t know how to control this power from their impulses, creating numerous bastard children, which would then contribute to the breakdown of their little society. In response to this privilege, societies the world over forced women into arranged marriages and controlled their sexuality, thus instituting what feminists would rightly call oppression. However this oppression was a merely balancing act against the power of women’s privilege, just as men were oppressed with conscription for their strength.

 

Similarly, because women had the privilege of knowing knew who their children were, but men did not, society imposed another balancing act against women, requiring them to be chastise. And since men could not bear children, society elected them the privilege of (relative) sexual freedom.

 

When there is an innate, biological privilege that one sex has over the other, society will impose social oppression on that sex. When one sex is innately disadvantaged, or in other words oppressed, society will enact artificial privileges for that sex. Example: men are strong, but they must fight; women are weak, but they are protected. Everything is a trade-off.

 

Looking at how these rights and responsibilities come together, it’s hard to see systematic oppression on one side and/or total privilege on the other. Being born a man or women came with advantages and disadvantages, and as long as there are corresponding benefits to smooth over one’s limitations then the system should work properly. Unfortunately, one has to be intellectually honest to avoid seeing the world as black and white, and the current crop of social science academics has no inclination to see past their biases.

 

This is what feminists, egalitarians and cultural Marxists get so wrong. They don’t understand the other side of the coin because they would rather believe a narrative with a clear hero and clear villain. When looking at society, Feminists see only women’s oppression and men’s privilege, but not women’s privilege or men’s oppression. Their worldview is so black and white that many can’t even entertain the idea that there was once harmony between the sexes. No, women’s sexual freedom was repressed for no reason and without any corresponding benefit. No, men’s strength and ability was encouraged without any responsibility to go along with it.

 

This, of course, is madness. Truly enlightened people do not only see in absolutes, but rather in costs and benefits. That is why, for the feminists and egalitarians, equality in their eyes translates to injustice in the real world, for the real world in ages past might not have been “equal”, as both sexes having the exact same privileges and responsibilities, but it was more fair than this one.

 

Now we’re in an age of imbalance because of this feminist, egalitarian view. Women hold on to their ancient privilege while simultaneously being unburdened from having any and all duty or obligation. Men, however, get to keep all their responsibilities without the corresponding privilege to keep them invested in society. Hence why men are beginning to go their own way and check out of the system.

 

I say more power to them. Until we can recognize the importance of balance over equality, there is no reason to contribute to a teetering, unsustainable system.

Single Fathers Are Better Than Single Mothers

My parents divorced when I was ten. For the first five years, I had the experience of living with a single mother, and the last five with a single father. My experiences are merely my own personal case study. Not every single mother or father is like my parents, but having experienced both, having also learned of the unequal nature of men and women, I’m left with the conclusion that if one had to choose to send their child to live with one parent that men would be the better chance of success, for reasons. I know this flies in the face of feminism and female empowerment, and the culture at large which supports single-motherhood, but when has that stopped me before? Alrighty, let’s do this.

 

The core of my argument comes down to this: there are things that only a mother can teach their daughter or son, and things only a father can teach. Second, what a daughter gets from her father/mother is strikingly different than what a son gets from his father/mother. The sexes send different lessons to their offspring and each sex has a psychological blind spot that they simply cannot overcome. While the ideal is to have both of these influences simultaneously, and single parenting makes the best of a less-ideal situation, there are advantages and disadvantages to which sex does the single parenting.

 

The benefits and drawbacks will all make much more sense by putting the dynamics into a matrix. Disclaimer: this analysis makes a lot more sense on the assumption that each family scenario started intact but ended with a divorce partway through the child’s development into adulthood. It doesn’t necessarily apply to single families at the start, with children being born into that situation.

 

Mother/Daughter

 

The obvious first: mothers teach their daughters about feminine gender roles from the most superficial like wearing makeup to more advanced lessons like social conduct. Mothers also teach their daughters how to navigate the female social matrix. The Red Pill Room did an extensive piece on the female social matrix that is definitely worth reading. In short, women deal with each other in a network that is overtly egalitarian but covertly hierarchal. In front of the group, they’re all equals, but behind each other’s backs there is a soft hierarchy that is determined by backroom alliances, underground consensus, and adherence to group rules. This is something that men just simply cannot grok and it is one of the things that only a mother can bestow.

 

With the family organized as a matriarchy, the daughter feels the full force of female power, which isn’t usually composed of outright displays of dominance but small jabs of passive-aggressiveness. If the mother understands and respects her power, the struggle between mother and daughter is relatively tame. However, the feminine imperative for safety and control can use that power to turn the matriarchy tyrannical, causing the daughter to feel the full force of feminine ostracism and shaming.

 

So while the power structure of the matriarchal family depends on the personality of its leader, a foundational problem of the single mother household is the lack of a father figure, or sometimes a chaotic father situation. Young women get their impressions of men from their interactions with their fathers. They see dad act a certain way and expect those qualities from their boyfriends and husbands. Good fathers leave a good imprint, while bad fathers leave a negative imprint. Some women in abusive relationships expect to be abused because their fathers did it, and they believe that that’s just what men do. It’s normal for them, and, unfortunately, they know of little else.

 

Without a father figure, there is no imprint, no expectation of what men should be. So how does a woman choose a mate without a filtering mechanism? Friends and family could show her the way, but there is large room for error. She could get the impression from mom’s boyfriends that transient men are the norm. If those men are scumbags then she could expect horrible things as a given. Stereotypes exist for a reason, and archetypal stripper with daddy issues exists for that reason.

 

This is probably the biggest hurdle that a single mother faces, and there is a little room for error and disastrous consequences if it happens.

 

Mother/Son

 

Just as fathers leave an imprint on daughters as to what their boyfriends should be, the mother leaves an imprint on their sons as to what women should be. Children who do not have a good attachment to their mothers tend to have psychological problems later in life, and this is especially true for sons. A son needs to have an adequate concept of the caring aspects of the feminine. You know the stereotype that woman-haters have mommy issues? Well…

 

However, even with a good mother to support her son, the mother’s knowledge of the female social matrix is totally lost on him. I’ll go out on a limb and say that men don’t have the mental wiring to see the innuendo inherent in female social networks. We just don’t get it, because we don’t have to get it. Thus, the main benefit of a mother figure to daughters is unnecessary to their sons.

 

The biggest disadvantage the mother/son association has is that there is simply no male role model to show the son how to become a man. TV is a poor substitute. The mother’s new boyfriends fair better, but there is a barrier of apprehension between a son and mom’s new boyfriend. The boyfriend doesn’t see the kid as “his”, and is less likely to get involved while the son cannot form an attachment to the new surrogate like he could with his father. And given that a boy imprints his expectations of women from his mother, what kind of psychological chaos does a new boyfriend bring to the arrangement? The new boyfriend is not only a stranger, but, in the mind of the son, he is also a new source of competition. (And if you were to ask Freud, he’d say a source of sexual competition.)

 

The boy is left completely ignorant of the nature of women in ways many of us could once relate to. A mother isn’t going to give up the secrets of the feminine mystique to her son, that is if she even understands herself well enough to articulate them and, even if she did, what makes anyone think she’ll train him on finding the right woman, or more importantly defending yourself from the wrong one? What motivation does she have to throw her kind under the bus or reveal her deepest, darkest secrets to her son? The likelihood of a mother giving her son some real-talk is slim.

 

And finally, it’s incredibly difficult for a mother to keep order as the sole authority figure when, by the early teens, her son is far taller and stronger than she is. Authority without power is no authority at all, and it is why being raised by a single mother is a strong predictor for adolescent crime.

 

The mother/son scenario is probably the worst setup in the matrix because, aside from necessary parental attachment, a son has no male role model, no masculine identity, no insight into the nature of women, and no strong authority figure to instill a rigid set of ethical guidelines. He is the perfect vessel to become an omega male.

 

Father/Daughter

 

While women tend to assert their authority through passive means, males/fathers are more direct in establishing boundaries of acceptable behavior. They are the authority figure that sets up rules to contain the chaos. If these rules are reasonable then it conditions an ethical framework in the child, no matter the sex. The greatest benefit for daughters, however, is that with a good father she can form positive expectations of what future men should be. If he is a positive force in her life then she will not settle for less.

 

The downside to this arrangement is that, without female influence, the daughter is behind the curve in navigating the female social matrix or learning femininity. However, don’t write off the father/daughter setup yet. Women are adapt at building large social networks, so it’s possible to find that influence through her friends or her friend’s mothers, or even from her father’s girlfriend. Women are more open to female strangers than men are to male strangers, and I have no doubt that dad’s new girlfriend would be more accepting than mom’s new boyfriend. Obviously, exceptions exist but I believe that is the general rule.

 

Despite not ideal conditions, the father/daughter dynamic can still make it through better than the reverse mother/son situation.

 

Father/Son

 

To put it simply, this arrangement plays to everyone’s strengths. The son doesn’t need to navigate the female social matrix, so the missing lesson from his mother hurts no one. As long as he received the proper care from her early in life and the separation did not take place when he was a toddler, parental attachment shouldn’t take a heavy hit (though it could).

 

If his father holds sufficient wisdom then the son can learn how to be a man, or at least what it means to be masculine, and can potentially learn how to interact with woman as a man, learned from a man who has interacted with women. Such information could not possibly come from a single mother.

 

This is not without precedent. In many cultures, the idea of separating a young man from his mother to be led under his father was the norm rather than the exception. One could say that it is the natural course of manhood.

 

Also, dad bringing home a new girlfriend isn’t as traumatic for the son compared to his mom bringing home a new boyfriend, because a boyfriend for mom is competition while a girlfriend for dad is not. The feeling of ownership a son has for his mother, as a caregiver and prelude of female relations to come, is multitudes stronger than a son has for his father. Thus, a son can tolerate a dad’s new girlfriend or wife, making family formation easier.

 

The main downside, however, are the implications of severing the son’s ties with the mother figure. The first relationship a young boy has to the female sex is through his mother. Going even further, the first relationship any human has is to their mother. Breaking that bond too early can cause trauma for young boys. For adolescents and young teenagers, the problem with separation isn’t as pronounced. Again, this very thing was expected of young boys in many cultures as a rite of passage and historically isn’t beyond the pale.

 

Conclusion:

 

All of this, of course, depends on the quality of the parents and children involved. The best single mother could overcome the hurdles of raising a son with better results than the worst single father doing the same (and vice versa), but, all things being equal, some situations are better than others.

 

In summation,

 

Mother/daughter – moderate success, depending on quality of parent

  • Good: has necessary female influence for development as a woman.
  • Bad: lacks a stable father figure to base expectations of future men

Mother/son – poor chance of success unless purposeful strategy is involved

  • Good: baseline caregiving
  • Bad: no male role model

Father/daughter – moderate success, depending on quality of parent

  • Good: can form expectations of future men
  • Bad: disadvantaged at learning to navigate female peer interaction

Father/son – high chance of success, depending on age of the son

  • Good: can learn masculine virtues and the nature of women
  • Bad: severing ties with the mother can cause problems for young boys

 

The single father setup is the most advantageous for boys, while a boy being with his mother carries no real advantages and many more hurdles. Young girls can potentially do well in either situation, even with their fathers, because the particular disadvantages a young girl faces without a mother can be overcome by the networking with other women. So, in my view, if both parents are of equal caliber, then there’s less chance of failure by siding with the father.

 

I know that this will never happen since it goes against our cultural and legal framework, and is apt to hurt some feels, but it is the conclusion that my experience and intuition point me to. Feel free to comment if your experiences align with my assessment, or even if they go against. Let me know if I’m missing something, whether what I’ve said is wrong or incomplete.

The One Question Feminists Can’t Answer

What’s in it for me, as a man?

 

If you’re a man and you ask this question to a feminist, you simply won’t get a good answer. I know because I’ve done it.

 

The only answers they can generate are further questions that only appeal to one’s altruism. Don’t you care about your daughter/sister/girlfriend/mother? Don’t you want equality? Are you an asshole?

 

In that order: yes, no, and maybe so.

 

But the return questions completely miss the point. What’s in it for me personally? What do I, as an individual man, gain from feminism? Because when feminists talk about this whole equality thing, they only talk about meeting the needs of one side. They want to increase privileges for women, pushing them to the top with extra funding and encouragement, but also want to take away my privileges. Assuming that their whole patriarchy shtick is actually legitimate, what do I have to gain by smashing it? What do I gain by all these social programs and slut walks and seeing more women in STEM fields?

 

Answer: nothing.

 

Feminism has no actual tangible benefit for men except one: easy sex with women, and that’s simply a byproduct of women’s sexual liberation. See, feminists talk a big game about wanting equality, but they never address the needs of men. In fact, whenever people like Warren Farrell do broach the topic of men’s issues they get protests and disruptions from feminists. Not only do feminists do nothing for the sake of men, but they impede actual solutions to actual social problems that men face. Hey, ladies, if you want our help in smashing the Patriarchy then you have to compromise, which means we give up our privileges for something in return, and I have yet to see you put anything on the table.

 

So why should men get on board?

 

Obviously, we shouldn’t, not unless feminism gets its head out of its ass and actually starts addressing the needs of men, but don’t hold your breath on that one. At present, no self-respecting man has any reason to advocate for feminism given the ideology’s ultimate goals of ripping away any advantages we do have for nothing in return. As an aside, that alone says tons about the psychology of the average a male feminist.

 

So if you happen to get wrapped up in a debate with feminists, simply ask them the question that they can’t answer, then walk away. First, it’ll make their head spin because that question has probably not occurred to them before. Next, expect a fit of frustration, because now they’re on the defensive and they know they have nothing to offer. And, lastly, it exposes the feminism for being anything but equal.

The Virgin/Whore Dichotomy Explained

Or, mansplained, depending on how you look at it (is “mansplaining” still a thing?). This post probably won’t interest the guys since most of you already know it, but for the women this is essential information.

 

All our genes want is to procreate. For men, there are two strategies for achieving such: having sex with as many women as possible, or investing a lot of time and care in the one woman who bears his children. The success of each strategy largely depends on the environment. K vs r.

 

Men are biologically programmed to spread their seed as far as they can, because they can. There’s no negative repercussion for the man who inseminates and walks, if he can get away with it. In fact, it’s a great benefit. His genes are spread without the hassle of taking care of them. Sluts signal to a man that she is an easy receptacle for his sperm, but not the kind of person to invest in because the kid that comes out could very well not be his. Thus, sluts are attractive only in the sense of a pump and dump, and are generally avoided otherwise.

 

However, if men must invest in parental care, they want to ensure that their offspring is actually theirs so they don’t waste their time and resources, thus preferring women who are virgins (or near so). The reasoning is that if a woman can put a lid on her sexual desires and exercise some self-control against the legions of dick, then she will likely have the same self-control in the context of marriage. That means lower risk of cuckoldry and less anxiety for the man.

 

Both of these desires coexist in the male psyche and each man has their idealized woman on either path, but rarely ever do these paths cross, nor should they. The women who are easy lays are not the same women who hook a man’s commitment. Each group is attractive for very different reasons. Being in one category excludes one from the other.

 

While feminism acknowledges the existence of the virgin/whore dichotomy, they then add a prescriptive moral claim that this facet of reality is wrong because of supposed unfairness, double standards, obligations, etc. The feminist narrative is to challenge the dichotomy by pressuring women toward the slut axis in order to smash “misconceptions” or “shaming” or “patriarchal oppression”, while completely ignoring the legitimate reasons as to why men may choose one side over the other. Feminists don’t acknowledge the justifications for these male preferences at all. Without understanding that male mate preferences have a reasonable basis for their existence, and thus won’t go away overnight, the feminist narrative will only set about turning would-be wives into sluts and fail to smash anything but a woman’s wife credit. Unfortunately, unless feminists can rewrite the human brain, all attempts to erase the dichotomy will fail. We’re dealing with biology and mate strategies that have existed in our neural pathways since the dawn of time. They exist for a reason, and they will not go away.

 

My advice to any women reading this: recognize that the dichotomy is just a fact of life. Once you understand that it is a permanent feature of the species, you can then decide which part of the divide you’d rather be on, and, yes, you will need to pick a side. You cannot have it both ways by trying to straddle the middle of the continuum because you simply will not get a man’s attention by being both. It’s one or the other. Lastly, if you want to get married, ignore the feminist narrative when it pushes you down the path of “sexual liberation” aka “have no consideration for the long-term impact of your sexual choices”. Feminism wants to challenge the patriarchy via breaking down women’s pressure to remain virgins. Your happiness in the matter is unimportant. Like used car salesmen, feminists want to sell you their ideals without informing you of the real-world negative consequences.

The Wildlings

Social shame and judgment are powerful tools of behavior modification. You do something inappropriate by the standards of decency and you will face social punishment. Do something that adheres to those standards and you will be rewarded. This is necessary to shape our behavior on the societal level, for if there were no forces of guidance, chaos would ensue as individual behavior deteriorates.

 

We might not think that some of these social standards are “fair”, but these social pressures existed in the first place because they resulted in positive externalities for both the individual and society, for if they hadn’t then that society would have collapsed. When those standards, and the social shame that comes with them, suddenly go away, people go feral and society crumbles.

 

For example, try to imagine a world where children were not held to any standards, held to no expectations, and could not be criticized by anyone because they were a “protected class”. There’s no way they wouldn’t go berserk. Lord of the Flies wasn’t pretty.

 

As Roosh explained in The Endgame of Feminism, Feminism seeks to completely erase any social pressure for women and lift them from any judgment or obligations:

 

“The end game of feminism is to make it impossible for a female to do any wrong, absolving her from all responsibility for her actions, no matter how reprehensible. The fact that a human being has a vagina will soon mean that she can not make a bad decision about anything. Punishing or criticizing a woman for her life choices will be abolished.”

 

Without a feedback mechanism to ensure women make good decisions, there is no other judge and jury but the harshness of reality itself, the only outcome being a downward spiral.

 

For example: being a slut is simply not a good life choice in the long run, because of reasons well known throughout the manosphere. The negative consequences far outweigh the positive, but since the positive is short term and the negatives are long term, the short term wins. Thus, an external pressure was needed to correct this.  In the past, judgment from both female peers and male suitors was enough to incentivize against it, but once Feminism removed that judgment, women’s decisions had no feedback mechanism before they made them. Of course, there’s plenty after the fact, as women try to piece together what’s left of their lives.

 

The irony is that in trying to protect women from shame and badfeels it only left them open to making horrible mistakes. It would save a lot of time and tears if Feminists understood that shame is merely a message to improve, to choose the right path, rather than as they see it now – misogyny. You want to help women? Target them with fair and justified criticism. Don’t coddle their feeeeeeeeelings and protect them from much needed feedback. However, expecting Feminism to be critical of women is beyond the pale.

 

Fortunately, I don’t have to worry about that when it comes to me because I’m a white man, and white men can be criticized, and are, a lot. (Don’t take that as an implicit statement of my own butthurtness; it is merely descriptive. Criticism can be a necessary, positive force.) Men are told to man up and/or check their privilege. Whites are told to tiptoe around others as to not offend them. Criticizing the group in the middle of that Venn diagram means that group usually acts better than all the others, thanks to the social pressure. Is it any wonder why that group makes it to the top? Privilege? Doubtful. They just behave.

 

Look at any “oppressed/protected” group and analyze how they act. On the whole and generally speaking, the more protections they have the worse their behavior. Ending sexism/racism/all-the-other-isms only causes those groups to deteriorate further. Any time you take away people’s obligations, they’re going to act like animals, because it’s the path of least resistance. When you make base animalism hard on the individual by forcing on them expectations and obligations, and reward them for fulfilling them, then people will achieve greater things.

Welcome, ladies

 

This topic will be a tad off-the-cuff. My more nuanced posts are in my drafts folder, waiting for the right moment to break out of their shell. They stay unpublished because something else has taken my interest and given me inspiration for something I’ve been thinking about for a while.

 

I’ve been noticing that the vast majority of people who subscribe to my site have female usernames. My assumption here is that these female usernames represent actual females subscribing to my humble, little slice of the internet. Now if that’s true, I find it little strange, since my goal is to be part of the manosphere and reactosphere. I’m left wondering: are these red-pill women? Are these feminists scouting the opposition? Am I going to be put on some kind of blacklist?

 

Well, it’s a public site and I can do little about it, but, even so, I don’t want to do anything about it. An audience is an audience. So, I want to say welcome, ladies. In light of this trend, I’ll take this time to clarify some things about my opinions regarding feminism.

 

I’ve brought up my dislike of the left before, and made reference to feminism in passing, but I never really went into much depth about it. Red-pill women reading this would probably be bored, but maybe my critique would come from an angle not noticed before. And if these new watchers are feminists, well, I’d like to take on the challenge of trying to persuade you away from the narrative.

 

But first, a preface, because I know someone is going to call me sexist. Truth is, I don’t hate women, as one of my commenters declared. I’m not some former niceguy omega male who hates women due to being constantly rejected or put in the friend-zone. And I don’t have a hostile relationship with my mother. If you met me in real life, you’d probably figure I’m just an average guy. You see, I realize that my girlfriend is a woman, my sister is a woman, my mother is a woman, and so I want the best for all of them. So when I advocate for patriarchy and rail against feminism, it’s not because I want to see them all in chains and trapped in the kitchen, or objectified, or oppressed. Honestly, I do this because I don’t want them to be oppressed. Both of us are coming from the same place; it’s only the perspective where we disagree. Also, remember that I’m coming at you as an opponent, not an enemy.

 

There is nothing about men ruling that requires women be oppressed, and there’s nothing about women ruling that guarantees fairness. Any system can have its oppression or fairness, no matter who runs it.

 

Feminism has taught women differently, of course. Where there is leadership and stability they see oppression and inequality. I would be surprised if they said anything different. You can quibble about the state of men and women in history, whether social institutions are fair or not, equality of the sexes, social constructs, gender roles, blah blah blah, but I don’t do so here. If you’re a feminist, you’ve heard the back-and-fourth before.

 

I want to try a different approach.

 

I believe you should reject feminism, not because it is factually wrong per-se, but because it has made you miserable. No matter what its advocates say, feminism is anti-woman.

 

But how can a social justice movement with the main goal of lifting women up actually crush them down? Well, it’s simple: the means feminists choose end up redirecting them to opposite ends, and they don’t even realize it. Good will does not necessarily lead to beneficial results. Often times when people do not truly understand the nature of a problem, they will come up with solutions that backfire and make the problem worse. In this case, feminism has done exactly that.

 

This is done by several ways, but one of the most pronounced is in turning women’s victimization from a historical footnote (which it should be. Best not dwell on the past) and made it into a self-esteem destroying victim industry.

 

The perfect example is the notion of rape culture. Aside from it being wrong (rapists are punished and are viewed as despicable people by the vast majority of society), saying that we live in a rape culture can do nothing but destroy your prospects at happiness. I mean, if society is out to rape you, or legitimize your rape, then how can you let your guard down? How can you trust anyone?

 

Similarly, feminists will state that our society, as a Patriarchy, wants nothing more than to keep you chained in the kitchen with no rights and freedoms. These gender roles that society has foisted on you are oppressive. The expectations are oppressive. The media is oppressive. Men can’t not be oppressive to you because of their privilege. You don’t have any.

 

Hold a second. Ignoring the question of whether all that is true or not, ask yourself: how does knowing this make you a better person? Does this information allow you to ascend past the problem and become something greater, or does the knowledge itself oppress you? Think about that one.

 

The message feminists send is a very negative one that can only stifle one’s attempt to change themselves for the better, and thus make a trend in society for the better. Bitter is the fruit that grows on that tree. Many feminists even engineered it that way. Thanks, 1960’s.

 

The trend exists in every single victim complex imaginable. Teach black people that they are the victims of institutional and historic racism and they start feeling as if there’s no way to move forward. The same applies for gay and trans individuals. Even MRA’s can’t help but see themselves as casualties of feminism. Tell them all they’re victims and they will act the part every time.

 

In treating women as victims, feminism treats women as weaklings. Why can’t a woman have the strength to see her rapist in a court of law when victims of assaults and the families of murder victims can do it in court? What’s the implied message in rape shield laws? Women can’t handle it. They’re not strong. Who advocates for those laws? Feminists. Oops, forgot to say: ***TRIGGER WARNING***.

 

Women who read this, take note that the problem isn’t society, it’s the narrative that attempts to save you from society. You are only as weak as you feel you are, and you are weak because feminists tell you you are. Oppression is in the mind.

 

But that isn’t the end of it either. With one stroke, feminists say you’re a victim, and with another they take away all agency you have.

 

For example, if a woman does something the feminist doesn’t like, say going into prostitution, the feminist will justify away the woman’s personal choice of becoming a prostitute by saying that society and the Patriarchy somehow forced her to do it. She has no agency to choose her own life’s course. It’s either feminist ideology or brainwashing, and that’s not a choice. No woman can choose to be a traditional mother because that’s the will of the Patriarchy. No woman can choose to adhere to gender roles because they were all supposedly conditioned. If you were to make a choice against the narrative, then the validity of that choice is taken away.

 

The strong have agency. They are actors whose decisions make an impact on the world. The weak have no agency, they have no choice. Their weakness means that the world acts upon them, not the other way around. By feminism constantly saying that you have no agency, it literally makes it so. If all your life you’ve been told you have no power against the forces over you, then how can to find the courage to lift a finger? Women have been paralyzed by indecision and mental blockades thanks to learned helplessness, and now they surf feminist websites to make their oppression a hobby. You’re capable of more.

 

According to the feminist narrative, the only choice women have is to accept feminism. That begs the question, what conclusions do these feminist choices result in? Well, they’re not very positive.

 

Feminism in the 90’s encouraged women to adhere to the Sex and the City lifestyle of late-twenties singlehood, careerism, and copious amounts of consumption, all with the expectation that they would still be a hot item once they reached their mid-lives. At the time, I bet it sounded great, but short-term gains often translate into long-term losses. Many women at their 30’s and 40’s are now finding cats more plentiful than men, and that their presence in the sexual marketplace is now third-tier. What made women choose this lifestyle over the more reasonable strategies that their mothers and grandmothers employed, namely marrying early so their looks could lock in the best men?

 

Feminism.

 

Gotta be empowered and work 50 hours a week for that middle management job and show the Patriarchy that women can do it too. Meanwhile, the Patriarchy is on its way to the bank. Thanks, worker bee.

 

The situation hasn’t changed much today. There’s still the you-go-girl career fetishism and status-whoring going around, but add to that anti-fat shaming and anti-slut shaming and you have a more explosive reaction.

 

In my view, obesity is a deficiency of the will, not of the body, one that fosters a weakness of both. It means you can’t control your diet or physical exertion. It means you are not strong. What does feminism say about this? The ideology decrees that the problem isn’t with the weakness that obesity brings; the problem is society who has problems with obesity. By being anti-fat shaming, feminism supports the weakness of the mind and body, turning what would be strong women into more victim foot soldiers. If a woman’s self-esteem wasn’t bad enough from being told that they’re oppressed, it will only be made worse by them accepting the chains of fatitude. Of course, the feminist only wants the fat girl to be accepted in the face of Patriarchal beauty standards. A noble ambition, but once again the conclusion doesn’t match up with the intent. You can only be happy with how you look when you are strong and recognize it. Strength and ability are the keys to happiness, not deluding yourself that your unnatural appearance is anything but so.

 

But I’ll leave that rant to another day, for there are more fish up for frying.

 

Sexual liberation was, and still is, a tenet of feminism, but only recently has feminism been vehemently against people actually making personal judgments against it. Oh, the horror of calling a slut a slut. Fact is though, you shouldn’t be a slut, and that goes for men or women or anything in between. To be with someone for such a brief period of time for the sole purpose of getting off with them means they are simply your dildo, and you are their fleshlight – objects, nothing more. To know that this person sees your only worthwhile attribute as your exterior and your flesh hole, and nothing else, not your personality, not your intelligence, not your strength, has got to sting the self-esteem eventually. Embracing that deterioration only leads to one feeling like a used up sack of crap later on in life. Denying yourself easy temptations because you value something greater than base hedonism is a sign of personal conviction – which is a good thing. What does feminism advocate for? Be free, be liberated, be submissive to your inner ape’s libido. Again, short-term gains long-term losses.

 

Women, I need to break it to you: your vagina has a credit limit. You are most valuable when your sexual exploits are modest, because it shows resolve, it shows self-control, it shows you’re less likely to get swept up in sexual frenzy and cheat on a man. Open yourself up time and time again, and it shows a voracious sexual appetite that can easily allow one to stray. With each additional sexual partner, you’re less desirable as anything more than a casual fling. Yeah, it sucks, but these are all reasonable expectations and judgments of you. Feminism, however, doesn’t like these expectations and judgments, and wants you to ignore them, go “balls deep”, as it were, into hedonism, the future be damned.

 

How can you expect to have a strong and happy life when feminism turns the whole world against you, treats you like a child and a victim, and proceeds to ruin your life with decrees leading to destruction?

 

Feminism tried to bring women to a higher place, but after fifty years of it, women and feminists are even more miserable than they were before. The cause of the problem is the solution itself. For every attempt to give women more options, it ended up taking away their strength. It’s a cure by leeches.

 

Do you want to know what will make you happy as a human being? Embrace your strength, your feminine strength, the kind of strength that no man can possess. Have some self-respect; don’t think of yourself as a victim and don’t take pride in being a whore. Don’t take the easy path and don’t assume that such a path will lead to long-term benefits. Spoiler alert: it won’t. Get off your ass and improve not only your mind but also your body, for the two are one in the same. Recognize that feminism is not lifting you up, but holding you back.