It is a relief to see somebody saying these unspeakable truths, finally. Feminism has been a disaster, a total reductio on itself, resulting in crashing birth rates, DIE tokenism, maternal instincts redirected toward criminals and invaders, self-whoring on the internet, the destruction of marriage, the neutering of police and military forces, and the absurd Cancellation of womanhood itself in favor of trannies. The sin of Eve is a real thing, visible in women’s compulsion to seize power and become God. Women have an irreplaceable, supremely valuable role as wives, mothers, care-givers. Turned outwards, these instincts become destructive of society.
Thank you for such a clear and concise description of what feminism has done to men and women. I hope you don't mind but I made a Quick Note of your comment so I can refer to it when I'm refuting feminisms benefits.
Trannies is male stupidity distilled into its purest form. Please don't speak about things you don't understand.
Who is paying for pics on the internet? Who drives this? Why would anyone want children with the male trash polluting this planet?
This is a self-correction, and men are to blame. Men never valued women as wives or mothers, not back in the good ol' days when they legally married 10 year olds and beat their wives to death (look up paterfamilias).
You descends from the steatopygic whores the Yamnaya enslaved, deal with it. The Steppe Barbarians were so good in quashing the "male trash", i.e. the simps, their Y-haplogroup dissapeared: it will happen again.
You were given the choice of marrige or whoring, you chose whoring and you'll have illigal aliens mass rape.
A thoughtful and courageous analysis that takes on many of the cliches of radical feminism. Most damaging to civilization are not those that elevate women, but those that degrade men and their role in society. According to Mao Zedong, "women hold up half the sky," a comment adopted by many feminists. What they seem to forget is that men hold up the other half. Indeed, as a mammalian species, men and women are partners whose roles are determined primarily, if not exclusively, by biology. Lippincott is correct in his response to the accusation of the Seneca Falls Declaration that the objective of men has been to establish "absolute tyranny" over women. As he puts it, "The tyranny that has exerted power over women is not man but nature."
It's only civilization that permits women--and occasionally men--to depart from traditional sex roles. If women bear and predominantly nurture successive generations, it is men who are largely, if not exclusively, responsible for building civilization with all its faults and glories.
Few if any would have challenged any of the forgoing as recently as three quarters of a century ago. But then something happened to upset nature's balance. The birth control pill was invented and rapidly disseminated throughout western society. The impact of this scientific technology upon mankind has been far more revolutionary than even that of nuclear fission, introduced at much the same time. The introduction of powerful technologies into any society can have profoundly unpredictable and dangerous consequences. Humanity should take heed.
Meanwhile, humanity is still just beginning to sort out the consequences of the rapid and widespread adoption by society and government of radical feminist and related LGPTQ+infinity social positions.
Meanwhile, as Lippincott says, "patriarchy makes civilization possible."
Lol she scours substack for the PATRIARCHY and you can find her leaving some comments like this all over. I appreciate her TERFy stance but she has a chip the size of Manhattan on her shoulder
I don't scour, things come up in my feed. Blame the substack algorithm.
I don't give a shit what you appreciate because men are the problem. TERFs are the ones who do the hard work while unfuckable moids cry about how the feminisms took their rights away (aka, nobody wants to fuck them).
Ted Hughes was the crazy one, not her. What kind of man can drive that many people to suicide with his general piggishness and shamelessness?
Nice insults, though. What an original way to insult a woman. You're really learning something in the PhD program. Men really ARE smart!
Btw, a male actually in higher education--a diamond in the rough, lol. I bet you're autistic.
Nobody cares that you, or other men, can't get laid. It's your fault. You were meant for manual labor, not trying to organize your irrational thoughts into paragraphs. You yearn for the coal mines, like so many men do. That's where you belong.
The good of society, it's freedoms and luxuries are overwhelmingly the product of men. To deny this is no different than denying that societies peoples are the product of women.
No one is denying men need policing. But femminist theories have largely been responsible for the rise of only fans, the sexual revolution and transsexuals.
Radical feminists who saw the actual ills modernity put on women. Who opposed abortion and the pill. Were completely ousted from the movement.
As such it has come to represent anything but what is good for society. It *is* barbarism.
You're so fucking stupid and ignorant that it's not worth my time trying to educate you. You have no clue about legal history, what OnlyFans is and who fuels it, and what trannies are about. You have no clue what caused it or what has happened. And it's not my job here to literally teach you basics of the world.
I can't waste my time on unfuckable moids like you. You know nothing. Shut up. Go watch your anime porn and shut the fuck up.
No one cares that you can't get laid. Nobody cares that you're ugly, fat, and stupid and women reject you. You aren't smart enough to speak about feminism, history, society, or anything else. You have produced nothing, and your mother should be punished for raising you.
You should address the debate between Bachiochi and Yenor on its merits, point by point, rather than argue against something that she does not actually posit.
Also: “Man has greater physical, intellectual, and spiritual potential than his female counterpart.” Man and woman are created imago Dei in different bodies. Why do you feel the need to demote women in order to make the point that the sexes basically differ? Difference does not necessarily invite comparison; that, in fact, is a liberal feminist prior
Difference does invite comparison. We can't think about political reality without addressing the consequences of biological difference. I am not demoting women by stating facts about their nature or accomplishments. There have been smart women and strong women but there have been a far greater number of smart and strong men.
The keyword here is clearly “necessarily.” And your statement “man has greater physical, intellectual, and spiritual potential than his female counterpart” is certainly not a fact. It is an opinion, and a gratuitously provocative one that is not “based in reality” because it is impossible to prove conclusively. Men and women’s physical bodies are capable of unique greatness. They have unique geniuses. And though you now shrink away from the “spiritual” part, I do wonder how you’d measure that.
No, you’re still missing the point. I’m saying there are fundamentally different metrics proper to men and women that indicate their particular greatnesses, and that those greatnesses should and can not in good faith be compared.
That man has greater physical potential is unquestionable. That man has higher intellectual potential is demonstrated by any IQ graph - there are vanishingly few white women over 160 or under 70; genius and moronocity are the purview of men. As to spiritual? Completely subjective, but the worlds largest religion for millennia left them out; how this could result in equal levels of a studied spirituality is unknown.
You have repeated the talking points everyone has already heard ad nauseum, leaving their presuppositions (the thing I’m getting at) totally unexamined
1. Men have greater physical prowess when it comes to classic athletics, obviously. No one here is disputing that. But women can have babies. Women can in very strange symbiotic physical way anticipate the nutritional needs of their children. These are particular physical GREATNESSES that are inaccessible to men. Different. Incomparable.
2. An IQ graph is one extremely limited way to measure intelligence, and the one to which you refer also reveals the existence of more male idiots.
3. Spiritual greatness defies any such quotidian measurements, obviously, which is why the claim is so shallow to begin with
Have you ever stopped to think that the “ad nauseum” talking points “everyone” posts is because, like stereotypes that evolve and exist for centuries… they are true?
We are not talking about stereotypes. We are talking about the ontology of sex. I reject your talking points because they are a terribly insipid and overused manner of avoiding a deeper conversation about what men and women ARE, and are to one another.
1. Agree on babies. But that isn’t the standard context of strength measurements.
2. Yeah lotsa people discount IQ. Problem is that it’s the best indicator known of everything having to do with success in an industrial world - and would not have been selected for otherwise. What civilizations invented … everything in the modern world? Those with the highest IQ. What civilizations are still living in mud huts 1M years after we all fell outta the tree? Those with the lowest IQ. Take a look at any global IQ map.
3. Not gonna argue this as, like I said, subjective.
Want a list of all the things you use that females invented, even while being told they were worthless, not allowed in school, and treated like shit?
Btw, I mean it when I say let's put chimps in charge because they have better upper body strength. They wouldn't do any worse than the chivalrous rational gentlemen doing the great job they're doing now.
What men mean when they say this is that they think women should be men's punching bags, personal assistants, and personal housekeepers while essentially offering nothing in return. That's what "complimentary" means to males.
That's funny because lots of those smart and strong women were systematically kept out of education, economy, politics, I could go on by specific laws and policies enforced by men at threat of violence, and now you act like it was an accident. How many women were legally beaten by rational protector-providers, married off at 11 years old, or purposely kept ignorant by worthless pig men who felt entitled to do so?
What makes men "strong"? Irrational, blind rage and violence? The trannies raping women in women's prisons are strong?
This is the problem with the male sex. You're like feral dogs who shit all over an immaculately cleaned room, and then feel a sense of superiority and accomplishment.
We can talk about biological reality. Tell your fellow males in dresses to stay out of girls' bathrooms, to start with. Such a rational, logical, protective sex wouldn't have to be told.
The biggest flaw with males is their total and utter inability to engage in realistic self-criticism and self-awareness. You live in a dream world, and you are all your own worst enemies.
This is why I don't care that so many of you are failures. Men are the problem.
I'm inspired to subscribe. Not only is this article a welcome breath of fresh honest truth, the comment section matches it with the exception of the troll that is shrieking and writhing in her ideological hatred. Probably a bot. Pay it no mind.
Exactly. Un-mentioned is the impact of female over-emphasis on altruism and empathy. Every single Western social pathology finds its foundation on “Oh, that poor…..” incarcerated thug, illegal alien, illiterate high-schooler, crappy teacher, gang banger, tranny in the women’s locker room…. And I’m not even mentioning the existential problem of below-replacement fertility.
Who are our most vulnerable victims of this empathy? Women. What rights will women have once they’ve collapsed the West and the more fecund Islam fills that gap? None.
And the only way to resolve the problem is terminating women’s suffrage. The only way to protect women from themselves. They are too important to be allowed to keep destroying the future.
With you for the first two paragraphs. The third seems a bridge too far. There must be a better way to deal with foolish votes by women. Don’t forget, there are plenty of foolish male voters too. Perhaps we start by helping them to regain their confidence and their voices. They in turn can lead women who’ve gone astray back to their senses.
His argument isn't that they've gone astray. His argument is this decline is a consequence of female nature. They think emotionally, they act impulsively. They seek power they cannot manage.
Women have a solipsistic outlook that cannot be changed. They are voting according to their natures. More nurturing, more government, more taxes and more help for the poor immigrants breaking in to our countries.
I'm addicted, too. I pay for a couple of movie streaming channels, but I never have time to watch any movies...though I did take a break from my Substack writers to watch "Brotherhood of the Wolf" last night. It was just what I needed - completely mindless entertainment.
Have a great day😊and I'll be seeing you around in the comment sections.
Like all movements, feminism went too far. Once the original objectives were achieved, encouraged by their "successes", women had to find "new" ways to achieve "equality" with men. Transgenderism and multiple genders are the ultimate result of third wave feminism. I hope you girls are happy now, but there are always new degradements to pursue, right? Now that "equality" equals being master and commander of your new found non-biological sex, what could you do to further degrade womanhood and femininity, whatever that even means now....good grief. Men, heroes, please come back! Save us from this insanity....
Reality is that you have been brainwashed into an ideology and are not intelligent or insightful enough to connect the dots of how the FEMINIST movement led to all this. Men have invaded these spaces because the natural order was turned on it's head, with Feminism leading the charge. Be careful when calling people stupid, honey. Ad hominems are the biggest tell of a failed argument and only expose a weak mind.
Oh, I see. Men are so rational and protective because it comes naturally to them, and yet somehow the FeMiNisMs force them to invade women's prisons and commit rape against their natural instincts.
You don't know what's going on. It's not my job to teach you. Please be quiet. Jesus would be proud though.
I take comfort in the fact that the victims (stupid) and zealots of this dark and evil ideology called feminism will simply not be part of the future equation.
They will end childless and miserable, and the genetic code that made them prone to fall for this evil will simply not reproduce.
LOL look, the rational provider-protector is happy that women are going to end up sad rather than miserable cleaning up others' messes. Who wouldn't want to sacrifice her entire life for such a noble creature?
Thanks for proving the point. Nobody wants to reproduce in a world filled with you.
The fact that males are so aggrieved that women have figured out that men are a bad deal and it's actually better to be alone than be used as a punching bag/personal assistant/emotional support animal is just stunning.
That section about how only the intelligent amd upper class are able to make meaningful commitments absent the legal incentives makes this all nest nicely with Rob Henderson's luxury beliefs framework. Feminism is a luxury ideology. I appreciate how quintessentially and unapologetically right wing your positions are. Seems lately like people don't even know what right means, this article serves as a good example to point to!
"No one will fuck me. The West has fallen and feminism took my rights away."
Go play Call of Duty. Patriarchy is when men get to beat their wives legally. There's a reason Muslim migrants run from Afghanistan to Finland, sweaty.
Patriarchy in the west means women and children first, as the author implied. All that guarantees your safety is provided by men. If that goes, and it seems to be, you'll have to provide your own safety.
As for those living to the west, often tacitly endorsed by feminists, they have a rather different view of a woman's place in society. You won't be posting online if they take over
Spite and envy feel good and are cost free in the digital world. These men you hate and have no qualms about subjugating and denigrating are the ones who are duty bound to do the fighting and dying. Where do you think the Women and Children first ethos comes from?
What about the gentleman? What is he? He is a man capable of lethal violence in order to sacrifice his life for the women and children of the village. That is the man. The gentleman is a man who controls that capability through discipline, sacrifice, honor and duty. He puts that capability in service to the women and children. Women and Children first means that the men are expendable. Why? Nature. A woman can only have one child at a time every nine months. If the tribe sacrifices most of his men, but the women and children are safe, then the tribe can quickly regenerate. A few men can impregnate many women. It is the man who is disposable.
It is the patriarchy and tradition that acknowledges this truth but rewards men for making this sacrifice. That is the author's point. In feminism, that contract is broken. You may get some temporary pleasure in breaking it down. But, in the end, you will not get liberation. You will have weakened the men of your own civilization and the men of other tribes will have no qualms about coming in and doing with you as they will - with zero ties of honor and duty to protect you.
There was never a "women and children first" ethos. That is a complete myth invented by men who do not have the capacity to engage in realistic self-criticism because they are by nature delusional.
"Gentlemen"? When? Where? Google "paterfamilias." Want to talk about your idiotic claims about duty to women and children? Tell the Taliban about that.
Legal wife-beating, legal child marriage, denial of education and economic capacity for women--that is what reality is and was.
That is why feminism, a political/economic/social movement for the particular rights and interests of FEMALES, is necessary. Men do not have the capacity to recognize and respect the humanity of females in political and economic rights.
Do not speak to me about honor and duty when this whole myth is built on lies. For these stupid moids "feminism" describes the fact that they can't get laid and they blame everyone else for it because in the good ol' days of chivalry, women had no options and therefore men could behave like they wanted.
You don't live with the Taliban. You live amongst Occidental Man. Hate him all you want. He got you here, and despite the anecdotes that you and your activist, "professors", cherry pick, while sometimes real, they are outliers and exceptions that do not prove the rule.
Keep vilifying and caricaturing the men without whom you would not be here. It is quite possible that you or, if you choose to have no future, the women you say you care so much about, will live amongst them as a despised minority. They say love is blind but that is not true. It is hatred that is blind. Europe is falling if not already fallen to men far more similar to the Taliban than you should be comfortable with.
A day is coming where men will have to deal with an existential threat. It is coming soon. That day will arrive at the same time that an economic catastrophe occurs that will end an era of affluence, phony affluence propped up by debt. That will make luxury beliefs impossible to be held. It is then that we will see who has been deluded. It is then that we will see the necessity and wisdom of an older order where men and women must cooperate in a mutually beneficial arrangement.
When that day comes it will be the the best of men who will choose who they will protect and defend and who they must leave to be pillaged and stoned. They will abandon the spiteful mutants who have abandoned them long ago. They will have to in order to secure a future, and a future that is desirable. The women they protect and defend and fight for, will gladly welcome a return to the patriarchy formed in and from the biospirit of Occidental Man. The patriarchy of The West is one where the reciprocal duties and their heaviest burdens fall on the shoulders of men. Those burdens were born out of tradeoffs that made them worth it to the men and to the women. Out of this rose chivalry and the notion of a Gentleman that was properly practiced with some exceptions. It was very real as were its benefits, or we wouldn't be here today, certainly not living in the comfort and affluence that we do.
It will not be a utopia. It always had and always will have its imperfections, but it will be better than the alternatives. Men and women will be free to make the best of it. I hope you will reconsider your viewpoint and make an effort to consider the whole picture. There are different patriarchies. If you tear down the one that was constructed to provide you safety and comfort and that was much nicer than the Taliban, the Taliban or something close to it may rise to fill the vacuum. Would that be good for women?
No man will fight for a woman who despises him. Why would he do something heroic only to be spat at and regarded as a villain? Why would he build something when it can be destroyed on an arbitrary whim at any moment. That is the author's point. I believe it is worth considering along with the current and future consequences of rejecting it in the haste of anger.
Everything that has allowed me to really live my life was fought for by women who were told by men that they were stupid to even ask for it.
If male protectiveness was so natural, it would be universal. It isn't. That's why I said go talk to the Taliban. Do not speak to me about natural honor and duty. It doesn't exist.
Get a job. You shouldn't have so much time to type up such a word salad.
Everyone really lives their life or they wouldn't be alive. If you look at the literature, the suffrage movement was opposed by the majority of women who argued against it. Their arguments turned out to be prophetic in how bad things would turn out for everyone.
The hospitals, sanitation techniques, modern medicine, energy systems, technology, machinery, agricultural abundance ... that sustains you and affords you a life of affluence and convenience were nearly all invented and built by men. They didn't withhold any of it from you. In fact they pushed themselves to do these things to win the favor of a women and provide for her and their family. That is what made it possible for you to live your life in unprecedented material comfort. The majority of those who police, firefight are the lethal part of the armed forces and who maintain the infrastructure that keeps you warm and safe are men.
Those protective traits are not Universal or innate. They were cultured and nurtured by Occidental Man. It is only in The West where monogamy and strong male female pair bonds with women having more freedom and dignity are or were the overwhelming majority's norm. This is due to the geography and climate of Europe and the unique intellectual outlook that was nurtured in that environment. It is was amplified by our religious mores and by the radical improvements in technology and material comfort that sprang from the brains and brawn of our chivalrous and temperate men. I have no business or desire to talk to the Taliban. They have wasted enough time and treasure from our best men. That you live here amongst us and not them says it all. If we were the Taliban you never would have been permitted the failed experiment of feminism.
The health and well-being of women is dependent upon the health and well-being of men and vice-versa. Material abundance and freedom from responsibility do not guarantee a significantly meaningful, high quality life. That is born out by the statistics, and in fact there is a tipping point where too much affluence and worse, too much, "freedom", correlate to less meaning and satisfaction with life. I don't know if you are bitter, angry, hostile and resentful, but you come across that way. Perhaps it is a sign that this article has some substance and truth to it.
It is funny and sad to look at the great champion and hero of feminism - Hillary Clinton. She is a bitter and mean, alcohol sodden drunk. She boldly empowered and championed women and fought for their rights. Except, they already had those rights. Look at how she lived her life. She married a scoundrel and a philanderer who chased and slept with every low born tramp he could get his hands on. He was publicly caught multiple times, yet she didn't divorce him. Why? She wanted power and staying married to him enhanced their position and her ambitions. While claiming they loved women and children they sold an entire nation up the river to every foreign bidder. In a show of their support for women and children they besieged and then mass murdered women and children and put Janet Reno in charge of the operation.
Being for empowering women was just a ruse and a scam perpetrated against women, using their worst nature against them by promising them safety from bad men after whipping them up into a ginned up hysteria.
Being free from responsibility is not freedom. Worse, being that way is not good for men or women. Nor is living in a society that is circling the drain. The author of this piece and myself and others here are looking out for the good of the whole society. Looking out for the good of one faction by harming another that is essential to the well being of all seems to be your approach. That does not seem wise to me.
I'll leave you with something to think about. Imagine a society that was nothing but women. Women did it all. How long would that last? How long before say, the Taliban, came and conquered you? How would you feel if the men you so despise never came to help you? What if they never shared their technology with you, put their lives on the line for you in doing dangerous work where fatalities occur and did not trade with you so you acquire the fruits of their genius and labors? What would entice such men to come and protect you from the Taliban? What tradeoffs would have to be made to make it worth their while to risk their lives and turn away from the honorable women they love in reciprocity and harmony to do so?
Say that the Taliban never came. How many generations would your society last? I mean, why would the Taliban even bother to invade. They could just secure camps at your periphery and wait a generation and walk in. That is, unless they wanted to enjoy their conquest in a barbaric manner.
Have you ever thought of any of that? Might you consider, that this may be why men have traditionally been in charge of certain endeavors - particularly martial ones? Think about it.
How bad things turned out? We live in a prosperous society where women can work, go to school, not get beaten to death by their husbands, not get married off at 10 years old. Who do you think made that possible?
What dream world are you living in? How bad things are? You mean nobody wants to fuck you? You swipe all day on Tinder and can't find a woman with low enough standards for unfuckable losers like you?
That's what you're talking about when you say how THINGS are so bad? In your liTeRaTuRe?
GET A FUCKING JOB. You shouldn't have enough free time to be online spewing your irrational, mentally ill word salad. Nothing in my life is dependent upon men, and if it were, I'd be dead already.
You are absolutely incorrect. Do you actually think "marching" in white was all it took? Every privilege a Western woman enjoys is because her father, spouse, brother, or son believed in her, and convinced other men (and very often many other women) that the laws and rules should be changed. A look at the exceptional female visual artists throughout history until the 20th c shows that almost every one was unconditionally supported by her father or a male relative who believed in her talent: Artemisia Gentileschi, Sofonisba Abguissola, Rosa Bonheur, Elisbeth Vige-Lebrun, Lily Martin Spencer, the list is endless...
"Anarchists and utopians can dream about a world free of the need for coercion, but that is all it is, a dream. "
The majority of people already agree with, and abide by, the principles of anarchy. In our daily lives 100% of our transactions, interactions and relationships are conducted in a state of anarchy (no rulers). People who attempt to rule others by force are labelled muggers, thieves, extortionists, hijackers, murderers, rapists and bullies and we all agree their behaviour is not acceptable.
Anarchists argue that the moral rules (and associated laws) that we all accept are appropriate (theft is wrong, extortion is wrong, murder is wrong, kidnapping is wrong etc) should apply to politicians and their enforcers too. There is nothing about social organisation or enforcement of moral rules which necessitates violating those moral rules.
You imply that anarchy is a dream, but I've never met anyone who is prepared to argue why basic moral rules re: murder, extortion, theft etc should NOT be applied to everyone. If we all agree that moral rules should apply to everyone (they are supposed to be RULES after all) then we have already agreed that anarchy is the only acceptable basis for a civilised society.
Are YOU prepared to argue that morality (and the laws we derive from it) should NOT apply equally to all?
Feminism itself is simply an effect of statism. Without the legal right to extort men (via the state) feminists would not exist.
'Statism' (which is just a fancy term for moral hypocrisy) brings out the worst in everybody, and in women it manifests in the hard wired female desire for resources acquisition and the female trait of hypergamy.
The moral hypocrisy of statism creates a legal mafia and feminists are those women who make a deal with that mafia for free stuff and special privileges (taxation/ welfare and socialised services ete) instead of transacting with men by offering them something in return (companionship, sex, children, housework, a sandwich).
Feminists are just hypergamous women who have correctly identified 'the state' (men with guns and a monopoly on the legal right to violate moral rules) as the most powerful mafia in town. Thus feminism is basically a harem of women, who cling on to that mafia. They agree to play the role of eternal victim and point the finger of accusation at ordinary men ('toxic masculinity' etc), so the mafia can pretend its pillaging of society is being done to 'protect women'.
This arrangement is bad for children, bad for ordinary men and women and bad for feminists too in the long run (have you ever met a happy feminist?)
The reason why feminism is such a contradictory and absurd ideology, and why feminists can't argue their way out of a paper bag is that they don't have to. They already have the ability to enforce their program of wealth/ power redistribution via the state (men exempt from morality).
Feminism is an effect of statism. A society which applied moral rules equally to everyone (which is a reasonable enough proposition) would have no feminists because the risk associated with their wealth redistribution program would be too great. Instead feminists would find more civilised (and also more empowering) ways to get access to men's resources consensually, such as forming relationships built on trust and love, and providing something of value to men in return for their protection and provisions.
I agree so much with this. I usually see it from a medieval perspective myself. With the breakdown of the Medieval system, the gods of Chaos, Lunacy, and Bad Taste gained ascendance. After a period in which the western world had enjoyed order, tranquility, unity, and oneness with its True God and Trinity, there appeared winds of change which spelled evil days ahead. An ill wind blows no one good. The luminous years of Abelard, Thomas à Beckett, and Everyman dimmed into dross; Fortuna’s wheel had turned on humanity, crushing its collarbone, smashing its skull, twisting its torso, puncturing its pelvis, sorrowing its soul. Having once been so high, humanity fell so low. What had once been dedicated to the soul was now dedicated to the sale.
Feminism has damaged society to it's core, fortunately it's beginning to fracture, many women now reject feminism for the destructive weapon it is and was initially designed to be.
Feminism was never about helping women it was about destroying Western society and gaining an additional 50% income tax as a bonus.
There are of course women who cling to Feminism, they become insanely bitter and twisted, watching on as it fails abysmally.
Excellent article focusing on the supremacy and potency of the law - coerced behavior backed by threat of overwhelming violence. One other aspect of the law is the Welfare State. If you look at Welfare, it is a massive wealth transfer. That wealth transfer is racial in nature and goes overwhelmingly from the middle class of one race to the underclass of others. This amounts to cuckholdery that disadvantages one race, the one that created this civilization and advantages others that never did so. This is proven in birth rates and illegitimacy rates.
We typically look at this in terms of a class wealth transfer. It is such a transfer but it is also racial, and it portends a collapse in not just civilization but in the population of people who created and stewarded that civilization in ebbs and flows for 7000 years - from the Indo-European Yamnaya who invented the wheel, the chariot and tamed and bred the horse that is the de-facto horse that is used throughout the world. They and their warrior and heroic ethos and creed are in real danger. Their homelands are being overrun and colonized and handed over to alien strangers who are taught to demonize and vilify them. At the same time Occidental Man is entering a demographic winter. We fit all of the four characteristics of looming extinction by the four measures of our scientific method:
1. Loss of habitat (via mass invasion)
2. Predation (via massively imbalanced interracial crime and deadly drug consumption)
3. Hybridization (ethno-genesis via miscegenation)
4. Cratering fertility rates
There is yet another bleak danger. The invading populations are being taught to hate and despise us. They see every day the few border guards we have being overrun and steamrolled while being rendered impotent to guard and defend. It is a humiliation and an invitation to naked aggression. The rhetoric they hear that is demonizing and vilifying is also blatantly genocidal. So, on top of the four factors of extinction, you have a besieged population that is being turned into a minority at an unprecedented rate whose invaders are being given license to think genocidally. This makes the threat of a violent extinction event very real in the future. The anti-white regime must be stopped and before we are totally dispossed and outnumbered by hostile peoples. White Lions must roar.
This is a great article. We need to focus on the legal system. As important we must focus on the Welfare State as part of that change in the legal regime, and not just talk of the immorality of theft, but discuss the cuckholdery that is essentially racial in nature and threatens the future of Occidental/European man in all of his homelands across the globe.
Alex Garland predicted or was commenting on this in his 90's sensation novel 'The Beach': The hero ends up living communally in a literal longhouse in Thailand ruled over by a matriarchal hippy which quickly descends into totalitarianism, savagery and attempted (at least) murder. Strange that this aspect of such an ubiquitous novel of the time seems to have been forgotten.
It is a relief to see somebody saying these unspeakable truths, finally. Feminism has been a disaster, a total reductio on itself, resulting in crashing birth rates, DIE tokenism, maternal instincts redirected toward criminals and invaders, self-whoring on the internet, the destruction of marriage, the neutering of police and military forces, and the absurd Cancellation of womanhood itself in favor of trannies. The sin of Eve is a real thing, visible in women’s compulsion to seize power and become God. Women have an irreplaceable, supremely valuable role as wives, mothers, care-givers. Turned outwards, these instincts become destructive of society.
I couldn't agree more. I support women and civilization which is why I support patriarchy.
LOL you support women?
Who, the OnlyFans models whose pics you pay for?
You hate women. You're just not smart enough to see it.
Keep swiping on Tinder, sweaty!
Why did the solipsist bring a projector to the party? Because they wanted to show everyone their one true reality!
Thank you for such a clear and concise description of what feminism has done to men and women. I hope you don't mind but I made a Quick Note of your comment so I can refer to it when I'm refuting feminisms benefits.
That’s very flattering —thanks for the compliment and also for your own insight into this issue! Best of luck red-pilling your friends. 👍🏻🌸🦋
You don't know what feminism is.
Trannies is male stupidity distilled into its purest form. Please don't speak about things you don't understand.
Who is paying for pics on the internet? Who drives this? Why would anyone want children with the male trash polluting this planet?
This is a self-correction, and men are to blame. Men never valued women as wives or mothers, not back in the good ol' days when they legally married 10 year olds and beat their wives to death (look up paterfamilias).
You live in a dream world.
Lol, lmao even.
You descends from the steatopygic whores the Yamnaya enslaved, deal with it. The Steppe Barbarians were so good in quashing the "male trash", i.e. the simps, their Y-haplogroup dissapeared: it will happen again.
You were given the choice of marrige or whoring, you chose whoring and you'll have illigal aliens mass rape.
A thoughtful and courageous analysis that takes on many of the cliches of radical feminism. Most damaging to civilization are not those that elevate women, but those that degrade men and their role in society. According to Mao Zedong, "women hold up half the sky," a comment adopted by many feminists. What they seem to forget is that men hold up the other half. Indeed, as a mammalian species, men and women are partners whose roles are determined primarily, if not exclusively, by biology. Lippincott is correct in his response to the accusation of the Seneca Falls Declaration that the objective of men has been to establish "absolute tyranny" over women. As he puts it, "The tyranny that has exerted power over women is not man but nature."
It's only civilization that permits women--and occasionally men--to depart from traditional sex roles. If women bear and predominantly nurture successive generations, it is men who are largely, if not exclusively, responsible for building civilization with all its faults and glories.
Few if any would have challenged any of the forgoing as recently as three quarters of a century ago. But then something happened to upset nature's balance. The birth control pill was invented and rapidly disseminated throughout western society. The impact of this scientific technology upon mankind has been far more revolutionary than even that of nuclear fission, introduced at much the same time. The introduction of powerful technologies into any society can have profoundly unpredictable and dangerous consequences. Humanity should take heed.
Meanwhile, humanity is still just beginning to sort out the consequences of the rapid and widespread adoption by society and government of radical feminist and related LGPTQ+infinity social positions.
Meanwhile, as Lippincott says, "patriarchy makes civilization possible."
"Patriarchy is when men can beat wives legally and marry 10 year olds. Da wimminz took my rights away and now I pay for OnlyFans pics."
Men are so fucking pathetic it's actually funny. Then we're supposed to care about male suicide rates? They're too low.
Your pfp is Sylvia Plath. I am guessing that is because you, like her, are also crazy.
Lol she scours substack for the PATRIARCHY and you can find her leaving some comments like this all over. I appreciate her TERFy stance but she has a chip the size of Manhattan on her shoulder
I don't scour, things come up in my feed. Blame the substack algorithm.
I don't give a shit what you appreciate because men are the problem. TERFs are the ones who do the hard work while unfuckable moids cry about how the feminisms took their rights away (aka, nobody wants to fuck them).
Go play Call of Duty.
Ted Hughes was the crazy one, not her. What kind of man can drive that many people to suicide with his general piggishness and shamelessness?
Nice insults, though. What an original way to insult a woman. You're really learning something in the PhD program. Men really ARE smart!
Btw, a male actually in higher education--a diamond in the rough, lol. I bet you're autistic.
Nobody cares that you, or other men, can't get laid. It's your fault. You were meant for manual labor, not trying to organize your irrational thoughts into paragraphs. You yearn for the coal mines, like so many men do. That's where you belong.
😂 I’d love to see the rest of your routine.
https://twitter.com/0x49fa98/status/1775923609757749586
The good of society, it's freedoms and luxuries are overwhelmingly the product of men. To deny this is no different than denying that societies peoples are the product of women.
No one is denying men need policing. But femminist theories have largely been responsible for the rise of only fans, the sexual revolution and transsexuals.
Radical feminists who saw the actual ills modernity put on women. Who opposed abortion and the pill. Were completely ousted from the movement.
As such it has come to represent anything but what is good for society. It *is* barbarism.
You're so fucking stupid and ignorant that it's not worth my time trying to educate you. You have no clue about legal history, what OnlyFans is and who fuels it, and what trannies are about. You have no clue what caused it or what has happened. And it's not my job here to literally teach you basics of the world.
I can't waste my time on unfuckable moids like you. You know nothing. Shut up. Go watch your anime porn and shut the fuck up.
No one cares that you can't get laid. Nobody cares that you're ugly, fat, and stupid and women reject you. You aren't smart enough to speak about feminism, history, society, or anything else. You have produced nothing, and your mother should be punished for raising you.
Go away. Shut up.
My goodness. I finally understand what a lolcow is. How much further will this self destruction go?
How on earth does talk like this aid the cause of women’s rights? You can’t waste your time, but you are wasting your time? Say something meaningful.
That sounds hot, we should fantasize over it and create a new genera of fiction. Oh wait, wrong twilight.
You should address the debate between Bachiochi and Yenor on its merits, point by point, rather than argue against something that she does not actually posit.
Also: “Man has greater physical, intellectual, and spiritual potential than his female counterpart.” Man and woman are created imago Dei in different bodies. Why do you feel the need to demote women in order to make the point that the sexes basically differ? Difference does not necessarily invite comparison; that, in fact, is a liberal feminist prior
Difference does invite comparison. We can't think about political reality without addressing the consequences of biological difference. I am not demoting women by stating facts about their nature or accomplishments. There have been smart women and strong women but there have been a far greater number of smart and strong men.
The keyword here is clearly “necessarily.” And your statement “man has greater physical, intellectual, and spiritual potential than his female counterpart” is certainly not a fact. It is an opinion, and a gratuitously provocative one that is not “based in reality” because it is impossible to prove conclusively. Men and women’s physical bodies are capable of unique greatness. They have unique geniuses. And though you now shrink away from the “spiritual” part, I do wonder how you’d measure that.
No, you’re still missing the point. I’m saying there are fundamentally different metrics proper to men and women that indicate their particular greatnesses, and that those greatnesses should and can not in good faith be compared.
Ok. Then why do feminists compare them? In salaries, sports, etc?
That man has greater physical potential is unquestionable. That man has higher intellectual potential is demonstrated by any IQ graph - there are vanishingly few white women over 160 or under 70; genius and moronocity are the purview of men. As to spiritual? Completely subjective, but the worlds largest religion for millennia left them out; how this could result in equal levels of a studied spirituality is unknown.
You have repeated the talking points everyone has already heard ad nauseum, leaving their presuppositions (the thing I’m getting at) totally unexamined
1. Men have greater physical prowess when it comes to classic athletics, obviously. No one here is disputing that. But women can have babies. Women can in very strange symbiotic physical way anticipate the nutritional needs of their children. These are particular physical GREATNESSES that are inaccessible to men. Different. Incomparable.
2. An IQ graph is one extremely limited way to measure intelligence, and the one to which you refer also reveals the existence of more male idiots.
3. Spiritual greatness defies any such quotidian measurements, obviously, which is why the claim is so shallow to begin with
Have you ever stopped to think that the “ad nauseum” talking points “everyone” posts is because, like stereotypes that evolve and exist for centuries… they are true?
We are not talking about stereotypes. We are talking about the ontology of sex. I reject your talking points because they are a terribly insipid and overused manner of avoiding a deeper conversation about what men and women ARE, and are to one another.
1. Agree on babies. But that isn’t the standard context of strength measurements.
2. Yeah lotsa people discount IQ. Problem is that it’s the best indicator known of everything having to do with success in an industrial world - and would not have been selected for otherwise. What civilizations invented … everything in the modern world? Those with the highest IQ. What civilizations are still living in mud huts 1M years after we all fell outta the tree? Those with the lowest IQ. Take a look at any global IQ map.
3. Not gonna argue this as, like I said, subjective.
What did you invent today, pig?
Want a list of all the things you use that females invented, even while being told they were worthless, not allowed in school, and treated like shit?
Btw, I mean it when I say let's put chimps in charge because they have better upper body strength. They wouldn't do any worse than the chivalrous rational gentlemen doing the great job they're doing now.
https://twitter.com/0x49fa98/status/1775923609757749586
What do you mean "physical potential"?
Males have better upper body strength? Fine, chimps have better upper body strength, any adult male chimp can rip apart any human male on the planet.
Let's put chimps in charge of everything. Would they fuck up the Middle East any worse than the stupid moids running that place? Let's try.
He knows because he thought of it while playing Call of Duty for 10 hours yesterday.
Men are pathetic.
Yes there is friction between the sexes but they are essentially complimentary and can support each other in their rise to greatness and love.
What men mean when they say this is that they think women should be men's punching bags, personal assistants, and personal housekeepers while essentially offering nothing in return. That's what "complimentary" means to males.
Is that what I meant? Thank you for womansplaining that to me.
Men aren't funny.
That's funny because lots of those smart and strong women were systematically kept out of education, economy, politics, I could go on by specific laws and policies enforced by men at threat of violence, and now you act like it was an accident. How many women were legally beaten by rational protector-providers, married off at 11 years old, or purposely kept ignorant by worthless pig men who felt entitled to do so?
What makes men "strong"? Irrational, blind rage and violence? The trannies raping women in women's prisons are strong?
This is the problem with the male sex. You're like feral dogs who shit all over an immaculately cleaned room, and then feel a sense of superiority and accomplishment.
We can talk about biological reality. Tell your fellow males in dresses to stay out of girls' bathrooms, to start with. Such a rational, logical, protective sex wouldn't have to be told.
The biggest flaw with males is their total and utter inability to engage in realistic self-criticism and self-awareness. You live in a dream world, and you are all your own worst enemies.
This is why I don't care that so many of you are failures. Men are the problem.
If they were beaten they probably deserved it
The first sane reply and no surprise it's my fav podcaster HELEN ROY. (Alisia here.)xoxo
Excellent article.
I'm inspired to subscribe. Not only is this article a welcome breath of fresh honest truth, the comment section matches it with the exception of the troll that is shrieking and writhing in her ideological hatred. Probably a bot. Pay it no mind.
Thank you!
Exactly. Un-mentioned is the impact of female over-emphasis on altruism and empathy. Every single Western social pathology finds its foundation on “Oh, that poor…..” incarcerated thug, illegal alien, illiterate high-schooler, crappy teacher, gang banger, tranny in the women’s locker room…. And I’m not even mentioning the existential problem of below-replacement fertility.
Who are our most vulnerable victims of this empathy? Women. What rights will women have once they’ve collapsed the West and the more fecund Islam fills that gap? None.
And the only way to resolve the problem is terminating women’s suffrage. The only way to protect women from themselves. They are too important to be allowed to keep destroying the future.
With you for the first two paragraphs. The third seems a bridge too far. There must be a better way to deal with foolish votes by women. Don’t forget, there are plenty of foolish male voters too. Perhaps we start by helping them to regain their confidence and their voices. They in turn can lead women who’ve gone astray back to their senses.
To your point, married women vote for civilization. Men are good, on balance, for women. An obvious point which it is now controversial to state.
And civilization is good for all, another obvious point.
If that were true, women wouldn't be abandoning low value males en masse.
My goodness could you be any more single?
YAWN why don't you say something about cats, you waste of skin?
Why do all you argue the same? You live in a delusion, repeat the same bullshit, and think you accomplished something?
SHUT UP. GET A FUCKING JOB.
His argument isn't that they've gone astray. His argument is this decline is a consequence of female nature. They think emotionally, they act impulsively. They seek power they cannot manage.
Women have a solipsistic outlook that cannot be changed. They are voting according to their natures. More nurturing, more government, more taxes and more help for the poor immigrants breaking in to our countries.
Hi! Nice to see you here, Spiff.
I get everywhere 😜
I'm addicted, too. I pay for a couple of movie streaming channels, but I never have time to watch any movies...though I did take a break from my Substack writers to watch "Brotherhood of the Wolf" last night. It was just what I needed - completely mindless entertainment.
Have a great day😊and I'll be seeing you around in the comment sections.
🙂
Like all movements, feminism went too far. Once the original objectives were achieved, encouraged by their "successes", women had to find "new" ways to achieve "equality" with men. Transgenderism and multiple genders are the ultimate result of third wave feminism. I hope you girls are happy now, but there are always new degradements to pursue, right? Now that "equality" equals being master and commander of your new found non-biological sex, what could you do to further degrade womanhood and femininity, whatever that even means now....good grief. Men, heroes, please come back! Save us from this insanity....
What insanity? Men in girls' bathrooms and prisons? They're the problem. Who do you the trannies are? They're men.
Are all of you blind? It's like the stupidest people come here to ignore reality together.
Reality is that you have been brainwashed into an ideology and are not intelligent or insightful enough to connect the dots of how the FEMINIST movement led to all this. Men have invaded these spaces because the natural order was turned on it's head, with Feminism leading the charge. Be careful when calling people stupid, honey. Ad hominems are the biggest tell of a failed argument and only expose a weak mind.
Oh, I see. Men are so rational and protective because it comes naturally to them, and yet somehow the FeMiNisMs force them to invade women's prisons and commit rape against their natural instincts.
You don't know what's going on. It's not my job to teach you. Please be quiet. Jesus would be proud though.
If being a man is so terrible, and men are so "toxic"....well, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.....
I take comfort in the fact that the victims (stupid) and zealots of this dark and evil ideology called feminism will simply not be part of the future equation.
They will end childless and miserable, and the genetic code that made them prone to fall for this evil will simply not reproduce.
The problem is that the rest of us are bound up in the world they created.
LOL look, the rational provider-protector is happy that women are going to end up sad rather than miserable cleaning up others' messes. Who wouldn't want to sacrifice her entire life for such a noble creature?
Thanks for proving the point. Nobody wants to reproduce in a world filled with you.
The fact that males are so aggrieved that women have figured out that men are a bad deal and it's actually better to be alone than be used as a punching bag/personal assistant/emotional support animal is just stunning.
Go play video games.
That section about how only the intelligent amd upper class are able to make meaningful commitments absent the legal incentives makes this all nest nicely with Rob Henderson's luxury beliefs framework. Feminism is a luxury ideology. I appreciate how quintessentially and unapologetically right wing your positions are. Seems lately like people don't even know what right means, this article serves as a good example to point to!
LOL, did the Taliban write this?
"No one will fuck me. The West has fallen and feminism took my rights away."
Go play Call of Duty. Patriarchy is when men get to beat their wives legally. There's a reason Muslim migrants run from Afghanistan to Finland, sweaty.
Nobody cares you can't get a date. Join a gym.
Patriarchy in the west means women and children first, as the author implied. All that guarantees your safety is provided by men. If that goes, and it seems to be, you'll have to provide your own safety.
As for those living to the west, often tacitly endorsed by feminists, they have a rather different view of a woman's place in society. You won't be posting online if they take over
Spite and envy feel good and are cost free in the digital world. These men you hate and have no qualms about subjugating and denigrating are the ones who are duty bound to do the fighting and dying. Where do you think the Women and Children first ethos comes from?
What about the gentleman? What is he? He is a man capable of lethal violence in order to sacrifice his life for the women and children of the village. That is the man. The gentleman is a man who controls that capability through discipline, sacrifice, honor and duty. He puts that capability in service to the women and children. Women and Children first means that the men are expendable. Why? Nature. A woman can only have one child at a time every nine months. If the tribe sacrifices most of his men, but the women and children are safe, then the tribe can quickly regenerate. A few men can impregnate many women. It is the man who is disposable.
It is the patriarchy and tradition that acknowledges this truth but rewards men for making this sacrifice. That is the author's point. In feminism, that contract is broken. You may get some temporary pleasure in breaking it down. But, in the end, you will not get liberation. You will have weakened the men of your own civilization and the men of other tribes will have no qualms about coming in and doing with you as they will - with zero ties of honor and duty to protect you.
Careful what you wish for.
You are correct. A fact no AWFL will admit is that they flourish only on account of the grace and protection of the gentleman caste.
There was never a "women and children first" ethos. That is a complete myth invented by men who do not have the capacity to engage in realistic self-criticism because they are by nature delusional.
"Gentlemen"? When? Where? Google "paterfamilias." Want to talk about your idiotic claims about duty to women and children? Tell the Taliban about that.
Legal wife-beating, legal child marriage, denial of education and economic capacity for women--that is what reality is and was.
That is why feminism, a political/economic/social movement for the particular rights and interests of FEMALES, is necessary. Men do not have the capacity to recognize and respect the humanity of females in political and economic rights.
Do not speak to me about honor and duty when this whole myth is built on lies. For these stupid moids "feminism" describes the fact that they can't get laid and they blame everyone else for it because in the good ol' days of chivalry, women had no options and therefore men could behave like they wanted.
Forget it. You're delusional.
You don't live with the Taliban. You live amongst Occidental Man. Hate him all you want. He got you here, and despite the anecdotes that you and your activist, "professors", cherry pick, while sometimes real, they are outliers and exceptions that do not prove the rule.
Keep vilifying and caricaturing the men without whom you would not be here. It is quite possible that you or, if you choose to have no future, the women you say you care so much about, will live amongst them as a despised minority. They say love is blind but that is not true. It is hatred that is blind. Europe is falling if not already fallen to men far more similar to the Taliban than you should be comfortable with.
A day is coming where men will have to deal with an existential threat. It is coming soon. That day will arrive at the same time that an economic catastrophe occurs that will end an era of affluence, phony affluence propped up by debt. That will make luxury beliefs impossible to be held. It is then that we will see who has been deluded. It is then that we will see the necessity and wisdom of an older order where men and women must cooperate in a mutually beneficial arrangement.
When that day comes it will be the the best of men who will choose who they will protect and defend and who they must leave to be pillaged and stoned. They will abandon the spiteful mutants who have abandoned them long ago. They will have to in order to secure a future, and a future that is desirable. The women they protect and defend and fight for, will gladly welcome a return to the patriarchy formed in and from the biospirit of Occidental Man. The patriarchy of The West is one where the reciprocal duties and their heaviest burdens fall on the shoulders of men. Those burdens were born out of tradeoffs that made them worth it to the men and to the women. Out of this rose chivalry and the notion of a Gentleman that was properly practiced with some exceptions. It was very real as were its benefits, or we wouldn't be here today, certainly not living in the comfort and affluence that we do.
It will not be a utopia. It always had and always will have its imperfections, but it will be better than the alternatives. Men and women will be free to make the best of it. I hope you will reconsider your viewpoint and make an effort to consider the whole picture. There are different patriarchies. If you tear down the one that was constructed to provide you safety and comfort and that was much nicer than the Taliban, the Taliban or something close to it may rise to fill the vacuum. Would that be good for women?
No man will fight for a woman who despises him. Why would he do something heroic only to be spat at and regarded as a villain? Why would he build something when it can be destroyed on an arbitrary whim at any moment. That is the author's point. I believe it is worth considering along with the current and future consequences of rejecting it in the haste of anger.
This is all very true.
Everything that has allowed me to really live my life was fought for by women who were told by men that they were stupid to even ask for it.
If male protectiveness was so natural, it would be universal. It isn't. That's why I said go talk to the Taliban. Do not speak to me about natural honor and duty. It doesn't exist.
Get a job. You shouldn't have so much time to type up such a word salad.
Everyone really lives their life or they wouldn't be alive. If you look at the literature, the suffrage movement was opposed by the majority of women who argued against it. Their arguments turned out to be prophetic in how bad things would turn out for everyone.
The hospitals, sanitation techniques, modern medicine, energy systems, technology, machinery, agricultural abundance ... that sustains you and affords you a life of affluence and convenience were nearly all invented and built by men. They didn't withhold any of it from you. In fact they pushed themselves to do these things to win the favor of a women and provide for her and their family. That is what made it possible for you to live your life in unprecedented material comfort. The majority of those who police, firefight are the lethal part of the armed forces and who maintain the infrastructure that keeps you warm and safe are men.
Those protective traits are not Universal or innate. They were cultured and nurtured by Occidental Man. It is only in The West where monogamy and strong male female pair bonds with women having more freedom and dignity are or were the overwhelming majority's norm. This is due to the geography and climate of Europe and the unique intellectual outlook that was nurtured in that environment. It is was amplified by our religious mores and by the radical improvements in technology and material comfort that sprang from the brains and brawn of our chivalrous and temperate men. I have no business or desire to talk to the Taliban. They have wasted enough time and treasure from our best men. That you live here amongst us and not them says it all. If we were the Taliban you never would have been permitted the failed experiment of feminism.
The health and well-being of women is dependent upon the health and well-being of men and vice-versa. Material abundance and freedom from responsibility do not guarantee a significantly meaningful, high quality life. That is born out by the statistics, and in fact there is a tipping point where too much affluence and worse, too much, "freedom", correlate to less meaning and satisfaction with life. I don't know if you are bitter, angry, hostile and resentful, but you come across that way. Perhaps it is a sign that this article has some substance and truth to it.
It is funny and sad to look at the great champion and hero of feminism - Hillary Clinton. She is a bitter and mean, alcohol sodden drunk. She boldly empowered and championed women and fought for their rights. Except, they already had those rights. Look at how she lived her life. She married a scoundrel and a philanderer who chased and slept with every low born tramp he could get his hands on. He was publicly caught multiple times, yet she didn't divorce him. Why? She wanted power and staying married to him enhanced their position and her ambitions. While claiming they loved women and children they sold an entire nation up the river to every foreign bidder. In a show of their support for women and children they besieged and then mass murdered women and children and put Janet Reno in charge of the operation.
Being for empowering women was just a ruse and a scam perpetrated against women, using their worst nature against them by promising them safety from bad men after whipping them up into a ginned up hysteria.
Being free from responsibility is not freedom. Worse, being that way is not good for men or women. Nor is living in a society that is circling the drain. The author of this piece and myself and others here are looking out for the good of the whole society. Looking out for the good of one faction by harming another that is essential to the well being of all seems to be your approach. That does not seem wise to me.
I'll leave you with something to think about. Imagine a society that was nothing but women. Women did it all. How long would that last? How long before say, the Taliban, came and conquered you? How would you feel if the men you so despise never came to help you? What if they never shared their technology with you, put their lives on the line for you in doing dangerous work where fatalities occur and did not trade with you so you acquire the fruits of their genius and labors? What would entice such men to come and protect you from the Taliban? What tradeoffs would have to be made to make it worth their while to risk their lives and turn away from the honorable women they love in reciprocity and harmony to do so?
Say that the Taliban never came. How many generations would your society last? I mean, why would the Taliban even bother to invade. They could just secure camps at your periphery and wait a generation and walk in. That is, unless they wanted to enjoy their conquest in a barbaric manner.
Have you ever thought of any of that? Might you consider, that this may be why men have traditionally been in charge of certain endeavors - particularly martial ones? Think about it.
What the fuck is wrong with you idiots?
How bad things turned out? We live in a prosperous society where women can work, go to school, not get beaten to death by their husbands, not get married off at 10 years old. Who do you think made that possible?
What dream world are you living in? How bad things are? You mean nobody wants to fuck you? You swipe all day on Tinder and can't find a woman with low enough standards for unfuckable losers like you?
That's what you're talking about when you say how THINGS are so bad? In your liTeRaTuRe?
GET A FUCKING JOB. You shouldn't have enough free time to be online spewing your irrational, mentally ill word salad. Nothing in my life is dependent upon men, and if it were, I'd be dead already.
GET OFF THE COMPUTER.
You are absolutely incorrect. Do you actually think "marching" in white was all it took? Every privilege a Western woman enjoys is because her father, spouse, brother, or son believed in her, and convinced other men (and very often many other women) that the laws and rules should be changed. A look at the exceptional female visual artists throughout history until the 20th c shows that almost every one was unconditionally supported by her father or a male relative who believed in her talent: Artemisia Gentileschi, Sofonisba Abguissola, Rosa Bonheur, Elisbeth Vige-Lebrun, Lily Martin Spencer, the list is endless...
"Anarchists and utopians can dream about a world free of the need for coercion, but that is all it is, a dream. "
The majority of people already agree with, and abide by, the principles of anarchy. In our daily lives 100% of our transactions, interactions and relationships are conducted in a state of anarchy (no rulers). People who attempt to rule others by force are labelled muggers, thieves, extortionists, hijackers, murderers, rapists and bullies and we all agree their behaviour is not acceptable.
Anarchists argue that the moral rules (and associated laws) that we all accept are appropriate (theft is wrong, extortion is wrong, murder is wrong, kidnapping is wrong etc) should apply to politicians and their enforcers too. There is nothing about social organisation or enforcement of moral rules which necessitates violating those moral rules.
You imply that anarchy is a dream, but I've never met anyone who is prepared to argue why basic moral rules re: murder, extortion, theft etc should NOT be applied to everyone. If we all agree that moral rules should apply to everyone (they are supposed to be RULES after all) then we have already agreed that anarchy is the only acceptable basis for a civilised society.
Are YOU prepared to argue that morality (and the laws we derive from it) should NOT apply equally to all?
Feminism itself is simply an effect of statism. Without the legal right to extort men (via the state) feminists would not exist.
'Statism' (which is just a fancy term for moral hypocrisy) brings out the worst in everybody, and in women it manifests in the hard wired female desire for resources acquisition and the female trait of hypergamy.
The moral hypocrisy of statism creates a legal mafia and feminists are those women who make a deal with that mafia for free stuff and special privileges (taxation/ welfare and socialised services ete) instead of transacting with men by offering them something in return (companionship, sex, children, housework, a sandwich).
Feminists are just hypergamous women who have correctly identified 'the state' (men with guns and a monopoly on the legal right to violate moral rules) as the most powerful mafia in town. Thus feminism is basically a harem of women, who cling on to that mafia. They agree to play the role of eternal victim and point the finger of accusation at ordinary men ('toxic masculinity' etc), so the mafia can pretend its pillaging of society is being done to 'protect women'.
This arrangement is bad for children, bad for ordinary men and women and bad for feminists too in the long run (have you ever met a happy feminist?)
The reason why feminism is such a contradictory and absurd ideology, and why feminists can't argue their way out of a paper bag is that they don't have to. They already have the ability to enforce their program of wealth/ power redistribution via the state (men exempt from morality).
Feminism is an effect of statism. A society which applied moral rules equally to everyone (which is a reasonable enough proposition) would have no feminists because the risk associated with their wealth redistribution program would be too great. Instead feminists would find more civilised (and also more empowering) ways to get access to men's resources consensually, such as forming relationships built on trust and love, and providing something of value to men in return for their protection and provisions.
I agree so much with this. I usually see it from a medieval perspective myself. With the breakdown of the Medieval system, the gods of Chaos, Lunacy, and Bad Taste gained ascendance. After a period in which the western world had enjoyed order, tranquility, unity, and oneness with its True God and Trinity, there appeared winds of change which spelled evil days ahead. An ill wind blows no one good. The luminous years of Abelard, Thomas à Beckett, and Everyman dimmed into dross; Fortuna’s wheel had turned on humanity, crushing its collarbone, smashing its skull, twisting its torso, puncturing its pelvis, sorrowing its soul. Having once been so high, humanity fell so low. What had once been dedicated to the soul was now dedicated to the sale.
Excellent work.
Feminism has damaged society to it's core, fortunately it's beginning to fracture, many women now reject feminism for the destructive weapon it is and was initially designed to be.
Feminism was never about helping women it was about destroying Western society and gaining an additional 50% income tax as a bonus.
There are of course women who cling to Feminism, they become insanely bitter and twisted, watching on as it fails abysmally.
Excellent article focusing on the supremacy and potency of the law - coerced behavior backed by threat of overwhelming violence. One other aspect of the law is the Welfare State. If you look at Welfare, it is a massive wealth transfer. That wealth transfer is racial in nature and goes overwhelmingly from the middle class of one race to the underclass of others. This amounts to cuckholdery that disadvantages one race, the one that created this civilization and advantages others that never did so. This is proven in birth rates and illegitimacy rates.
We typically look at this in terms of a class wealth transfer. It is such a transfer but it is also racial, and it portends a collapse in not just civilization but in the population of people who created and stewarded that civilization in ebbs and flows for 7000 years - from the Indo-European Yamnaya who invented the wheel, the chariot and tamed and bred the horse that is the de-facto horse that is used throughout the world. They and their warrior and heroic ethos and creed are in real danger. Their homelands are being overrun and colonized and handed over to alien strangers who are taught to demonize and vilify them. At the same time Occidental Man is entering a demographic winter. We fit all of the four characteristics of looming extinction by the four measures of our scientific method:
1. Loss of habitat (via mass invasion)
2. Predation (via massively imbalanced interracial crime and deadly drug consumption)
3. Hybridization (ethno-genesis via miscegenation)
4. Cratering fertility rates
There is yet another bleak danger. The invading populations are being taught to hate and despise us. They see every day the few border guards we have being overrun and steamrolled while being rendered impotent to guard and defend. It is a humiliation and an invitation to naked aggression. The rhetoric they hear that is demonizing and vilifying is also blatantly genocidal. So, on top of the four factors of extinction, you have a besieged population that is being turned into a minority at an unprecedented rate whose invaders are being given license to think genocidally. This makes the threat of a violent extinction event very real in the future. The anti-white regime must be stopped and before we are totally dispossed and outnumbered by hostile peoples. White Lions must roar.
This is a great article. We need to focus on the legal system. As important we must focus on the Welfare State as part of that change in the legal regime, and not just talk of the immorality of theft, but discuss the cuckholdery that is essentially racial in nature and threatens the future of Occidental/European man in all of his homelands across the globe.
Excellent.
Alex Garland predicted or was commenting on this in his 90's sensation novel 'The Beach': The hero ends up living communally in a literal longhouse in Thailand ruled over by a matriarchal hippy which quickly descends into totalitarianism, savagery and attempted (at least) murder. Strange that this aspect of such an ubiquitous novel of the time seems to have been forgotten.