The Problem of Patriarchy Finally SOLVED
Is feminism a Catch 22? Can you win if you do what feminists ask?
There is eerie logic in the reasoning below. And I think I have seen the process being described in my own life. I am a naturally dominant personality and for 60 years I have found that to go down well with women. It may be some evidence of that that I have been married 4 times and have a chic chick in my life right now in my 80th year. I live a life that incels only dream of.
And I have never been good-looking. Recent pic below
So what the feminists idealize is NOT what most women want. Feminists are screwed-up personalities who are shooting themselves in the feet. Most women in fact LIKE patriarchy in moderation. So I find the reasoning below confirmed in my own life
I finally have it figured out for all of us, fellas. I have finally figured out the problem of patriarchy and toxic masculinity. And the solution is remarkable simple. Read below to find out.
Women have greater sexual value than men, which gives women sexual power over men, and thus more bargaining power in the game of dating, mating, and procreating. This greater bargaining power creates a sexual selection pressure that women then exert on men. In response to this sexual selection pressure, men seek to embody what women want men to be in order to earn sexual access to them. So, to put it quite simply: women created patriarchy.
Patriarchy is the peacock’s tail, the lion’s roar, and the stag’s antlers. Women used their great sexual selection pressure to compel men to make themselves, or become, more dominant, ambitious, confident, independent, self-reliant, and wealthy relative to women. Modern feminists call this biological reality of intersexual dynamics “patriarchy” and “male privilege”. Feminists claim that we have categorized these personality traits as “masculine” or “manly” because the patriarchy rewards men, and not women, for embodying those traits. This argument is actually correct because only women have the social-sexual power to compel men to meet these expectations.
However, as our modern feminist society clearly demonstrates, these “masculine”, “manly”, or “patriarchal” traits are actually gender neutral to a degree given how many modern women seem to currently embody them. In reality, for the most part, these traits are just the traits of adulthood. If men had the social-sexual power to command that women embody these traits then women would have come to embody them in far more significant numbers long before the advent of the modern, postindustrial age. Modern women do not embody these traits in our modern society because men commanded it from them. Modern women have come to embody these traits because they demanded the option to do so, and more importantly because women no longer need to rely on an individual man, or even a group of male relatives, to provide for them and protect them. These roles and services have been outsourced to governments and corporations. Modern women have come to embody these traits because they have been set free to pursue them for their own benefit in a world explicitly designed to advantage them.
The modern, post-industrial economy is the first economic system in human history to produce a plethora of jobs and professions that pay reasonably well and are within the average woman’s capacity to perform that work without enormous personal sacrifice to her life, mind, and body. Prior to the middle of the 20th Century, most jobs that paid a living wage were hard, uncomfortable, dirty, disgusting, dangerous, and/or back breaking work. Women were not mentally, emotionally, and/or physically equipped to do those jobs. Primarily because their biology often made it virtually impossible, but more importantly, women lacked a social system incentivizing and conditioning them to toughen up, in order to cope with being expected to perform that work without complaint, as was the case with boys and men.
Incredibly, despite living within a social and economic system designed deliberately to advantage them, feminists claim that we still live in a patriarchy where women experience discrimination on a regular basis. A common example of this “patriarchal oppression” or “male privilege” is the wage gap. Feminist’s cite the fact that the average income of all American men is slightly higher than the average income of all American women because of discriminatory employment practices. Let us ignore the fundamental issue with how they frame this conversation around a meaningless comparison of average income based on gender; a fact that is no different than, and just as meaningless as, the reality that tall people have a higher income on average than short people. I don’t think our society is deliberately discriminating against short people. There are clearly other factors at play. Ignoring that, there is a very obvious, logical, and meaningful explanation for why men on average make more money than women on average: women want it that way.
The wage gap, better understood as an achievement gap (or even an earnings gap), is the direct result of the sexual selection pressure that women exert on men. If women are capable of using their greater sexual value to compel men to pick up the slack in the personality traits I just explained as being essentially the traits of adulthood, then women have no incentive to be more dominant, ambitious, confident, independent, self-reliant, and/or wealthy relative to men when they can just get men to do all that work for them. This intersexual dynamic makes an achievement gap inevitable.
How ironic that this “male privilege” maps exactly to what women already expect from men! How is a man supposed to demonstrate dominance, ambition, confidence, independence and self-reliance without a hierarchy? How is a man supposed to be dominant and ambitious without aggression? How is a man supposed to create wealth without capitalism? Without equivalent sexual value and equivalent sexual selection pressure on women, how are men supposed to command the same level of dominance, ambition, confidence, independence, self-reliance, and wealth in women as women are capable of commanding from men? They cannot. If men are the ones responding to women’s sexual selection pressure then men cannot command particular personality traits of any kind from women. That is why we have the dating, mating, and procreating marketplace that we have today.
Men do not have the power to fulfill the expectations of the modern feminists. Men do not have the power to liberate women from the already MORE POWERFUL POSITION that women occupy. Patriarchy did not create women’s sexual selection pressure. It has always existed. It has existed since the day the first male hominid gave the first female hominid a handful of berries. Male hominids started giving female hominids food to provision for them during the process of gestation, lactation, and childrearing. In return, female hominids developed emotional attachments to the male hominids that provisioned for them and protected them. From this development human pair bonding emerged. Pair bonding could not have emerged if no emotional attachment developed between the two. This evolution in intersexual dynamics made it possible for hominid children to have an extended period of socialization in which multiple adult members of the community raised them; primarily and most importantly, their fathers. This development enabled the evolution of increasingly complex thoughts, concepts, languages, societies, and eventually civilizations. All the accomplishments of the human species, rooted most fundamentally in the male instinct to protect and provide for females, not only at the level of the individual man, but also in cooperative competition with other men.
Feminists argue that patriarchy hurts men too. Women may be the primary victims, but men do not escape unscathed from these rigid gender role expectations. Feminists argue that patriarchy hurts men by claiming that it refuses to respect or acknowledge the legitimacy of men’s emotions; it robs them of their families; makes their sexuality less valuable than women’s; and reduces their value down to their ability to provide for others. I wonder. Why would patriarchy do all of those horrible things to men? Could it be because there is a direct causal connection between all those expectations of men and how those expectations happen to benefit women when they are met?
It is pretty incredible when you consider it. Feminists observe the consequences of women exerting their greater sexual selection pressure on men, in order for women to get what women want from men, and then turn to blaming and shaming men for conforming to what women want from men in the first place. Not only that, feminists then make the case that this blaming and shaming of men is actually some kind of disturbing, dehumanizing “feminist love” whereby men will one day be liberated from their traditional gender role just so long as they continue giving women even more power. Apparently, if men ever want to be equally valued by women than men must give up all their “male privilege”. Which is the same as saying that in order for men to be valued by women men must abandon everything that makes men valuable to women. If men want women to value them equally then men must discard everything that men must become in order for women to even consider them remotely attractive. To be honest, this sounds like an abusive relationship in which the man is prohibited from burdening anyone with any acknowledgement of any aspect of his internal life or humanity. All for the sake of meeting the expectations of women. That is the “solution” that feminists recommend to the “problem” of “patriarchy”.
We have solved it, gents! How do we eliminate patriarchy once and for all: men need to stop meeting women’s expectations.
https://medium.com/@revolutionarymale/the-problem-of-patriarchy-finally-solved-17063f4a8d99
***************************************************Balenciaga Photo Fiasco Just Latest Attempt to Mainstream Sexualization of Children
A major scandal at luxury fashion brand Balenciaga has exposed the sexualization of children in our culture and highlighted a problem no one wants to address—the fact that our cultural “elites” seem to think this is OK.
The design company—well known for its collaboration with entrepreneur Kim Kardashian and for producing some of the ugliest, overpriced items on the market (think stiletto Crocs)—plunged into controversy following publication of photos in two Balenciaga advertising campaigns.
One photo features very young children posing with teddy bears dressed in sexual fetish apparel. Another, bizarrely, includes excerpts from the Supreme Court’s 2008 ruling in United States v. Williams, which upheld federal statutes on child pornography.
As public backlash built against the blatant impropriety and sinister nature of these campaigns, Paris-based Balenciaga removed the images from their platforms and issued an apology. The company claimed that it “strongly condemns child abuse; it was never our intent to include it in our narrative,” adding that the campaigns reflect “a series of grievous errors for which Balenciaga takes responsibility.”
In light of the controversy, Kardashian said she is “reevaluating” her relationship with the brand.
The whole sordid mess raises many questions that deserve to be answered. The most obvious: How on Earth were these campaigns ever released to begin with?
Balenciaga casts much of the blame on an outside production company (the fashion brand filed a lawsuit against it seeking $25 million in damages), while claiming to take accountability for its “lack of oversight.”
This response rings hollow. Regardless of how many outside contractors contributed, most people understand that for such a costly project to reach the public, it first must go through rounds of approvals. There are planning meetings and design meetings and production meetings.
Apparently, at no point did anyone involved say, “Stop.” It didn’t occur to any designer or photographer or executive that people might object to the sexualization of children.
This speaks to the heart of the problem. The producers of these campaigns either a) didn’t realize exploiting children in this way is wrong or b) they knew it is wrong, but wanted their audience to accept it. Either option is abhorrent.
Whatever the case, in these instances, Balenciaga was participating in a larger push that we have witnessed from far-Left cultural institutions: the attempt to mainstream the sexualization and exploitation of children.
We have seen this played out many times in the past few years. Parents increasingly have grown outraged and spoken out about the problem of graphic sexual content in public schools—only to be shut down and silenced by leftist, activist school boards.
Drag queen story times and children’s events have become pervasive across the country. Celebrated by the Left as progressive and empowering, these events expose kids to sexual content.
In July, Florida’s Department of Business and Professional Regulation filed a complaint against a Miami bar that hosted “sexually explicit” drag shows for kids. A video from one event showed a drag queen, dressed only in a thong stuffed with dollar bills, strutting around a bar with a little girl.
In Tennessee, conservative lawmakers are trying to ban drag performances that target children but already are facing pushback from LGBT activists.
It’s encouraging that, despite the cultural pressure from the media and academia to accept such immoral behavior, Americans are rooted enough in reality to recognize evil when they see it. But it isn’t likely that cultural elites will learn anything at all from the Balenciaga scandal.
Already, major media outlets, including The New York Times and Rolling Stone, seem to suggest that “far-Right influencers” and Fox News are fueling the outrage against Balenciaga.
Alyssa Farah Griffin, one of the hosts of ABC’s “The View,” went so far as to suggest that the real issue is that, by publishing these photos, Balenciaga made a “misstep” that “gives credence to those kind of insane takes” from conservatives opposed to transgender ideology.
To stop the slow progression of this insidious effort that seeks to normalize exploitation of children, Americans must remain vigilant. We must call out this evil for what it is. We must check its supporters at every turn. We must support policies that protect kids.
If we don’t, the Left will push the line for what is acceptable further and further into dangerous territory. And our kids will be the ones who suffer for it.
*****************************************************
Democrats' Staggering Hypocrisy
Leftists in Western societies tend to LIKE Communism, seeing them as "just socialists in a hurry". So they rarely condemn anything done by Communist regimes. They defended the Soviet horror right up to its implosion
As protests against the Chinese Communist Party’s tyrannical rule continue to spread among those subjugated under Xi Jinping’s genocidal government, a sane person would expect the free world to support those bravely speaking out against the CCP, amplify the cries for freedom, and do what is possible to support the freedom fighters.
The left, however, is not sane. And so they’re not doing what those pleading for freedom in China might expect based on the reputation the free world previously built for itself as a beacon for oppressed peoples elsewhere. Especially after seeing the world’s response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Chinese dissidents likely expected more from the leaders of free nations. Yet, that hasn’t been the case.
By falling silent and failing to stand up for freedom against CCP tyranny, the left is demonstrating a staggering amount of hypocrisy, not just because of the disparity between their outcry against Russia and silence on freedom fighters in China, but because of their handling of other protests.
Let’s start with President Joe Biden. He has not officially addressed the uprising against China’s zero-COVID and other tyrannical policies but was palling around with Xi Jinping recently after routinely bragging about how much time the two have spent together.
In a press briefing earlier this week, the White House’s John Kirby was asked for Biden’s response to the protests erupting across China and whether the president had a message for those demanding freedom. Kirby’s response was tepid and sanitized, “Our message to peaceful protesters around the world is the same and consistent: People should be allowed the right to assemble and to peacefully protest policies or laws or dictates that they take issue with.”
The lukewarm statement from Kirby drew a follow-up question: Does the White House support the efforts of Chinese citizens to regain some personal freedoms? Kirby again failed in his response, saying, “The White House supports the right of peaceful protest.” Really?
Neither response cuts it, and both betray those crying out for freedom in China. They expect and deserve better from the country that is supposed to be the last hope for freedom on earth.
A review of White House statements shows that the Biden administration has not hesitated to issue strongly worded statements endorsing protesters and the causes they represent against totalitarian regimes. President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris have issued multiple statements supporting protests in Iran and Cuba during their nearly two years in office. So why not the same for freedom fighters in China?
And let’s not forget that it was Kamala Harris who helped raise money for a bail fund to get violent BLM rioters out of jail during the “summer of love.” Yet now she can’t be bothered to speak up or otherwise support the cause of peaceful protesters in China with her platform as supposedly the most powerful woman in the free world? It’s shameful.
On a different but equally damning level, Apple Inc., a company that rose to become one of the most successful in U.S. history as a result of the economic and personal freedom that exists in the United States, has turned around and used its power to do the bidding of the Chinese Communist Party as it works to squash the liberty of its citizens.
Earlier this week, I wrote about how the company surreptitiously included a change to the iOS operating system’s file-sharing tool — AirDrop — in a recent software update, but only for iPhones in China. The device-to-device ability provided by AirDrop was relied on by freedom fighters in China to pass along protest messages and videos of CCP oppression by circumventing the CCP’s stranglehold on the internet. Thanks to Apple, freedom fighters are now less able to communicate and spread their message in China, a massive win for Xi Jinping and his tyrant government.
One of Apple’s iPhone factories in China was even the site of a protest this week, but Apple — after handing another advantage to CCP censors — obviously hasn’t spoken out on the protest at its manufacturing plant or elsewhere in China in yet another staggering show of hypocrisy.
Following the death of George Floyd, Apple CEO Tim Cook published a lengthy essay in which he said his company’s “mission has been and always will be to create technology that empowers people to change the world for the better,” except apparently when Apple is stripping critical functionality from iPhones in China to limit the ability of dissidents to communicate.
The essay also claimed that “[i]ssues of human dignity will not abide standing on the sidelines,” even though Apple and Cook are now comfortably resting on the sidelines and remaining silent about the gross human rights violations — even genocide — being perpetrated by China’s communist thugs.
The United States, the businesses its freedom allowed to flourish, and the leaders who run the country and its biggest companies ought to be using their power to do whatever possible to shun and punish China’s despotic government while helping the people being crushed under it to speak up and achieve the very basic freedoms they’re being denied — not feigning ignorance of the problem and undermining their efforts.
Rather than speaking out as it has on other uprisings, the Biden administration is negotiating to allow TikTok to continue operating in the U.S. without changing its corporate structure and playing coy with Xi Jinping while refusing to endorse the freedom fighters on college campuses, city centers, and village squares in China. And Apple is actively undermining the peaceful protesters’ attempts to expose the CCP’s tyranny while comfortably profiting from sales in China from the cozy Democrat enclave in Palo Alto
**********************************************
NYT Finally Admits 'Gender Affirming Care' Is Dangerous
The New York Times published a lengthy story admitting that “gender-affirming” care could be harmful to kids.
The article titled: “They Paused Puberty, But is There a Cost?” acknowledges that scientific evidence trumps what the woke media wants you to believe.
The authors cite that over 300,000 adolescents between the ages of 13 to 17 are concerned with medical professionals about the consequences the drugs will have on them.
“The questions are fueling government reviews in Europe, prompting a push for more research and leading some prominent specialists to reconsider at what age to prescribe them and for how long. A small number of doctors won’t recommend them at all,” the NYT article reads.
The authors, Megan Twohey and Christina Jewett point out that an increasing amount of minors are regretting their choices to have life-alternating procedures done and take medication.
Democrats and the liberal media have played their hand in fueling the epidemic of children thinking they were born in the wrong body.
A report published earlier this year argued that the Biden Administration blatantly ignored the many harmful side effects their push for gender-affirming care has on teens.
Joe Biden’s policy claimed that if trans kids were not able to transition, not just socially, but permanently, then they might consider killing themselves.
The report argued that not only was it out of line, but it was also inaccurate and had little to no evidence to back up its claims.
The Times article notes how woke activists pressured authorities into approving medication and surgeries before doctors were even able to understand them.
Biden has continually promoted the use of gender-affirming care, with states such as California declaring it a “sanctuary” for trans kids and their families.
***************************************************
Monks or monkeys? Monks in Buddhist monastery all drug dependent
Bangkok: A small Buddhist temple in northern Thailand has been left without monks after the entire monastery was found to have been using methamphetamine, according to local officials.
Following orders to investigate drug use in Phetchabun province, the local sheriff and village headman in Bung Sam Phan subdistrict, some 240 kilometres north of Bangkok, poked around schools, factories and temples searching for drug addicts and dealers so they could be sent for rehabilitation.
“As a community leader, I was frightened because I never thought the monks would be addicted to drugs,” said Sungyut Namburi, the village headman. “I never thought that drugs would spread to temples.”
Monks are revered figures in Thai culture. In Bangkok’s metro system, seats are reserved for them alongside pregnant and elderly individuals. Particularly in rural areas outside of Bangkok, monks are trusted advisers, often serving as counsellors and role models to the community.
So it was much to Sungyut’s surprise that all four monks in one small temple tested positive for methamphetamine use when he and the sheriff paid a visit to the monastery on Friday. At another small temple, two monks tested positive, he said.
But the writing was on the wall: the monks’ personality and behaviour gave them away as drug users, Sungyut said. Some villagers had tipped him off, telling him to check on temples in the community.
Even the abbot – the head of the monastery, who had served as a monk for 10 years – was found to be using drugs. “When I inspected the abbot’s shelter, I was stunned because it was a mess,” Sungyut said. After the drug tests came back positive, he said, the monks confessed to using drugs. Some of them admitted to being longtime addicts.
****************************************
My other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
*****************************************
/>
Kristina Pimenova, once said to be the most beautiful girl in the world. Note blue eyes and blonde hair
Bliss: What every woman wants: to feel safe and secure in the arms of her man. Robert Irwin and Rorie Buckey. See 
No comments:
Post a Comment