In order to rescue civilisation we must act quickly. The following sets out a viable manifesto.
Men and women are different. This is innate, not the product of ‘socialisation’.
Men are risk-taking and women are risk-avoidant.
This is an evolved adaptation linked to the two-group tribal structure in which women and children are protected by shielding them from risk, while men are expendable. This structure gives rise to ‘female privilege’ in which women are deferred to by men and there is a taboo against violence towards them.
It is generally the case that the two-group structure is present in all non-urbanised cultures (ie, those which do not build cities and have a low level of technological development, though they might be extremely sophisticated in other ways).
When you teach women that they are the same as men, then there are consequences. Making them into masculine not-women is just the first.
Women begin to think they should perform an ersatz masculinity. This is pronounced in corporate or military situations, where rank matters. How can a promoted woman give orders to a man? Only by performing masculinity. Then, if you fix the game so these not-women can win with less effort than men, which in most scenarios is the only way they can, it gets worse.
As a result the route to success success becomes ‘being masculine’ when it should mean ‘being a great mother’. The more masculine women are, the more success they are likely to be given, in our culture, while motherhood is decried as an impediment to their ‘careers’. (By which they mean ‘jobs.’ Equality of exploitation in wage-slavery, what a victory.)
But at the same time, masculinity repulses men and mothering qualities attract them. (see Freud.) So men begin avoiding these women as sexual partners. I mean, who the fuck would marry Cathy Newman? So career success, for women, increasingly equals ‘catastrophic personal life.’
Well, not yet anyway. Only a few years ago, the MeToo movement burst onto the popular scene, threatening to complete the establishment of the gynocracy and the Helotisation of men. But MeToo didn’t quite work out as the covens of feminists, with their eye of newt and ear of bat (metaphorical, of course, what would PETA say) had hoped.
Thanks to MeToo every man in the West was soon losing sleep about all those drunken nights at Uni, worrying whether he had kissed some equally drunk girl who was well up for it anyway. Perhaps he’d let a hand slip onto her hip while dancing; enough now, to see a man crucified. Let’s be honest, there were a fair few nights I can’t even remember and I don’t think I’m alone.
Western feminists, for over half a century, have argued that gender itself has been the fundamental agent of women’s oppression. The solution often claimed, is to establish a matriarchy. But very few understand what a matriarchy really is.
Where society was based on forms of meritocracy — often on the power to make financial profit — artificial barriers that might exist in less fluid societies could be broken down by women excelling and so they could rise in the culture.