To question feminism is to invite sex-specific shaming behavior from otherwise completely non-toxic people, for example: what is his relationship with women? (all positive, always deferring, as is the norm); or why is he so angry? (no anger, I’m only disappointed, as we all are from time to time, in reality – a common tactic of trolls, I might add, is to imply anger where none exists, as to paint their victim as impolite, and therefore dismissable); or he just hates women. (on the contrary, ‘all I’ve ever wanted in my life is to love women, and be loved by women,’ and have occasionally been successful in that goal, somehow, without participating in the socially destructive hookup culture which one stand-up lampooned as Caligula-esque). Nonetheless, I feel I have to take a moral stand, to speak the truth of experience from someone who wanted nothing more than to believe in the feminist dream, and someone who, due to my temperament, would benefit greatly should feminism exist as advertised.
First, let me say that the patriarchy does not exist. Even Marx knew as much, when he wrote in the most accessible and simplistic communist text, the Communist Manifesto, that capitalism destroys all “patriarchal relations,” (though I suppose communist feminists believe, as some others do, that Marx was wrong). He was right. It has been destroyed. My father was not a patriarch, my grandfather was barely influential in his own family, my male friends were all effective feminists, all my friend’s parents in one way or another bowed to the reigning order which can be called nothing else but feminism, no matter what some of the more delusional men might have claimed. “Why then,” the younger me might have argued, “don’t women hold power?” The answer is: they do, wherever they want to. I heard somewhere that even in existing matriarchies, women would get together and decide which man would nominally lead their little tribe. But I’ll try and stay away from overly specific arguments – details can always be refuted: even if the whole argument is true, all its branches can be broken, and, if we ignore the trunk, the tree can be called defeated. The patriarchy does not exist, but the specter of the patriarchy is like a symbol set up to maintain the order as it already exists, and to further enforce this enslavement which is not slavery, this submission which is legally equal, this edifice of the pure, mad, beautiful dream that is feminism.
Because why wouldn’t we want women to be our equals? Men have always dreamed of Athena, but she was only Zeus’ dream – an artificial construct, not a real woman. This is the key point. A certain pundit once said that the ‘left’ accuses others of their own faults – those crying racism are obsessed with race, those decrying fascism are themselves imposing their will through violence, etc – and I would submit that those who truly propagate feminism are the ones who honestly hate women, or hate that they are women. This should be clear, for example, in the feminist’s need to synonomize every hint of sexism (discrimination based on sex) with outright misogyny (irrational hatred of women for being women), because even the slightest sexist gesture reminds them of their sex, and therefore, of their hatred.
Let me get one thing out of the way first (will you let me, or does even my protest argue against the claim?), I am not what is liberally, and condescendingly, (and pitilessly) referred to as an ‘incel’. Women have shown physical interest, women have asked me out on dates, women have invited me to their apartments while their boyfriends were away, etc, and it was precisely these apparent acts of equality that led me down the narrow path to the truth. As a certain pagan writer recently noted, it’s not (only?) that equality with women is immoral, or dangerous, or objectively inferior to a patriarchy and therefore women should be subordinated, it’s that equality with women is an impossibility (excepting, of course, ‘spiritual lesbians’ – and those endearing exceptions are the central distractions from the general rule). Men, when a woman asks you out on a date, she isn’t expressing her internal, emotional desire for you – she is, in fact, expressly inviting you to prove yourself worthy of her interest, instead of using the typically subtle hints and suggestions, gestures and body-language, which men have traditionally come to expect from women. This isn’t equality, only a kind of autistic abandonment of those social games. A woman who asks you out isn’t acting like your equal, she’s just skipping a few steps in the game. Refreshing, to be sure, but an equal wouldn’t ask you to prove yourself, an equal would act on her desire, prove herself according to your standards, risk herself, and fully initiate, instead of actively requesting your initiation. Even talking about it sounds a little homosexual, don’t you think? ‘Not that there’s anything wrong with that’, but the social world doesn’t revolve around the behavior of a minority.
I became obsessed, to say the least, with what was only a shadow of an understanding at the time. Women, I was told, were equals, but there was something strange about their behavior, something I couldn’t quite put my finger on. So I explored the problem. For example: a fully grown young-adult woman tried to induce me to ask her out by dropping hints to a friend, who then spoke to me about it – casually of course – to which I wondered out loud: why didn’t she ask me out? Once the friend was certain I would say yes, she relayed the information, and the woman asked me out. I said yes, but it didn’t go anywhere. I wasn’t that interested – not because of her looks or personality, but because of her behavior: was this an equal? Another woman, one whom I barely knew, approached me at least twice, and her behavior was very strange to say the least – she was very beautiful, and apparently some of my friends assumed due to her behavior that I had already slept with her, but had rejected her emotionally, when, in fact, I barely knew her. Did she assume I would initiate, because she was beautiful? If she had such an honest interest, why didn’t she say something herself? Why didn’t she initiate? Because she’s a woman? No, because of romantic comedies, of course!
I’m joking, but that’s one argument given by feminism, or maybe something related but far more subtle and insidious, more gaseous, perhaps, like hot air. Shouldn’t it be insulting, in any case, that women as a group would alter their whole mating strategy based on bad movies? Another argument I’ve heard is something along the lines of: we’re all free to pursue our individual interests, and some girls are like this, others like that, and you just have to find someone that fits you. Fair enough. But the reality is: most women do not want to initiate, and those that do, hardly seem to actually do it. Traditionally, if a man desires, he desires, and details become secondary. Details and trials are the domain of the pursued, desire and proof of interest are the domain of the initiator. These women only initiate the test, as if calling the student in to the room were the same thing as sitting down and taking the test themselves.
So, to better my understanding, I tried to play the ‘role’ of the woman – as feminism so ecstatically claims I can. I tried to do what women do – drop hints, use body language, glances, etc, etc. Needless to say it never worked. At the time it was genuinely baffling. Surely, I thought to myself, if women are equals, there’s at least a fifty percent chance a woman will take the initiative. One friend of a particular woman I tried this on actually seemed to get mad at me, as if I was a monster for hinting that I was interested in someone yet never making a move myself. Perhaps I was! I tested her, and only a monster would test someone’s interest! I pulled away to see if she were emotionally involved enough to chase, what a monster! Honestly, it was cruel. Cruel to expect equality from women, and anyone who loves women and knows this, wouldn’t have done it. I was the boy in Fox’s Legion, taught that green means stop and red means go and steps into oncoming traffic: disastrously misinformed.
Most men take the smart path. They accept their role. Some rare few even, after submitting to inequality, find a measure of that equality which feminism promises: women financially supporting men, and acting, superficially, as equals in the relationship. There are many, many qualifications to this supposedly feminist arrangement, but it would take too long to describe. Suffice to say, women seem to seek biological fitness. Or, worse, humor. I read once a woman describe how her boyfriend sent her funny memes that made her laugh every day, until she decided she like him. How maddening is that? That’s what you do to dogs. She associated the positive dopamine hit of a joke with his presence, and came to see being around him as a positive experience. If someone tried to do that to me, I’d be annoyed, and a little offended. When I say this I only mean to point of that most people don’t seem to be completely aware of their own motivations. Our modern ideology serves to mask our instinctual motivations, and we excuse our behavior in the fanciful, magic-like language of ‘feeling’ or ‘personal taste’, as if a pattern didn’t exist, and couldn’t exist, and should never, never be sought out. A pattern, however, does exist, and has been found – women, as studies have shown, tend to marry men with more wealth than them. It’s only a tendency. Only an instinct. What what about the exceptions? Yes, absolutely. If women desire a higher status mate, what about the exceptions? Are they really, truly, ‘not like the other girls’? I’m willing to concede, for example, that some men dislike large breasts, but is it really fair to say, in any real sense, that “men don’t like large breasts”? So what about them?
I remember watching a Jordan Peterson lecture, and as as exhausting and obviously ill-informed as that man seems to be – even to a relative layman such as myself – I was entranced by one statement. No, not really. I was entranced by the response to one statement, or rather, the lack of a response. Women were everywhere in the classroom, and these women offered differing opinions, challenging his assumptions, clearly not afraid to stand up to him. Yet when Peterson noted that women only marry across and up on the status hierarchy, not a single challenge was offered. I wonder if it isn’t something that feminism has slipped past the cultural argument, or an assumption that better socialized men and women take for granted, without, incredibly, asking the question: if women are allowed to vie for status in the same (or similar) arena as men, what about lower status men, who must, apparently, now compete over a dwindling number lower status women – and what about women, who must, apparently, either accept men they don’t desire, or compete rabidly over a dwindling number of higher status men and end up alone if they fail? Under a patriarchy, interestingly, all women of a similar class were effectively below all men in terms of social status. Why did we design it that way? I worry about bringing up Chesterton’s fence, but I guess it’s too late now.
But, you might say, we’ve torn down the fence and everything seems to be fine. Is it? Is it fine for most, or only just a few? And how is it going so well for those few? Apparently, high status people are living the 50s lifestyle, even as the preach the 60s sexual revolution. Do as they say, not as they do. After all, who are we to tell other people what to do with their lives? If all the most stable, successful, happy people are doing the same thing, who are we to suggest that everyone do the same, and how dare we suggest that anyone who doesn’t is kind of an idiot, and might be ruining their lives. Does this sound ridiculous to anyone else? What is happening here? There are exceptions, you say – exceptions, exceptions, exceptions. Sure, in three hundred million people I would expect a few hundred thousand shining counter-examples – but should we design society around the exception, or the rule? And I wonder, nonetheless, how the children of these exceptions will end up – assuming, of course, these exceptions are even having children at all, which an increasing number of couples are failing to do (which has nothing, nothing, nothing to do, we say, with their non-traditional choices). But children are expensive, of course. Peasants who lived in cottages had children, single mothers who blame the man they freely chose to mate with have multiple children, but these people are too poor? Is that what we’re supposed to believe? Perhaps only the men are too poor, and in order to follow their instincts, women’s brain make up an excuse; we can all be guilty of delusional justification, sometimes.
Yet, marriages happen – women even marry lower income men, sometimes, so long as they’re effectively above their women in status in other ways – or maybe they’ve become trapped as his status has lowered and are decent human beings – and this happens even if they’re not traditionally ‘strong men’. Why? Could it be because slavery is illegal, and work in the market is difficult? After all, why not exchange sex for a personal servant who also provides a measure of material security? I exaggerate, in order to provoke, of course. But this is effectively the exchange which once took place under ‘the patriarchy’ – the difference, of course, is that now these men get much less in return (imagine, for example, that you had a pet who could not only protect the house, but pay the mortgage as well). Nevertheless, I suspect that these men will, as I once did, defend their choices, or, at least, keep silent at the risk of offending the ideology of their partner who is, of course, nothing like a master.