What an awful idea. Only a monster would believe something like this. Why do we have to subordinate anyone, let alone women as a group? But over the long years of women’s suffrage and legal equality, have women demonstrated a desire to be equals? Or simply a desire to be given equality? Furthermore, what have women done with that equality? What’s the status of our heterosexual (reproductive) relationships? What can be said about the happiness of men, and women, in our society now that women have their so-called freedom? This is the key point.
Men are physically stronger than women. Fine. Women are intellectually equal to men. Really? It seems like in every field the top performers are men! Why? In the end, it doesn’t matter – all individuals should be given the right to participate, even if we know, for one reason or another, that they’ll never win at the highest level. Wait a minute, why does this even matter? Why does ability to compete matter for allowing people to compete. Because, of course, it’s the most efficient thing to do! We must have everyone who is capable and able-bodied to drive the economy – the equivalent, I suppose, to wartime desperation, where the women were required to fight due to the invader being so close to home (never mind if many women simply surrendered, and opened their legs – only a provocation, I promise!); so what are we saying? Our economic system enforces a state of desperation, which requires female participation? Uh oh.
Let’s get back on topic. Have women demonstrated a desire to act as equals? I discussed this in my confessions of a former feminist, but it bears repeating, and repeating, and repeating. No, it doesn’t seem like they have! Instead, they simple take what is given, and fight for rights, which are things given (and supported perpetually by men), but not earned or proven.Of course, they’ve taken to work like anyone else – women have always worked – and they’ve taken to politics – and why not, any gender can win a popularity contest – and they’ve taken to all sorts of competitions – but again, they never seem to truly excel. But perhaps there are exceptions, which we should then proceed to change all our laws to support. Wait, why do exceptions matter so much? Because, obviously, who is John Galt? And man is something to be overcome by the monstrous overman. Never mind the meek – they’ll never take the earth. Never mind the poor in spirit, when opulence is the true sign of Nietzschean health. Exceptions must be allowed to flourish and overtake the population, because they are the only humans who matter – only those who lead to the overman are worthy. Feminism as a consequence of eugenics? Maybe it’s a stretch. At least let’s admit we’re in a society heavily influenced by the guy who referred to himself, once, as the Anti-Christ, and that feminism is one of its hallmarks.
“Supposing that Truth is a woman – what then?”Nietzsche – Beyond Good and Evil
What did he mean by this? I hope it’s obvious. Woman selects for Nietzschean health, or, rather, fitness (no matter their protests to the contrary – a woman may marry a hard working man for stability, which is a different kind of fitness than, say, the strong-man who lured her in her youth). And if this is the truth, I want nothing to do with it. Christ, I believe, meant something utterly different (and even opposite) by His claim to be, Himself, the Truth. How then can a Christian be a feminism?! It baffles me. Even forgetting the New and Old Testament proclamations of female silence and obedience – for this very reason, I contend! Without the subordination (not oppression, abuse, or subjugation) of women, they are allowed to select for that monster of natural fitness, and slowly, over ages, we lose our spirit and soul, for the strong amoral heart of the overman.
So what does this mean on a day-to-day basis? Easy enough. It means men are subjected to selection game by women, and begin policing and attacking one another – male bonds may deteriorate, especially at the lower rungs of status, and men will die deaths of despair or fall into pits of delusion. Meanwhile, women are free to choose – and all they will see is their freedom, never its consequences. They hide behind the idea of human variability in preference, and in exceptions, never admitting the slow, general trend toward inhumanity.
What then can we say about our heterosexual (reproductive) relationships. Perhaps we can’t say much that can’t be refuted by opposing exceptionalism, but at the very least, they aren’t reproducing as much. Blame the economy all you want, but I might suggest also that the economy is a function of morale – especially men’s morale – and these days, men’s morale is low, in general. Get a girlfriend – until she cheats, or breaks up with you; get married, until she divorces you; or get lucky, and stay together – what’s the percentage on that again? Never mind. Let’s not think about it. I mean, when you look at divorce, apparently, as male income lowers, the divorce rate, and the rate of initiation by the woman, increases dramatically. But never mind. Feminism good because equality good.
What was so bad about woman’s lot, anyway? It was hard, of course – but so was men’s. Nowadays? What if we ‘confined’ women to the home? Dishwashers, carpet cleaners, appliances galore exist to make homemaking easier. Honestly I’d envy them. No really. I want it. My temperament isn’t with this whole jockeying for status thing (if it were, I’d be a social justice warrior). I’m not the sort of male who really wants the old order, I’m just convinced it’s the only decent, human, and reasonable order possible. Men can find a woman to reverse the roles of course – wait, hold that: he can pursue a woman to reverse the superficial domestic role. There. Not really the same. Sounds masculine, even. The woman goes to a primarily social-oriented office job for a paycheck, and the man keeps the household together – and as homes get smarter, men might even be better at it. I doubt she pursued him, and I doubt he selected her, which is all that matters, in the end, for equality. Again, of course, there may be exceptions.
I look forward to an end to toxic masculinity, which is a weak man’s reaction when subject to an environment of extreme female selection. Men, when women are subordinated, can be anything, behave in any way, really – wouldn’t matter too much – at least, ideally. They can be weak, sit in friends laps, kiss friends (only as friends, you sicko), without questioning whether any sign of weakness will be noted by a nearby female and serve to reduce his status in her eyes, and thereby, his options for mating. I’m not saying, of course, that men should choose either – parents, maybe, fathers, church leaders, official matchmakers, doesn’t matter – so long as it’s not women.