As women have become politically empowered and socially liberated, and as feminine influence has increased across the media, education, corporations and other state institutions, a cultural shift has occurred that has unbalanced a critical relationship to any harmonious culture; between entitlement and responsibility, this is unsustainable and is tipping us close to economic and social ruin.
Femininity its self is not toxic, but its implications on the wider body politic are, in the same way, you don’t value the virtue of kindness when considering the appropriate management of prisons or the army. Empathy is a good, but it is immoral to be empathetic of the cruel.
This article is divided into three sections according to Aristotle’s modes of persuasion.
- An appeal to credibility, citing the realities of evolutionary biology to explain the patriarchy
- Following these logical conclusions to the inevitable effect femininity has on the welfare state
- Ultimately concluding with an emotive appeal to reimpose cultural masculinity
an appeal to ethics and credibility
Unlike the contemporary left, who won’t acknowledge anything that contradicts their ideological desire for nature, the right recognise the merits of ’evolutionary determinism’; establishing truth, then adapting policy to nature.
Why genders differ and the extent to which they do is determined by the alternative reproductive and parenting roles they have adapted to perform. These differences are manifest in physical anatomy, but also in mentalities, the interpretation of language and perceived morality.
Humans as a species have twice as many female ancestors, as male. The female reproductive mechanism develops only a single egg each month and this has caused alternative mating strategies to develop to males who consistently produce sperm. The cost of a sexual encounter is significantly greater for women because it can disable them for 9 months, and because of this anatomically modern females are highly selective and therefore only half of all males historically, pass on their genes.
However, for a species to survive its necessary all the females mate which offers an explanation for the wider variability across IQ deviation between genders, with the male ‘bellcurve’ stretching to either side and females clumped around their mean on the graph. Evolution can ‘gamble’ on the XY chromosome, it can afford to make dumbbells in the ‘pursuit’ of nobles, as Darwin noted, greater male variance is ubiquitous across the entire animal kingdom. The effect this has at the extremes is significant, and in a meritocracy we would expect to see more males in higher education, but instead their are more females.
These selection standards were key to the emergence of our intellectual development. However, ironically it is also the selective breeding programme for the Patriarchy, as selection is dependant on ability to fit within and climb dominance hierarchies in a way men have not selected for women. This is eugenics by proxy of feminine selection because only competent males pass on their genes, as determined by social status and power and a characteristic that’s mandatory for Alpha males leading a group is to demonstrate selflessness and consider the whole over the personal. Given these males would mate the most, all males have evolved to better adapt to systems of governance, plan and organise them. Since the 1970s, studies of political behaviour indicate men are more interested in politics and more frequently discuss politics, tune into public affairs programs, read newspapers, and comment on political events.
(Burns, Schlozman, & Verba, 2001; Jennings & Niemi, 1981; Verba, Nie & Kim, 1978).
Subtle alternative senses of morality emerged because of these mental and physical differences. For a woman morality is founded on denial of immediate satisfaction on behalf of the infant, she must be more sensitive to the environment and emotionally, where as a man’s is conditioned around the longer term defiance of more objective values, engendered around revenge of theft and violence.
This has impacted interpretation of language too. For men insults are preferable to violence, However from a female perspective words can be enormously damaging, reputation assassination can cause ostracisation which threatens a woman’s sexual market value more than a man’s, where as for males, violence and theft are more damaging to chances of reproduction, thus we evolved a mentality appropriate to our environmental circumstances.
Because of the historic influence of these masculine socio-cultural realities property rights and the nonaggression principle were enshrined into law, however as feminine influence increases freedom of speech invariably becomes threatened and captivity of speech compelled.
This complicated and nuanced history has been mistaken by feminists and cultural marxists for patriarchy, the definition of patriarchy insists all difference is inequality, and all inequality is a result of oppression, and that all men are responsible for the actions of a powerful few in the past. It ignores the inconvenient reality that also because of biological logistics males are disposable in war, because even if 3/4 of the male population die the figures of the next generation can be entirely restored. The ‘patriarchy’ was developed not on oppression but mutual compliance and it reflects the division of labour hardwired into us or.
Hyper-agency’ [is], assuming everything in his life is something that he wanted, caused, earned or did.. Agents make things happen and objects have things happen to them, a great deal of our cultural discourse around men and women is about the things men do and the things women suffer at the hands of men, reenforcing men’s status as agents and women status as objects, admitting you have been victimised, that something happened to you that you did not want, choose or cause in any way’Karen Straughan
an appeal to logic
Economically women are concerned more about their child then society at large, demonstrated in voting patterns. On average women vote for a large welfare state subconsciously with the view of having kids, until they marry then, depending on the employment status of the husband, will vote appropriately for less or more tax for their current or future children. This is not wrong this is natural maternity.
However these subtle alternations in perspective have wide political manifestations that aren’t immediately predicted or considered and that could have negative long term consequences. For example in Iceland rates of fatherlessness are 2 out of 3, whereas in Japan, a equally industrialised nation with less feminine influence only 1 in 66 are. Because women are incentivised to leave their husbands that is the most sensible choice maternally, they do.
Single mothers are both reliant and loyal to the left, in a similar way to immigrants. The left exploit this by ‘marrying’ women and then rewarding their bad choices by forcing the taxpayer to pay for children who are not their own. The welfare state removes the need for them to find stable partners, allowing them promiscuity with men with negative consequences for the structure and stability of society.
Having a welfare state we can afford to sustain and that doesn’t entrench poverty is benevolent, but risking the future collapse of our children’s economy to be comfy in the short term just so we can keep giving insecure people, fat reduction or sex ‘reassignment’ surgery on the NHS, is not. We are now even abandoning attempts to reduce the deficit, we are living beyond our means and it’s not sustainable and the welfare state is collapsing beneath us. The extent to which austerity is inevitable will become apparent, we were too incompetent to realise we cannot afford the bill our kindness actually costs.
We do not exist to serve the welfare state, the welfare state exists to serve us. Alternatively, we slide towards Socialism and the destruction of the family unit, So we are all dependent on the state and there is no authority in peoples lives but the state. This also destroys the male role who no longer protect or provide, no doubt contributing to the male depression epidemic.
Societies success depends to some degree on the accountability of those in charge to take responsibility for their mistakes, and with too much femininity inflating cultural empathy, not enough necessary blame is condemning those guilty, reflected most apparently in lenient sentencing of abhorrent crimes.
We worry about the ‘stigmatisation of welfare recipients’ while burying our heads in the sand about the fact we increasingly can’t even afford the services. We manufacture our own problems giving away billions of aid we can’t afford, to corrupt governance and are blamed as ‘white saviours’ for it.
However are women happier for all this, or have the left hijacked femininity to achieve their own empowerment regardless? According to data from the United States General Social Survey starting from 1972, which asked participants “How happy are you?”
- Women in the United States have become less happy, both absolutely and relative to men
- The decline in women’s happiness is a trend seen across groups – working and stay-at home mothers, married and divorced, young and old, and across the education spectrum
- These same trends appeared across wealthy and industrialised countries
2009, The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness,
The evil was not in bread and circuses, per se, but in the willingness of the people to sell their rights as free men for full bellies and the excitement of games which would serve to distract them from the other human hungers which bread and circuses can never appease’Cicero
an appeal to emotion
Consider a sinking ship and the chaos of lifeboats crammed full of people attempting to escape, but sinking under the weight of so many. People drowning in the sea are also all clinging on endangering the life of everyone onboard. Instinctively everyone honestly knows in this situation a man would be more able to stamp on the fingers of the few to save the many, just as it is the dad who would mercy kill a pet in misery. Because of their hormonal hardwiring they are better able to cause suffering now in order to prevent more in the long-term.
THE EMANCIPATION OF ANTI-SUFFRAGE
Socrates set out his opposition to absolute democracy with an analogy; in a vote between a doctor and sweetshop owner he said, people will always vote for who will give them what they want, not what they need, sweets are nice and pleasant in the short term, but are bad for you and may cause nausea. Check-ups however with a doctor is beneficial in the long-term but painful. We are voting for too many sweets because of the feminine sweet tooth, now we are sick.
Often the effect of socio political change only becomes apparent much after the initial event, like a ship who casts a wave that impacts the shore long after the ship has passed.
Should a case against female suffrage not be made if your belief is that’s what is best for the whole of society and females themselves? Can such a case not be justified if the alternative is an inevitable
creep towards economic collapse? Is it any more controversial than only men serving in the army?
If we can reasonably assume by considering previous evidence, the effect a policy will cause, and we can agree that it’s negative, is it not sensible to abandon this policy, even if on the face of it as an isolated issue, it seems correct? Otherwise we are prioritising the ingredients of an experiment over its results. Giving the women the vote ultimately causes such results as children being raised fatherless which causes a cycle of other problems, and these results need to be considered along with the ingredients.
Voting is not entertainment, it’s a privilege, and it must protect the civilisation that it was created to, a civilisation passed to us with the bloody hands of our ancestors for us to pass on undiminished with an economy not indebted.
Why is it so important that we have an even balance, why do we not have a similar quota for asian’s or homosexuals, or the left handed? What is it that women actually bring? Are we talking about social justice? Are we saying that women are supposed to do it differently? … Women are not a panacea they don’t bring miracle they don’t do mysterious goodDAVID STARKEY
Men have become emasculated in their own societies, we now have a culture of entitlement, where hate is disguised as empathy and where the honest pursuit of truth is branded hate. Cues of sympathetic journalists line up to listen to some privileged foreigner regurgitate a hollow victimhood narrative, loving their western lives but hating the country and its people and seeing no contradiction.
As society becomes wealthy it becomes safe and femininity blossoms, this causes complacency which threatens this wealth, safety and femininity of civilisation.
The state must sometimes be the parent to its citizens. It must sometimes be cruel to be kind and not do what’s wrong for the right reasons, however right they seem.