2.) The Alienation of Male Perspective & The Manosphere As Surrogate
3.) The Square Root of Feminism is Marxism
4.) Family or Career: She Can’t Have Both
5.) Creating A Culture of Female-Federal Co-Dependence by Replacing Men with Government
6.) In Closing
7.) Relevant Reading
Recently I was asked this question: “The red pill subreddit seems to be a space for men who have had negative experiences to vent and further their base interests. If you agree, why do you think that is?”
My answer to this question dominates the topic of this article and has been split into sub-sections. My answers and ideas are not all-encompassing, I leave many stones unturned. This is not a thesis. This piece is a general overview that will elucidate some key points pertaining to the contemporary adoption of the feminist political movement. In places, the article is tongue-in-cheek. With that aside, onward!
2.) The Alienation of Male Perspective & The Manosphere As Surrogate:
The majority of modern boys and men have had resoundingly negative experiences with girls and women. Modern women are effectively raised not to view men as human beings with wants or needs. Modern women are devoid of positive femininity, instead the majority are cold, narcissistic and uncaring, viewing men as nothing more than a mere means to an end. The feminist ideology outlawed male spaces by using its influence to effectively demonise them as “vehicles for oppression.” An absurd and rather sexist assumption came to be accepted: “if men are excluding women from their social activities it must be because they wish to discuss how they can better oppress them!” Men don’t want to gather in the absence of women because, you know, women are notorious for their nagging. It’s not that men like to talk without worrying
people’swomen’s feelings are going to get hurt. No, it’s definitely not that. Women are of course infallible creatures who would never drive men away to congregate in respite. It’s definitely that misogynistic oppression thing instead.
With the odd sports team, construction sites and the Freemasons being the last vestiges of male space in the physical world; communities such as The Red Pill Subreddit and Roosh V Forumhave stepped in to fill the masculine void that feminist ideology has imposed for the best part of a half-century. By using the power of the internet and relative anonymity, men have managed to effectively recreate and regulate spaces where male-dominated perspectives are welcome. These are spaces where logic, reason and distinctly masculine self-interest dominate over the emotional sentiment and social politics typical of the feminine.
These communities are consciously self-imposed microcosms of male mentality. They communicate thoughts and strategies conducive to rational male self-interest. They cater for not only the male viewpoint of women and society, but likewise the male sexual imperative. These communities are a manifestation of man’s yearning to exercise the freedom to think and converse without the threat of censure from the feminist iron fist. These communities are all too self-aware of how the “masculine way of seeing things” is bigotedly unwelcome in mainstream society. As such, these communities ruthlessly segregate and self-regulate themselves. Unproven outsiders cannot be trusted to understand their viewpoints in an age of all permeating radical feminism. Insular in its nature, the manosphere is steadfast in kicking out feminist sympathisers who attempt to disrupt discourse and peddle rhetorical hogwash. Bearing all these things in mind, I believe the lack of tangible real world male spaces is one of the underlying social issues that led to the creation of the manosphere. However, this is merely a symptom of a far bigger problem, the breakdown of the traditional family.
Single motherhood is detrimental to both sexes, although the absence of a father in childhood is something I believe to be particularly deleterious for young boys. The statistics available out there (increased risk of drug abuse, suicide, committing a violent crime et cetera) seem to back me up on this line of thought  . Of course, we (the manosphere) attribute the blame for the normalisation of single motherhood on the destruction of family as championed by feminism. It was feminism and its “class-warfare system” as borrowed from Marxism that led to today’s sociopolitical climate. To better understand the nature of this we need to deconstruct modern history with a red pill lens. By observing feminism’s adoption by society and the wider implications it has since had, we may better understand the butt fuck mess we are in now.
3.) The Square Root of Feminism is Marxism:
It was under the feminist ideological construct that “the bourgeoisie” became “the patriarchy” and “the proletariat” became “oppressed women.” By conning men and women of the then-time with this oppressor-oppressee rhetorical construct, ideological feminism could be normalised via institutionalisation. Institutionalisation is the process in which an ideology becomes a part of the teachings and cultural underpinning of a society. Institutionalisation embeds ideology into the core pillars of societal influence, which are: the family, government social policy, public education and depictions in media. With the combination of these institutions working in tandem to perpetuate the feminist ideological lie, there was a cultural shift from conservatism to liberalism. With such ideological hegemony came the memetic and vacuous reinforcement of feminist principles via peer group pressure: “Like oh my god, Becky, feminism is so ideologically in right now! Let’s call men pigs and burn our bras it’ll be fun!” (refer to the above image.)
The need for civil rights (something the majority of women did not care for or even disagreed with,) was not historically considered to be a human rights issue. Women would enter the workplace only in wartime when there were labour shortages. They worked in factories (eg: Rosie the Riveter) because they had to, not because they wanted to. Have you ever worked in a factory? I suspect not now they’re all in China, but needless to say working the production line conveyor belt is infinitely less rewarding than watching your children grow. There was no society-wide systematic oppression of women. Women were simply not required to be tax slaves for the state in the way that men were. Women were under the care and provision of men rather than government (from father, to husband.) Feminist “independence” today, is for many women, especially those at the lower end of the socioeconomic strata, a farce. They are not truly independent, there has simply been a change of hands in who governs them.
Rather than pledge allegiance to a man in the context of common goals, love and family creation, women have instead vacuously pledged their allegiance to ideology. This ideology is then used by government as a tool for power consolidation. Women have effectively been used by government as a demographic of “useful idiots.” Frame something as a woman’s issue and you can get them to agree with anything. Government married itself to feminist ideology because it was an effective way to divide and conquer. It allowed government to better control the population by playing on woman’s instinctual and irrational fear. By doing this and painting all the blame on men, government can justify the subjugation of man by portraying itself as “the protector of women.” Historically feminists were a loud but small minority who did not like the status quo, whilst most women were content with it. Women were not chained up in kitchens, forced to pop out babies and obey the every desire of man in the way that vitriolic feminist rhetoric would have you believe. Such rhetoric is not only farcically and factually incorrect, but likewise deeply disrespectful of our ancestors.
Owning property, working in the factories and voting weren’t things that the women of pre-feminism were really concerned with. They didn’t care about those things. Modern day women indoctrinated by feminism have been taught to want those things, so they assume that women in history did too. They then continue down this slippery slope and deduce men must have oppressed women by denying them these things. If you don’t want to do something and you don’t have “the legally assured right” to do it, then you’re not going to be bothered that the law doesn’t give you that right.
It’s feminist revisionist history which paints a picture of women on their knees pleading for centuries to get the vote. Such trite could not be any further from the truth. The reality is, as already stated, feminists were a small fringe movement with little traction or support in mainstream society. The majority of women were more concerned with securing a good mate, having children and nurturing their loved ones. Not going to work in the factories or fighting in wars. Feminists/suffragettes have been around since the late 19th century and were predominantly upper middle-class white women allied with a radically misandrist lesbian minority who were perceived by larger society as an obscure subculture. It was the ideological rhetoric peddling that “men are evil so women need civil rights” which acted as a superficial front for the legitimisation of the culturally destabilising movement known as the “woman’s rights movement.”
The majority of women pre-feminism were in loving relationships where they were taken care of by men who worked very hard. These men were vetted rigorously by the young woman’s mother and father to ensure he was of noble character and worldly means. Their fathers were not spousally raping their mothers on a whim and nor were they selling off their daughters to the nearest salacious man for a goat and three oxen. Women were not the sex objects they have become today: the sluts of marketing, the prostitutes of job promotion and the eager cum buckets of wealthy male harems. Instead they were respectable people: mothers, wives and supportive members of their local community. In part this was due to a lack of effective contraception which acted as a natural safeguard in quelling the volatility of the female sexual appetite. Women had consequences biological and sociological for indulging their promiscuity, so giving in to instinct came with harsh disincentives. In essence, men and women were expected to forego vices and defer gratification for what was considered to be the greater good: the betterment of the family.
Women of the-then time commonly enjoyed monogamous commitment/marriage, multiple children/grandchildren and aside domestic chores and child-rearing, had very few significant problems plaguing their everyday lives. Just because women did not go out to factories and get their hands dirty or go and fight on the front lines in wartime, it did not mean society did not value women. In fact I would argue, pre-feminism, that patriarchy treated women far more righteously than feminism has. Women were valued for their femininity and encouraged to embrace their instincts. They were not shamed for their lack of masculinity and encouraged to “be independent from men by becoming more like men.” Women pulled their weight, but in contrast to men: they led simpler lives.
Business, politics, academia, law and making sure the world didn’t implode were all the purview of men. Men built and furthered civilization whilst women helped to maintain it – they worked in tandem. It was not oppressive, it was cooperative. In return for this cooperation, women got to live out their sexual imperative by having children and being a part of a family that cared about them. They were not relegated to corporate wage slavery, cat herding and watching episodes of Sex In The City whilst crying into a bucket of comfort-inducing, waistline-widening Ben & Jerry’s. They were not alone or “left on the shelf” because they got married young. They invested in their families in youth, and in turn their families invested in them when they reached their elder years.
4.) Family or Career: She Can’t Have Both
Women have always had to choose between family or career. Contrary to feminist dogma, women did work before feminism. Pre-feminism, the majority of women prioritised family. Post-feminism, the majority prioritise career and play Russian roulette with their fertility in the process. Pre-feminism, very few women were genetic dead-ends. Even today, in spite of feminist propaganda, settling down and having a family is high on the list of priorities for the majority of women. It is through naivety and indoctrination that women continue to buy into the feminist lie that “they can have it all.” Women do not opt to start families in their peak fertility window anymore (their 20’s.) Instead they indulge in drug-fuelled parties and casual debauchery, leaving the creation of family until their less fertile 30’s. This is a topic with its own Pandora’s box of social issues which go way beyond the intended scope of this article. In light of that I do not wish to digress any further on this tangent.
5.) Creating A Culture of Female-Federal Co-Dependence by Replacing Men with Government:
The destruction of the family unit via the replacement of the father would create a need for a bigger more powerful government. This was the core agenda (and chief political reason) for the endorsement of what once was perceived to be a “wacky, niche social movement.” By emancipating women from men, women would be alone in the world for the first time confused and vulnerable. Effectively they were “abandoned” but it was for their own good “because men are evil pigs anyway!”
It is then that government could present the solution (the welfare state) and step in as the heroes that came to save the day. Even though they were the same assholes who helped to socially engineer the ideology pioneered by the suffragettes. It was they who got on board with the philosophy and convinced the collective masses that there was a “cultural problem” to begin with. You didn’t think feminism was a grass-roots political movement did you? Yes it would quite laughably be the government who would come along and protect women from all those nasty, evil men who had worked oh-so-tirelessly to historically enslave womankind. Even though, you know, the government was predominantly male too. If men are so evil, why trust one set of men over another? Looking after your family and putting your life on the line in case of national conflict in order to vote. Making sure your government represented you and didn’t become tyrannical via political participation. Defending your culture/way of life from foreign invaders. Yes, these things all sound like the psychological make-up of an oppressive demographic of people don’t they? Oh I think not.
In reality the government pitted women against men (a divide and conquer tactic) by making women believe men are intrinsically immoral creatures out to exploit them. Thus in turn it could be said with a straight face that men do not deserve the same level of empathy and that big government is the answer to women’s collective problems. These ideas are what paved the way for providing women with the vote, and with a female voter base government could undermine patriarchal/male power. By using all the feminist-indoctrinated women to outvote men, government could “democratically pass” radical social policies that they knew the men of the then-time would not agree to. Then as feminism became culturally embedded, men would slowly come around to team feminism only further compounding feminist dominance. All of this has led to today’s dysfunctional socially engineered society where broken homes and poverty are a cultural norm  . Having a father around whose balls haven’t been metaphorically cut off? A luxury not afforded to the majority of today’s children.
Feminism was never truly about empowering women. It was about disempowering men. By using the boredom of socially influential and ambitious upper-middle-class white women, the perverse political philosophy of feminism could come to fruition. Of course as so many men die at war and at work in toil to provide for their families, women always have and always will continue to outnumber them. So under “the rules of open democracy” male perspective can be effectively undermined by targeting policy along a gender line. This is incredibly rich and ironic of an ideology which tries to give itself democratic legitimacy by saying “without feminism, society ignores half of the population!” My response to such banality being: “even if society did ignore half the population, which it didn’t, feminism didn’t stop that – it just changed who got a voice.” Of course the more men there are out there willing to sell out their brothers-in-arms for the promise of some paltry pussy, the better! If we have men who will encourage feminist decadence because “it helps them get laid” or whatever, that’s an extra vote for team feminism! You go
With the product of the ideological lie beginning to yield its intended dividends, the size of government could be justifiably increased. This afforded government more control over the nation, more tax receipts, more civil servants etc. Civil liberties could be more easily curbed by promoting safety over liberty to women, who in their instinctual fearfulness of boogeymen (or rather crudely: men,) would obey the system “for their own protection.” Through legal revision and feminist legislative enactment, exclusively female entitlements could be brought into law, effectively turning men into second class citizens via exclusion (see: severity of criminal punishment, divorce law, child custody law etc.) Women are far more easily manipulated than men in matters of fear, and politics are by no means an exception to this phenomenon.
All it takes for a government to control a majority female voter base is some scaremongering and the promise of free handouts. Put this formula into play and women will concede to a predetermined federal agenda like ideological cattle; all whilst being completely self-assured that they are the ones who are in control. Despite having betrayed women with the feminist ideological myth, women are government’s contemporary primary interest. By ideologically ruling the women, government may consolidate power on behalf of the economic elite and subdue the common man (oh how ironically Marxist!) Feminism is not entirely about women; but rather the ideological weaponisation of women against men to destroy the traditional family.
Feminism was used as a way to wage war on a class of men (white European men) who were as a group even at the lowest economic strata, beginning to amass more power than the economic elite were comfortable with. Unfortunately, feminism has got too big for it’s
boots stilettos and is completely out of control. Now it’s starting to cause problems for the African american community, the middle class of India and other men and children around the globe, such as those in Argentina. The anglosphere and Europe were just the beginning. No longer is feminism the exclusive problem of the white man, through globalisation it is infecting and disassembling culture everywhere.
6.) In Closing:
Modern western governments weaponise women against men by selling feminist policy as “a protection in women’s best interests.” Government can dominate women by keeping women reliant on government. Government makes women reliant on them by making sure she is kept distrustful of and emancipated from men (thus depriving her of romance, family and a man to provide for her.) Of course with the single mother epidemic having already taken hold (these women being the first generation of women to be “successfully” emancipated from men,) women can now effectively self-regulate their own disdain and distrust of men without the need for government propaganda. We have groupthink and sermons from feminist ideological lieutenants to ensure this cultural disease continues to self-perpetuate itself now. Radical feminism is but the latest in a long line of destructive political dogmas that the world must attempt to cleanse itself of.