Alternate Title: The Patriarchy Pt 2
All my life I have been listening to men complain about what a disaster it was to give women the right to vote. I had always written it off as nothing more than naked misogyny, but lately I have been seeing comments like these coming from women who have been disillusioned by the feminist movement, so I think it's time to take up this topic as a serious concern.
After all, the main suffragette that campaigned the hardest for a woman's right to vote was Susan B. Anthony, who I am sure is rolling in her grave that women took that right and became single issue voters solely focused on keeping their rights to kill their unborn babies. Many on the left dispute this, saying she never stated any such opinions, but these are the same people that refuse to recognize how Planned Parenthood founder, Margaret Sanger, was a eugenicist that was totally focused on eradicating the lesser races,
and not on the white-washed (literally white-washed) history of empowering women. Abortion wasn't a real issue that could be debated leading up to the 19th Amendment, so why would you expect there to be a lot about abortion from her directly. Yet in context, she was very pro-life, and abortion is counter to all that she advocated.
Many would object to even considering this topic as it is undemocratic. So what? Democracy, as many, including our Founding Fathers, have noted, is nothing but tyranny of the majority, which is form of mob rule, but with a thin veneer of legitimacy. Our republic was specifically founded as a bulwark against this form of tyranny, but the political left, clueless of history, would reject our republic as nothing more than something founded by white slave owners.
A look at all tyrants going back to the beginning of the 20th Century showed that they came to power through mob rule, and in the case of many, such as Adolf Hilter, through democracy in specific. So just because the people
got to vote on it, don't for a second believe that anything good will come of it.
The first step in insuring that something good does come from what we vote for is to recognize that democracy is nothing but a tool. It is neither good nor bad, meaning that evil people voting will get you evil results. It's those that hold democracy as something more, such as empowering the people that are the ones most likely to be doing the opposite of empowering people.
Consider for a moment those objecting to requiring identification in order to vote. Why is that? They say that voting is too sacred to put such limitations on the poor, as it disenfranchises them. Really? Anyone without an ID has big enfranchise problems with participating in our society, so why aren't liberals more concerned with helping them get one. That would have more of an impact on them than voting. The only reason you could care more about voting is because you specifically do not want to empower the people. You want them dependant on who you believe they will vote for, assuming this isn't just about making voter fraud easier.
One of the main obstacles to tyranny of the majority is decentralization, which was well understood by our Founding Fathers. Nothing scared them more than a strong federal government. But not on the left, and for good reason. Take the high murder rate in Chicago that has the strictest gun control legislation anywhere. The left likes to point out that the real problem here is how easy it is to acquire guns in the neighboring state of Indiana, and how this points to the need of more stricter federal regulation on gun ownership. They say this while completely overlooking that if the that was the problem, why aren't the murder rates higher in Indiana?
So when someone proposes any action by the government, ask yourself, does this empower the people, or does it empower the government in the guise of empowering the people? All phony "empower the people" claims are nothing but mob rule.
More importantly, as I am considered a member of the so-called oppressor class of our society, and the supposed target of the legislation the Democrats are continuously attempting to impose on me, I'm not feeling the heat. Their machinations only harm the people who empower the Democrats with their votes, and this is not a bug. It is a feature. Democrats need their constituents scared to keep them voting for them. All scared voters are members of mob rule, which is the only reliable way for tyrants to get elected these days. You cannot empower yourself while empowering the government.
Those on the left claim we on the right are the scared ones, but that is nothing but projection. I don't see democracy as means to empower myself. I certainly don't see voting for the clown show that is the Republican party as anything meaningful, other than to prevent a Democrat from being elected. I maintain my power by decentralization, done by living in a conservative area of a conservative state. I know the government doesn't empower me, and I use the tool of democracy to only vote for those that recognize the same.
The final nail in the idea of democracy as something good is how unAmerican it is. Yes, I went there. As I have noted previously, if an election were held in 1776 on whether we should declare our independence from Great Britain, that idea would have gone down in flames. It took strong men with strong convictions solely focused on what is the right thing to do, and not focused on the methods to accomplish it that resulted in the greatest nation this planet has ever seen. It's no wonder that the people seeking to destroy that greatness use democracy, and specifically mob rule. From the BLM riots, to the university protests in support of Palestine following the Hamas massacres of Israelis, tyrants will do what tyrants always do. Intimidate.
Last year, Matt Walsh of The Daily Wire came out with a documentary titled What is a Woman?
This was his response to all of the men claiming to be actual women, which has led to all kinds of terrible consequences that I won't get into here, because the left refuses to recognize those consequences. The only reason I bring it up is to laugh at all of the lame responses to this question by the supporters of Trans-Women ARE Women
concept. They are at best circular, if they exist at all.
Yet, if we are going to debate the relevance of women voting, wouldn't we have to define what a woman is? When you have a supreme court nominee declare that she isn't a biologist so she couldn't answer what is a woman, how can anyone expect her to defend the rights of women. How can something we can't define be protected?
While there are many valid (IMHO) ways to define a woman that go beyond what someone believes of them self, I want to focus on a couple of definitions that I don't see used in this debate that are more relevant to what I am discussing here. These definitions deal with the dichotomy of the human species, in that they require defining both sides. This is important because no one is asking the question What is a Man?
The first one is a bit obscure, and will need to be elaborated on more later in this page, but it goes: A woman is the gender that requires protection from the other gender.
Beyond the outlandish assumption for this day and age that there are only two genders, this shouldn't be that controversial. Even at the dawn of second wave feminism, when A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle
became a thing, women still recognized that they needed protection from men, but instead of seeking that protection from other men, they chose the government. But in the past few years, things started changing with the rise of the concept of the Girl Boss.
I remember when Tomb Raider with Angelina Jolie came out a couple of decades ago, how awesome it was watching Lara Croft kicking ass and taking names of all of the men. It was a hoot, but in no way was I thinking a woman could actually do what she was doing. I saw the movie as a fantasy, like she was some wizard performing magic. But as time went on, these movies got more and more infected with the notion that women don't need men, and are perfectly capable of protecting themselves.
A good example, as many others have noticed, is the comparison between Mulan the animation with Mulan the live action movie. In the animation she wasn't some Girl Boss. She was an ordinary woman, yet with grit and determination and help from other men, saved the king and kingdom from a Mongol invasion. This was the very definition of a female empowering movie. Not the live action version. In the current political climate, women can't be seen needing men at all. So Mulan is now a boring, unlikable Girl Boss who single handedly (WITH MAGIC!) accomplished... I don't know really, because I couldn't finish the movie. It clearly wasn't for me, but it was for what feminist think girls should want to see.
Before moving on to the next definition, I want it pointed out that this definition explains why no one is asking What is a Man?
It's because men do not need protection from women. Trans-men do not threaten men in anything. They aren't taking anything from us, including any Man of the Year
awards that any actual man would care about. And as for sports, they only risk bodily harm to themselves if they attempt to compete with men.
The other definition that I would like to bring up is going to get me into a lot of hot water, but all I am doing is stating the reality, so don't waste your time shooting the messenger and instead contemplate the ramifications of this obvious truth, which is to compare and contrast the value women vs men. I'm not talking about their value as people or to society. I'm talking about what value a woman has to a man and what value a man has to a woman. Nothing more.
When a woman enters adulthood, she will have no higher value for the rest of her life. There is nothing she could do or accomplish that can ever increase her value to men. In fact, to the kind of men she should want to mate with, these accomplishments (education, career or what ever she does for herself) only reduces her value, because it signals to these men she is hedging her bets. That she wants an easy out down the road. Sounds rough, but all other men, and I repeat ALL other men, could care less about her accomplishments, because all they want is to say what she wants to hear to get into her panties. I'm sure you can think of exceptions, but you are wrong, and I need to explain other things before I can elaborate.
One thing that always gets thrown at me in rebuttal is that a woman can make herself more attractive to men. I would counter that getting the attention of men adds no value, and often detracts from her value if she goes too far and signals she is sexually promiscuous in her effort to attract men. Real beauty has value, but it is the natural kind that only requires a woman to stay healthy and keep a kind heart. This is not an accomplishment. You are born with it or you are not. This may be unfair, but that explains why it is hated by those on the left. I see vastly more women attempting to detract from their natural beauty than I see them respect it.
Men, on the other hand, enter adulthood with almost no value. Women are not interested in young men, and it really has nothing to do with age, because what women value are accomplishments. To be attractive to women, men need to prove that they are good providers and protectors, even in this day and age. I know there are exceptions to what attracts women, but there are no women who value young men for mates.
I have more to say on the value of men and women, but for now, it is so sad watching women throw away their value at its peak by listening to all of the attention they receive from men they should have nothing to do with, and from feminists that say they don't need a man anyway. That's an easy call to make when they are young, but a tragedy when they finally do come around to what should have been important in their lives from the beginning.
I noticed early on in my adulthood that men fell into three basic categories when it comes to their treatment of women, and the labels I placed on those categories have evolved over time. The category of Hero has been stable for a long time, but if I had written this section when I did on my Patriarchy page, I would have labeled the other two as Predator and Feminist. I think it might be good to compare the current names with these older names in order to better describe the categories.
Predator is still an accurate name for the category of men that use and abuse women for their own selfish reasons. The problem with this name is that it implies that these men are only this way to women. Men who need to abuse and belittle women in order to feel good about themselves don't turn around and then act great to guys. It may seem that way, because women don't see that much from them directed towards men, but that is because these men are cowards as well. Most wouldn't dare behave that way to men. Not by choice. Just out of cowardice. That's what makes them monsters. All men who go through life making everyone around them less than they are, can only be described this way.
The feminist label was the one that was the most problematic, and why I left it out of the Patriarchy page (that and the page was already too long). Men that support feminism are not the same as women feminists, so I didn't like using it. Since then, the term Simp became popular, and that word just nails it. A simp is any man that believes, as do all feminists women, that a woman does not need a man. Since they truly believe this, they then believe they need to be something other than a man in order to have a woman in their life. Every decision a woman makes will be nothing but You Go Girl!
from these simps.
Getting back to what I said earlier about what men value in women, Simps honestly believe that their woman can accomplish great things, they just don't value them. Take my daughters as an example. When they got their college degrees, I was quite impressed. They accomplished something great, and I meant it when I told them as such. I just don't value it because their value to me does not change based on whether they got these degrees or not.
Precluding rapists, what monsters and simps have in common is that they don't care about what women accomplish, and will only reply with what the woman wants to hear. They only differ by motive, which no woman will ever really know. And while the harm of a monster will eventually become obvious, the harm of the simp to women is more insidious.
To understand that harm, take for example one of liberal's favorite pastimes, which is to give a homeless beggar the change in their pockets. Liberals love doing this, because it cost very little, yet it buys them so much gratitude. As I have said previously, I can't do that. I know that I would be paying them to live in their squalor. While many homeless people are just scam artists who prefer to live without responsibility, the rest, as I have stated before, what they need more than your money, is the confirmation that they can do no better than they are living on the streets, which is the message they receive with the money that liberals give them.
Simps are no different with the women in their lives. They help feed the delusion that if women acquire what men want to acquire (fame, fortune, accolades etc.) they will have accomplished something meaningful. These simps validate them, but all of these accomplishments are empty of any real meaning. Yet, as much as the feminists believe they don't need men, feminism wouldn't exist without these simps. Just as homelessness would predominately go away if liberals would stop paying them to live on the streets, feminism would shrivel up to nothing but a lesbian cult without simps. All feminists have the most fragile egos, and their simps insure they will stay that way.
The hero is easy to define, and really no different than what is commonly understood. A hero is a man that knows women need to be protected, and then steps in to do so, even when women don't believe that they need to be protected. That last part is only a recent addition, but is very important. As noted earlier, many women now reject needing protection to the point that you can't even show it in movies. I even had one liberal woman counter my claim by saying her husband (a simp IMHO) was her hero. Whether or not a woman sees a man as her hero, plays no part in this definition.
The original label that I had for this classification of men was just Man. In other words, it had no label. I was just defining what it took to be a real man, as opposed to all the other pretenders, and all it took was simple decency. But when women started rejecting basic male expressions of respect, such as holding doors open for women, I saw that it now takes a lot of courage to behave decently. And all men who selflessly act bravely for the protection of other people must be called heroes. And so the label came to be.
That last part of that definition still wasn't needed while women were just rejecting basic chivalry. It was when they got the support from their simps that brought it around, and culminated when Gillette came out with their commercial that (paraphrasing with the definitions presented here) men are either simps or monsters, with nothing in between. Since their business took a major hit from the blowback, they may have backed off on their slander, but I can assure you, simps are on the rise, so now more than ever, we need heroes.
While putting this page together I was going over the plethora of choices I had to use as an example of the evil that befalls women from their simps. It was getting really hard to decide which one would be the best when something dropped in my lap that I couldn't pass up. The man that I have chosen as the example is the football coach of Haley Van Voorhis at Shenandoah University. (Didn't catch his name, but that doesn't matter).
A few weeks ago, I was working on some reports for my work, and I had ESPN's Sport Center on the TV, waiting for the game I wanted to watch that would start in a little while. The volume was down, but the screen was just above my laptop monitor, so out of the corner of my eye, I saw this lame tackle of a quarterback. I probably wouldn't have remembered it all, if it wasn't for the chyron below it that stated this was the first female non-kicker to play college football.
As time went on, all I saw from everyone in the media was how great this was, and what an achievement this meant for women. Yet the more I saw of it, the more I thought how pathetic it was. She made one appearance, and it was when her team was up 26-0. It also showed that she was unblocked, and late. The tackle was way after the quarterback thrown the ball. If that were a guy doing the tackle, he would have had a flag thrown for roughing the passer. As for being unblocked, there is no way that would have happened with a guy, so it had to be a setup. So this was by no means an accomplishment, but it was typical of what passes for an accomplishment among the left.
The culmination of how pathetic this all was, was when I saw her simp coach get interviewed. He went on and on about how she had earned her way onto the field and what an admirable woman she was. It just made me want to puke. How dare he endanger this girl to feed her delusion that she needs to play football.
This is exactly what I mean by harm. Not just physically harmed her, which she would have been if it wasn't for the heroic actions by the guys on the other side not blocking her like they would have if she were a guy, but emotionally as well. This coach, and others close to her, are filling her head with nonsense that she has accomplished something, when no one without an intense political bias could not see she was just making a fool of herself. Her coach should have been encouraging her to participate in sports that others would have legitimate reasons to acclaim she had accomplished something, but instead, there will come a time when all of the false praise will die away, and she will recognize it for what it was. A stunt. All enabled by this simp who couldn't be a hero and told her no.
In this next section I am going to go completely off the rails, and write it much differently than I had planned. I have to after the events of October 7th. Listening to Hamas brag about accounts (who were so proud of their actions they videoed them on GoPro cameras), which included one on attacking a family, killing the husband, raping the wife, then forcing her to watch and listen as her baby was roasted alive in her kitchen oven... listening to this, and many other atrocities demands that I write this differently, as I couldn't live with myself if I did write it as planned.
Along with hearing from men all my life state what a disaster it was to give women the right to vote, I also had to listen to women claim that if they ruled the world there would be no wars. Really? I think it would be very constructive to pick this pronouncement apart to explain how the world is now on the verge of World War III in the fall of 2023.
I'm going to start by conceding that women are correct that wars are indeed started by men. From facts such as these are how all of liberalism's follies get started. What's their plan? Take over the countries that are the ones that don't start the wars? Surely they are not stupid enough to think they can vote out the tyrants that rule the countries that do.
If their plan was to rule the countries that won't be starting any wars, then it is Mission Accomplished!
If democracy is to mean anything, women and their simps have out-voted the rest of Western Civilization to take firm control of it. Even Israel, with its strict gun control laws that left 1500 civilians largely unarmed against the monsters that streamed out of Gaza, is ruled by women and their simps, or liberalism to be precise (the same thing really).
As I have stated in the past, liberlism, and the various other 'isms used to create a fog of misunderstanding what it really is about, is a concept that could be debated honestly at the beginning of the 20th century, but not at the end of it. By then it was a proven disaster over and over again. So what kept it alive?
The destruction of Western Civilization began by women when they decided that it didn't make sense that they should seek protection from men by men. This is the genesis of all that has gone wrong. Since it didn't make sense to select men for protection, yet they still needed it, they decided that it should be the government's responsibility to protect them. This is why liberals are so sure that gun confiscation from private citizens is the right course of action. Their worship of government (yes, liberalism is more a religion than it is a valid political process) requires them to believe that government can protect them, so private ownership of weapons can only lead to tragedy.
It should be noted at this time that women who are strong 2nd Amendment supporters do not reject the protection of men. They just recognize that the government will never be there to protect them when they need it. Until recently there was some capability of government to inflect revenge after a crime was committed, but with what is laughably referred to as justice reform, where thugs walk free because it's racist to detain them, there isn't even that in the major cities controlled by liberals.
So if we are going to debate the rationale of women voting, we need to ask what is the female perspective that is needed in government? Why exactly should women be included in the voting process? What might add insight to this question is to look who our Founding Fathers thought who should vote. It's important to note that there wasn't anyone who thought at the time of our founding that women should vote, but just didn't want to advocate it, like those that were opposed slavery. Many thought slavery was wrong, but to advocate to have it abolished then was not the right thing to do at the time. As for voting rights, there wasn't any thought from any one about women voting, in fact, there wasn't anything about men voting either. What they were focused on was whether they were landowners. A man had to have a stake in their state/country to vote in a responsible manner, so it wasn't gender that mattered, it was whether they could be counted on to vote responsibly.
Going back to how I described the patriarchy on a previous page, I described it as a fact of humanity, like we are bipedal, and fighting against it was analogous to insisting that we crawl on all fours. I also stated that the patriarchy doesn't describe who is in charge, it describes who is responsible. Looking at feminists and their simps who consider the patriarchy as evil and must be eliminated, is there any group of people less responsible for their actions than they are? Nothing that goes wrong is ever their fault, and they certainly don't consider themselves responsible for the unintended consequences of their action.
Do I need to go through the never ending list? How about racism? The demand for racism so far exceeds the supply that liberals have to create race crime hoaxes to satisfy the need for it in this country. My favorite unintended consequence is how liberalism's lack of responsibility has turned hunger in this country into a problem of obesity. And since they can't address how this lack of responsibility led to this very serious health concern, they now have to create a new concern called Food Insecurity.
Since the obese can be insecure about where they will get their next meal, here's a supply that will never not be able to meet the demand.
Of course, the prime lack of responsibility at this time, beyond what liberals have done to increase homelessness while attempting to address it, or turned our cities into criminal hellscapes while trying to address injustice in these fully liberal run cities, is the issue of climate change. As I have said before, while I don't believe it is the crisis they make it out to be, I'm sure man has made some contribution to it. Yet do I believe that Democrats can responsibly deal with it?
ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME!?!
Last year I wrote about how the policies of President Dick Head (I've despised the man since Clarence Thomas' supreme court nomination hearings) led to the invasion of Ukraine, but as we are now about to enter the second year of that war, have you heard anything from the left acknowledging how their polices are responsible for it? Has there been any talk about how releasing our oil industry to Drill Baby Drill
will drive the price of oil down, thus starve Russia of the money they need to wage this war? Of course not. But our liberal overlords sure are quick to label anyone Putin's Puppet
who objects to the billions we are giving to the Ukrainians to fight the war.
Imagine it. Our government could be taking in huge revenues from oil leases, but instead is saddling our great, great, great grandchildren with a monstrous debt to finance a completely ineffectual, yet murderous Green New Deal. There isn't a hint, or a whisper of responsibility coming from the liberals over what this policy has wrought, and there never will be.
And other than the rage-fueled, declarative question above, this is all I had planned to cover on the topic when I began this page. Then the most heinous invasion in human history took place on October the 7th. I've heard of worse being perpetrated, but they were all tales claimed by those being invaded. These, on the other hand, are what the invaders are claiming. And with great pride!
The most evil, corrupt and illegitimate president in American history has two very serious problems with the Iranian financed invasion by Hamas. The first is how his policies made $80 Billion for Iran with oil sales. Unlike Russia, Iran had sanctions lifted so they could make the sales in order to keep oil prices down. I personally would eat a bullet if I knew what I did led to the atrocities of that day, but not this prick. No way. As I write this, it's been a month out since the invasion, but have you heard about any resumption of the sanctions? Everyone knows Hamas would not even exist, let alone be able to pull off this invasion without Iran's backing.
Now that I think about it, I don't think this is a problem for him at all, because the media will have his back. While many of them may be conspiring against him because he is a dottering old fool, keeping oil prices down in order to insure his and his parties election prospects are all that liberals care about.
The other problem is one I don't think they can avoid anymore. The most important mob rule tactic of liberals is pitting the oppressed against the oppressors, with their simple definition of all people who are doing well are the oppressors, and those that aren't, are the oppressed. During the BLM riots they were able to avoid the negative ramifications of this oppressor/oppressed thinking because those involved were just a loose coalition of race hustlers and anarchists. It was easy for the media to ignore them, or when they did report on the riots, they were mostly peaceful protests.
They aren't going to be as lucky this time. The Israelis are the ones that are doing well, and the Palestinians are not. Their liberal minions (not just Muslims) are then coming down hard on the Jews (oppressors) in favor of the Palestinians (oppressed). And these protestors are not going to be placated like the races rioters were when Trump got defeated. Liberals would need to completely dismantle their oppressor/oppressed way of thinking, but that ain't happening. Their power structure is too important for them.
At first I thought Brandon was going to be able to thread the needle by stating firmly his support for Israel, but now he is wavering. The coup de grâce to avoid this coming disaster came when former president Barrak Obama came out with his two-sides comment where he declared that Hamas was wrong to attack Israel on Oct 7th, but then immediately stated that Nobody's hands are clean
in this war. And that what is happening to the Palestinians is Unbearable.
Wrong! What Hamas did was evil. Full Stop! What is happening to the Palestinians is about the survival of the Jewish state brought on by Hamas. Only Hamas is to blame.
There is no turning back now for the protests. Those amongst us that hate Western Civilization smell blood in the water, and they won't go quietly. Israel is compelled to continue to wage this war against Hamas, and the protests the world over are only going to get worse as the antisemites get bolder and bolder.
Getting back on topic, which is discussing this notion that if women ruled the world there wouldn't be any war, this only made sense when we recognized a clear distinction between men and women. In the not too distant past, we saw women as the ones with the good nature, and most importantly, as mothers. That's almost considered a slur this day and age. Yet it's this inherent, and still undeniable urge to be mothers that is at the heart of all of the misery run rampant in the world.
As I discussed on my page about cherishing your soul, if you look at something evil, and then convince yourself you are looking at something good, you damage your soul, which renders you incapable of rational thought. Government exists to force people to do what they wouldn't do of their own free will, so it is nothing but evil. Yet many woman believe they need the government. This need has backed them into a corner where government is their only hope, so it has to be good. And since it has to be good, they are blinded by all of the damage they are causing that is counter to any claim of motherhood.
Do I need to keep listing them? How about we spend more money per capita on our students than any nation on the planet yet produce the worse results. Our children have never been more stupid. It's got so bad, the state of Oregon is dropping any expectation that their students prove they have learned anything meaningful for them to graduate. It's racist, don't ya know!
I could go on and on all day listing them, but I'll end with the one whose damage that will be the hardest to recover from that has been inflicted on our children by these women who reject that their core value is motherhood, and it's the national debt. Our service to that debt is now one trillion dollars a year. This means we are spending one trillion dollars on something that does nothing for us but keep our financial institutions from collapsing. The generations we have saddled with repaying this debt are not the actions of anyone I would call a mother.
Only a generation of women who have completely rejected the beauty and wonder of motherhood, yet at the same time have motherhood be the guiding principles of the Nanny-State they demand of those they elect could achieve the disaster we have in front of us.
It's now time to bottom line this page of my web book. With how much I have disparaged the way women have voted over the past century, I wouldn't blame you for thinking that I would endorse the effort to repeal the 19th Amendment, but I don't, and on three counts.
Count #1: I don't believe in the government. Unlike the women who I have been disparaging here, I don't have any faith that actions taken by the government will improve our lives. The utter failure of what women attempted to accomplish using the government wasn't because they were women. It was because they believe in it. They absolutely needed to be live in it, because they don't see any other option.
Count #2: I am not a victim. I refuse to consider what these women are doing hurts me more than them. There is no possible route to fix these problems that women have wrought on our society that doesn't involve convincing them that their primary victim of what they have done was themselves. Even all of these laws like what happens in a divorce, and how everything favors women so much that they get paid to divorce their husbands. Or how to maximize welfare payments by keeping the father of their children out of their lives, may seem to favor women, but it does no such thing. I refuse to consider that in all but the rarest of cases, women are better off with the money of men than they are with the men themselves.
Count #3. I believe in the patriarchy. As I have said many times over, the patriarchy is not about who is in charge, it's about who is responsible. The government is the exact opposite. It is about who is in charge, and all too often, it's about shifting the responsibility of the voter to the government. And as the high incumbent re-election rate attests, the government will never be held responsible for their actions. Have you ever seen a politician blame themselves?
While the patriarchy has its flaws, and doesn't always produce good outcomes (mainly because evil people will always get you evil outcomes regardless), the patriarchy is the only system known to man that has shown the ability to be responsible for its actions. All attempts at other forms of human organization seek to blame others for their failures, and at the top of that list is feminism.
So the problem we actually have isn't the way many women are voting, but that there are too few men that support the patriarchy. I would say the majority of men do, but silently. The extreme blowback Gillette got with their You need to be a Simp to be a man
campaign shows men aren't buying what they are selling. Yet, the basis of their campaign wasn't wrong. There really are way too many monsters these days, and they were right to point that out, but they don't see the third option, which is to be a hero, and most tragically, they don't see the harm they cause women as simps. Not just how I laid out previously, but their role in creating the monsters as well, and that campaign is at the top of that list. Faced with the binary choice of simp or monster, most have chosen to be monsters.
So what do we, proud members of the patriarchy, do about it? Our time honored method of turning boys into men has been taken away from us by modern society. It used to be that a boy didn't become a man until he married and took on the responsibility of a family. That's not an option these days. Women need to find themselves,
whatever that means. I put that in quotes because other than a few simps, there no men that need to find themselves. What we lack is a purpose, and without a constructive role to assume, we will assume a destructive role.
Since we can't become men the traditional way, we then need to promote more heroes. Men that will step forward and proudly declare for the patriarchy, and because of the near universal rejection of that term, it will take courage to do so. Hens the name hero.
We start by teaching our boys that the low value they have entering adulthood is actually a blessing, considering that the high value women have is a curse. Don't get lost on how unfair it may seem that boys will have to earn their value, because through their efforts, they will then be far better situated for a good life later on, assuming they don't fall into the trap of becoming a monster. By contrast, the high value women have on entering adulthood is their trap.
This is why we need heroes more than ever. A hero doesn't act based on his short term wants or desires, but on what it takes to have a better life later on. And he isn't going to blame women for something they have no responsibility for, and are actually victims of it. It takes a hero to step in to show women that the monsters and simps in their lives, who need women to see themselves as high value without earning it, do not have their best interest at heart.
The vast majority of women won't appreciate it, but that is what really makes you a hero. You are going to protect them, even when they don't want it.
Before I end this page, I want to present a confrontation I had a while back with a marine sergeant, as it demonstrates the complexity of this issue. It wasn't my most proudest of moments, but its something that needs to be said.
Shortly after the debacle that was our withdrawal from Afghanistan that needlessly killed 13 service members, I was talking to a couple of other guys about how this wouldn't have happened if Trump were still president. It was then this uniformed female marine sergeant stepped in and decided to set us straight.
I can't recall the entire harangue, but it started off with Trump was the one that initiated the withdrawal (as if he would have bungled it this badly). It led into how she became a marine. She joined just after the Obama administration opened up all of the military job classifications thus allowing women in combat positions. Little did she know that this didn't necessarily lead to women serving on the front lines where she wanted to be.
While things were initially progressing towards her being put in combat, they clearly took a step backwards when Trump got elected. There were no official policy changes, but the atmosphere was all wrong. Then Biden got elected, and now things are back on course to be the kind of military we can be proud of, where are person's qualifications are the only factors that matter, and not the prejudices of a bygone era. Blah blah blah
If you know marines like I do, they can be some really annoying and arrogant asses, and she was no exception. She rubbed me all the wrong way, so instead of keeping my mouth shut, and thanking her for her service, I lit into her.
I told her that I didn't care what kind of badass she thought she was, what matters is what do our enemies think? They look at her and laugh. More importantly, she doesn't scare them, and when our enemies are not scared of us, they attack. While we may eventually prevail, many men are going to needlessly die, all because our military is more focused on social justice, rather than being laser focused on being lethal.
There was more to my rant, and while I meant all that I said to her, I deeply regret that I left her with the impression that I was blaming her. I'm sure she believes she was only doing her patriotic duty. Who I actually blame are all command rank officers in our military. It is their patriotic duty I reject, not hers. I'm sure there may be a few simps among those officers that believe women can be just as good as men in combat, but the rest know better. This makes them monsters. They only care about their careers, and not on what is best for all in their command and our nation.
The real sad part is what I found doing some research on this subject. I'm not in the military, nor do I know anyone who still is, so for all I know, things are going great with women in the military. Paying closer attention to those articles that were all in favor of women in combat (and there were quite a few), they all had the same complaint on what is limiting women in the military. The greatest danger to her is not in combat against the enemy, but the sexual assaults these women experience by their fellow soldiers.
What is so sad is that this shouldn't be a big mystery. In our current political climate, we expect our soldiers to be simps, because we expect them to see women as just as capable as men, and then are shocked that many have selected to be monsters instead. I don't see how we are supposed to protect women when we don't recognize they need protecting.
Then there is the question of why do we need women in combat roles? In all of these articles I read, I couldn't find anything that didn't boil down to women are being dishonored by being denied combat roles. Really? I served eight years in the Navy as an Electronics Technician repairing radar and communications equipment. I was no warrior, but do you think my service was any less honorable than those that were?
This shit has gotten so bad that I was listening to this feminist on TV saying that our putting men on the moon was meaningless until we put women there as well. WTF!?!
There is no hope that feminists demands will ever be achieved, because it is based on a complete denial of reality. Women are so special and unique from men, and until we recognize that they are actually being dishonored when we don't recognize that uniqueness, there will be no honor open for women or men.
There is nothing nice about combat, and if you expect victory, it needs to be viscous and brutal. We've tried simping our military, and now millions are dying in this world specifically because our enemies don't fear us. Some are dying in such unspeakable horror because of it.
If we want peace in this world, we need our men to be viscous killers, so that our enemies will fear us, and we need our women to support them, so that they don't become monsters from it. These are clear and distinct roles that are the only ones that will produce any honor at all.