THEORYWhy Feminism Destroys Nations (self.RedPillWomen)

submitted by LadyLumen

Read the article here:


Patriarchy and family is the baseline that holds up civilizations. There is no major civilization that has existed in the world that was not a patriarchy. As feminism erodes the patriarchy, it is also eroding the fundamentals of a society that keeps its members productive and safe.

[–]Gardrothard 11 points12 points  (4 children)

Most of women's blogs are their hamsters working hard.

-Bunch of blogs of women saying how happy they are because they choose not to have kids, rationalizing focusing on a career, their divorces, and single motherhood. -I have yet to see a blog/book of a woman justifying getting married, caring for her children and so on.

The conclusion is pretty clear.

Before feminism: Man works, woman takes care of the family. This leaves her enough time to do hobbies, charity work, read and anything else she wants. Their kids are able to grow into normal and good people who will continue to contribute to society because they have a healthy environment. A man is able to support a whole family without being a CEO or something similar.

After feminism: Both parents are working 40+ hours a week just to make the ends meet. Children are left on their own and anyone can put any ideas they want into their heads because parents just don't have the energy to focus on that too. Women are unable to focus on any charity work, hobbies or any pleasure activities because they barely have time as it is.

The end result? Now two people work a lot more and they end up having less money to spend. They also have less time to focus on children and many of them end up being fucked up. If there was someone at home who would read books to them, play with them, teach them things instead of letting children just stare at their phones and computers all day mindlessly browsing social networks maybe the autism, attention deficit disorders, depression and other things wouldn't be on the rise. General health is going down because nobody has time to cook proper meals and take time to relax or do some physical activities. And this is all assuming you end up having a family...

But that isn't surprising at all, in fact it just takes a little bit of brain to see that would be the result of doubling the work force. If men give commitment in order to get sex, and women give sex in turn for commitment everything works. If women start giving away sex to anyone then the price of sex goes down - therefore the hookup culture. Again, you didn't have to be a rocket scientist to predict that.

But I don't care much about them, if they want to eliminate themselves from gene pool and leave me with better options - good for them, I sure don't mind that. The thing that worries me is that the game has completely changed, and that the old strategies women used aren't optimal anymore. Withholding sex seems like a good strategy, but when men have lost faith in commitment and have the option of getting laid whenever they want it's far from optimal.

I agree with RPW, but there are many problems with this strategy, in fact TRP and RPW strategies are the complete opposites and aren't at all compatible, they don't work together as well as they could. RPW strategy says that woman should withhold sex because otherwise she might end up as a plate. On the other hand, TRP man would next this girl right away, because from his perspective it will look like friend-zoning. Again, staying at home to take care of the family these days can be very easily misinterpreted as gold digging. On one side, it's preferable for man to provide and leave woman an option of caring for children and make sure they grow up well, on the other side this arrangement is to risky because of divorce rape... And so on.

The problem here lies in the fact that RPW and TRP are strategies that are based on the behavior of general population, a reaction to the behavior of most people. On the other hand, red pill men seem to be looking for red pill women and vice versa. I think that both strategies need to reconsider themselves, to adjust themselves so they'd suit those who are their focus group. Don't get me wrong, both strategies are good and they work, I'm just saying that they are still far from optimal ones, and need some fixing. So far they are "reaction" strategies, and I think that it's time to consider adding "action" rules too.

[–]VigilantRedRoosterModerator 7 points8 points  (1 child)

TRP and RPW strategies are the complete opposites and aren't at all compatible, they don't work together as well as they could. RPW strategy says that woman should withhold sex because otherwise she might end up as a plate.

They are entirely compatible because they draw from the same body of theory and praxis.

You're making a false dichotomy out of the differing strategies of men and women. TRP teaches men not to overcommit in exchange for not enough sex. RPW teaches women not to offer sex in exchange for not enough commitment. This is a conflict only when the individuals in a couple have differing relationship goals.

By vetting prospects carefully, most relationship risks and problems can be minimized.

[–]Gardrothard 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"This is a conflict only when the individuals in a couple have differing relationship goals." I agree with this. Good point, the strategies work perfectly well when both parties are in fact interested in relationship.

The problem lies in the fact that any intelligent and experienced men would probably end up not wanting a relationship in this kind of situation. And why would he? The chances of getting normal and functioning marriage that will last and justify his investment are minimal. Let's say 1% of women out there are marriage material and would provide what they should. It's very possible for man to date and never run into one. Unfortunately, unless he has a really strong urge to have children, this experience combined with bad experiences of his peers is very often enough to make him eliminate any kind of LTR goals. Once he decided this even those marriage material women have a good chance of never being noticed by him. Such man would next her without giving her enough time to show what she brings.

[–]LadyLumen[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I also agree with you that the whole stay-at-home mom practice was a good thing. I'd love it if my boyfriend could support me with his salary and I didn't have to work. Hell I wouldn't mind cleaning the place for that. I'm a very independent person, and I'd find lots of things to do to fill up my time. Volunteer, write, play music (and it would be all that much better because today we have the internet and video games).

[–]LadyLumen[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I don't really think RPW is about with-holding sex, I think it's more about not giving it away for free. When RPW talk about sex in the context of marriage or a relationship, they're totally sex positive. In fact, they promote women having sex with their boyfriends and husbands. But when a woman has sex with every dude she meets, or just gives it away like on the first date, that does bring her closer to plate-hood. Because she's not taking the time to actually get to know the guy, and letting the guy get to know her, before they have sex.

[–]PantheraTigris95 27 points28 points  (10 children)

I really like the paragraph under "Feminism creates a class of women not worth protecting".

It should follow that the decision to give up your femininity also means you give up the rights/privileges you enjoy as a female. Trying to have the perceived 'best of both worlds' doesn't work for the individual or society.

[–]LadyLumen[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Exactly. It's having your cake and eating it.

[–]HavingTrouble892016 1 point2 points  (7 children)

That's a really good way of putting it. I feel like all of us want to be protected and benefitting from chivalry, and it feels pretty deeply ingrained, but that doesn't make sense if we're supposed to be the same as men. If we can't have it both ways...

[–][deleted]  (2 children)


    [–]HavingTrouble892016 11 points12 points  (1 child)

    I'll be honest, I was definitely one of those. I wanted men to protect women, pay for dates, hold doors, and also wanted to be treated the same as a man. Reading this sub sort of slapped me in the face with my own hypocrisy.

    [–]LadyLumen[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    Yeah, I'm a hypocrite too. I'll admit it.

    [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (3 children)

    In her book, Helen Andelin had described it as, "even if you can kill your own snakes, you should still let him do it so he feels useful" or something like that, I'm paraphrasing, but I think society today really illustrates her point. Women have gotten used to and prefer to kill their own snakes. As a result, men don't feel needed.

    I just said this in another post earlier today, if two people can do the same job, one is redundant.

    [–][deleted]  (1 child)


      [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

      Also a good point!

      [–]LadyLumen[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      I get my boyfriend to kill bugs for me sometimes, even though I'm actually better at it.

      [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      That was my favorite line as well.

      [–]Rommel0502 23 points24 points  (3 children)

      IMO feminism is just another tool used by governments to get its populace dependent upon it rather than themselves. You keep people dependent on a government, that ensures a good supply of vote buying and long term survival of the government itself.

      Just look at the trends in the destruction of the family unit and the metaphorical castration of men since the 60s. As feminism and entitlements have risen, the family unit has suffered almost in lock step. Dont be deceived by political double talk - the fractured family unit is exactly what they want as it creates dependency on the government. Its been working.

      [–]loneliness-incEndorsed Contributor 6 points7 points  (1 child)

      That's exactly what the Russians did. After the fall of the Soviets, they were left with a fatherless nation raised by single mothers.

      [–]LadyLumen[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

      I think that's why Traditionalism is on the rise in Russia today. They've already been through the vision of Feminists of an "egalitarian" society, and they know that it is a nightmare.

      [–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (4 children)

      I agree that TRP is just making the most of the decline, and does not actually solve the problem. The problem isn't just feminism either, although that is something that, when it arises, does so at the decline phase of a civilization, and hastens its end (http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/glubb.pdf). Feminism is in its own 'axis of evil' with Social Justice and Cultural Marxism.

      However, it is clear that government and big business are, and always have been, behind feminism. Without an outright revolution it is hard for any individual man to stand up to that kind of opposition. The real answer is to form a family and have children, but that is the very thing that feminists have successfully attacked (https://womenformen.org/2014/09/03/mallory-millet-sister-of-feminist-kate-millett-exposes-the-damage-left-in-feminisms-wake/ http://national.deseretnews.com/article/4535/us-marriage-rate-hits-new-low-and-may-continue-to-decline.html https://realtruth.org/news/070302-002-societylifestyles.html).

      "who will protect these women? Or want to protect these women?" Who indeed, certainly not me, but I see feminism as women's problem. It is a biological fact that while women are very strongly own-sex biased, men are not - they are biased in favour of women (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15491274). How else could feminism make any headway at all when it is so clearly anti-male? How could women have got the vote when there were no female politicians to vote in favour of it? Even now they are in the minority, yet things like no-fault divorce and ever more draconian fem-centric laws like 'man-spreading', biased university entry and employment hiring (so-called 'positive' discrimination, aka discrimination) are introduced. Only by a majority of women being in opposition could this be reversed, and it is women in general that have lost value because of feminism, and made less happy (http://www.nber.org/papers/w14969). As this article says (https://voxday.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/the-bitter-harvest-of-feminism.html), so far it has been men and children that have born the cost of feminism; it is only just that women now shoulder the cost, don't you think? The marriage strike is part of that, as is an increasing disenchantment with women generally, evidenced by the growing manosphere.

      As for "Some feminist goals like the punishment of rape and domestic violence, along with allowing women to pursue education and physical fitness are good for society." I would have to take issue. Rape and domestic violence was always punished, but it was done more justly before feminists got involved. In fact, nearly every good thing that feminism takes credit for was not achieved by feminism. For example, businesses wanted women in the workforce because it kept labour rates down (for the same reason businesses are all for immigration now). In the UK, for example, most of the equality laws were introduced in the 1960s, before Kate Millet and Germaine Greer published their books which really kicked off second wave. As for education, that is all very well when society is rich enough to pay for half the population spending years getting useless degrees rather than having a family, and not once feminists start destroying education for everyone (http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/06/oxfords-new-feminist-hit-squad/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfzUG70nN6k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLvlB7l9rok http://www.angryharry.com/Flooded-By-False-Rape-Allegations.htm http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2015/06/05/mattress-girl-emma-sulkowicz-just-released-a-sex-tape-heres-my-review/). At this point, I have concluded that co-education has been a failure, and the sexes should be separated at all levels if it is to be workable again.

      But, as Glubb points out, civilizations in decline never seem to wake up to the obvious and do what they need to do (Cf Byzantine Empire). I don't see feminism going away until society collapses, and all these strong, independent womyn who 'don't need no man' suddenly find that they do.

      (as an aside, top marks to the site for the John William Waterhouse paintings)

      [–]LadyLumen[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

      You're probably right. Feminism probably won't go away until society collapses, or some other major thing happens. And you are right, feminism probably won't go away until women start fighting it.

      [–]mistixs 0 points1 point  (2 children)

      But if there's no co-education, how are kids gonna learn how to deal with the opposite sex?

      Also, what do you think the world will look like when western civilization declines? Do you think it'll be dead in our lifetime? What will happen to those of us who currently live in western civilization?

      [–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (1 child)

      But if there's no co-education, how are kids gonna learn how to deal with the opposite sex?

      You mean, men and women didn't know how to get along before the last couple of decades? Relations between the sexes have improved since we had co-ed? I must have missed that.

      Also, what do you think the world will look like when western civilization declines?

      Did you read the Glubb reference? It puts things into historical context. Also, Huntington's The Clash of Civilizations is worth a read. I think it is common for people in an established and successful civilization to think it will never end. Pretty sure that the Romans thought so, even while decrying the latest generation, as did the Persians, the Ottomans, the Marmalukes; as do we. But they never do last indefinitely, they go through stages, and it is possible to identify features of each stage and see where we lie. Western civilization, it seems to me, is passing wealth and decadence and coming firmly into the decline phase. The dominant memes are basically suicidal to a civilization.

      When an empire or civilization ends, it does so in one of two ways, generally. First, it might be overrun by a new emerging power. This happened to the Byzantine Empire, the Marmalukes, the Babylonians, the Persians, amongst many others. Some, such as Rome, fell to barbarians and entered a Dark Age.

      Now ask yourself, of the civilizations around, which one is a physical threat to the West? Not China, they are a financial threat, of course, but their overseas ambitions are limited. Not India, not any African nation. Islam is the threat, as the millions of refugees pouring into Europe and the increasing number of attacks against civilians shows. But Islam is no longer what it was at the time of the Baghdad Caliphate, by modern standards it is barbarism. If you are unsure about this, take a look around the world. Yemen, Somalia, Central African Republic, Mali, Sudan, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, everywhere there is violence and intolerance. Huntington wrote that Islam has bloody borders, and bloody insides, too. Wherever Islam comes into contact with another culture there is violence: India, Chechnya, Israel, Northern Kenya, Mindanao, Western China, Nigeria, etc.

      So what happens in Western Europe this century (within 50 years)? Civil war, basically, given the numbers involved. From my perspective, it looks pretty grim. This is what happens when a nation is destroyed, it isn't pretty. What will women do? What they have always done (https://therationalmale.com/2011/10/03/war-brides/ https://therationalmale.com/2016/02/03/the-war-brides-of-europe/)

      I don't think all of the West will fall this century, but most of it will. Eastern Europe and Russia will likely stand, since they seem more awake. The US may have a chance as it is geographically isolated and may learn from what happens in Europe, but the economy will be shot. 1930 will be nothing.

      [–]LadyLumen[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      I can agree with a lot of this.

      I don't think Islam alone is the problem. Because remember, Russia has a much higher population of muslims than most Western countries.

      The problem is that when a culture stops protecting its own values, it falls prey to the more dominant culture. I.e. Russia can have population that is 15% muslim and survive, because the majority of Russians have pride in their culture and traditions.

      But the people in Western Europe who have swallowed the feminist coolaid and now hate themselves...I predict two different things will happen. Some parts of Europe will basically transform into countries like Bulgaria and Albania, which are nations that have a mix of European and Muslim values, and have also had some bloody violence. Other parts of Europe will probably become very right wing and nationalistic in backlash to the current failures of the West. Think Nazi Germany and fascist Italy. I predict there will probably be less antisemitism and all out racism in these new nationalistic states, but muslims will probably become a target of hatred.

      Overall I think the center of gravity in world affairs in the coming century will be an alliance between Russia, China and Iran. Eurasia will be the emerging world super power. Already America is driving Russia and China together with its aggressive policies. China will be a powerhouse because of their success in genetics and biotechnology research (which they are dominating in right now), and Russia will contribute to Eurasian dominance with their knowledge of space exploration (because they are currently doing the most with funding of space exploration and what not...I mean, the U.S. is currently relying on Russia to put its satellites into space).

      I also think Eastern Europe and East Asia are cultures that have more women's rights than backwards and barbaric places like in the Middle East and Africa, but they still have the traditionalism to hold society together. They are basically like societies that embraced First wave feminism and some of the second wave, without going through third wave feminism.

      [–]rprollerEndorsed Contributor 5 points6 points  (8 children)

      Sweden comes to mind

      The last video isn't actually real, but the misandry is quite prevalent.

      [–]LadyLumen[S] 6 points7 points  (7 children)

      Someone on YouTube summarized Sweden well by saying "Sweden is tumblr, the country."

      I think this video is a good summary of Feminism in action. Feminism does not care about men, it despises beta men. That's why feminists are so quick to mock "nice guys" or "creepy guys," who are just dorky guys who don't know how to talk to women (not necessarily bad people).

      You'll notice that Swedish feminists are not saying much about the Middle Eastern and North African men who are coming to their country, and actually doing misogynistic shit like raping and oppressing women. Swedish women would rather police their own men for doing things like "manspreading" on the train, or "mansplaining" how to drive somewhere.

      This is because Feminism isn't actually "brave." If Feminists were actually brave, and actually gave a shit about protecting women, they would be willing to stand up to rapists, instead of holding up signs that say "I prefer rapists to racists." Right wing Swedish men are a much safer target than radical Islamists (who would actually retaliate).

      I have to give FEMEN credit though, in that they at least aren't hypocritical, and actually do have the gonads to go out and protest both Christian and Islamic patriarchy. So at least their ideology is internally consistent.

      But the rest of Feminism is just a gravy train for women who want to fuck Alphas, while having the state be their Beta male provider.

      I bet many of these Swedish women would fuck and marry more chauvenistic male immigrants, out of contempt for their own men, who they turned into Betas.

      [–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (2 children)

      You'll notice that Swedish feminists are not saying much about the Middle Eastern and North African men who are coming to their country, and actually doing misogynistic shit like raping and oppressing women.

      Not just in Sweden, the Saudi Arabia of Feminism. In the UK, when it finally came out about the muslim rape gangs that were operating in Rochdale, Rotherham, Aylesbury, Oxford, etc, involving over 1,000 young girls, feminists were in complete denial. They refused to accept that it was immigrants that did this (when one young girl refused to obey them the gang nailed her tongue to a table, that is the level of barbarity we are talking about). Instead, they still wanted to blame British men for 'rape culture' on a television debate about it. It showed pretty clearly that feminists don't actually care about women, or rape victims, they only care about their hatred of the mythical patriarchy.

      [–]LadyLumen[S] 2 points3 points  (1 child)

      Yeah I heard about this. The police let this go on for 10 years because they were "afraid of being racist." Can you believe this shit? They'd rather let gangs of men brutalize young girls than get accused of being a racist. That is stupid and evil. I'm not against immigrants, but I think if countries let people do whatever they want without enforcing the law, (and I'm talking about any group of people), they will become brutes.

      That is the problem with many liberals. With quotes like "love wins" they just assume that the only evil in the world is white males, and thus applying the law equally to someone who is not white is apparently some kind of evil racism.

      In reading those stories I was also wondering, "Where are these girls fathers?" I think this is a case of how the increasing disposability of men in society is leaving young girls vulnerable to predators.

      My dad isn't perfect, but if this shit had happened to me as a kid, and the police didn't do anything, he'd be at the police station with a torch in his hand, ready to burn down the place.

      [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

      "Where are these girls fathers?"

      Very salient point. In some cases the 'father' was the State. They were very good at getting children out of care homes. In others, the parents did try to do something, but were themselves arrested, because you know, islamophobia, or something. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11057647/Rotherham-sex-abuse-scandal-1400-children-exploited-by-Asian-gangs-while-authorities-turned-a-blind-eye.html

      That is just Rotherham, it happened in a lot of other cities, too, with the same fear of 'islamophobia' and 'racism' preventing these young girls from getting the protection they deserved. Truly sickening. Here is Delingpole's article on it http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=110968 and here is the BBC debate when feminists refused to acknowledge what was in front of them and wanted to put the blame on British men https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7JmVwMNq4c

      When you have a meme where feminists and SJWs can freely put down their own men and their own civilization, but nobody is allowed to speak about an aggressive and invasive culture, then the society is on a path to suicide.

      [–]LadyLumen[S] 2 points3 points  (1 child)

      It's a real shame because there are things I really like about Sweden, despite their Feminist crazy.

      [–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

      I hadn't realized there was a country more crazy than mine about the whole feminist craze.

      [–]Highly_Tingled 3 points4 points  (0 children)

      the rest of Feminism is just a gravy train for women who want to fuck Alphas, while having the state be their Beta male provider.

      Very well said, in my opinion. :)

      [–]Highly_Tingled 5 points6 points  (1 child)

      Thank you OP and RPW for embracing the hypocrisy and inconvenient truths of modern day feminism. I knew there had to be some women out there who get it :) . You have ignited a bit of hope in me , for now ......

      [–]LadyLumen[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      You are welcome!

      [–]Sy87 5 points6 points  (10 children)

      I like the idea of a responsibility/rights solution. That's why I'm pro women in the army. It's catching up on the responsibility that we have been missing. (Actually I'm pro mandatory military service for everyone, for just a ton of reasons.) If a woman works, pay half the damn dinner bill. Tit for tat, that's the societal change we need.

      Edit: Misspelling

      [–]Submissively_yours 13 points14 points  (3 children)

      I don't want to be in the army. I want to be a housewife. Please bring gender roles back :(

      [–]HavingTrouble892016 4 points5 points  (0 children)

      I agree with you about not wanting to be in the army, but I'm not sure that military service for both genders necessarily means no gender roles. During WWII women were in the military, but they served in support roles which I think worked well and freed up men to serve in more active roles that were needed. It's just complimentary roles in a different context. That said, I think that's more a measure for drastic times.

      [–]Highly_Tingled 2 points3 points  (0 children)

      You are the coolest.

      [–]LadyLumen[S] 3 points4 points  (1 child)

      I agree. Rights must be proportional to responsibilities.

      [–]mistixs 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      So men don't deserve guaranteed equal rights over their kids because they didn't endure the equal responsibility of pregnancy?

      PS does anyone know how to add flair on mobile?

      [–]mistixs 2 points3 points  (3 children)

      Studies show that men benefit more from dating women than vice versa. So the man has to compensate somehow. Thus it's not "tit for tat" for women to have to pay half the bill.

      Also military studies show that women in combat decreases miltary efficiency. But who cares about winning the war right?

      [–]Sy87 0 points1 point  (2 children)

      First, show me one of these studies. Secondly, Isreal's army seems to be doing just fine. "The number of wars and border conflicts in which the IDF has been involved in its short history makes it one of the most battle-trained armed forces in the world." From Wikipedia. Thirdly, I think the advantages gained to the general public from such a program would at least be equal to the advantages of winning a war (on terrorism? Drugs?).

      [–]mistixs 1 point2 points  (1 child)

      The Israel army is very different from ours. Also, they draft women, but not into combat.

      & Yes, Israel has a very strong military! You know whose military is even stronger? The US. http://www.businessinsider.com/these-are-the-worlds-20-strongest-militaries-ranked-2015-9

      And military studies in the US show that including women in combat decreases military efficiency.


      I think the advantages gained to the general public from such a program

      Drafting women into combat?

      Look. Women already have PTSD rates of 12%, 2x as high as men. Imagine, if women were drafted into combat, how much higher the PTSD rates would be for women? (Especially considering the rape epidemic in the military.)

      That would be detrimental to the general public, because it would mean a good portion of our next generation of leaders will have been raised by traumatized mothers, and mothers' mental illness has been shown to have a more negative impact on children than fathers'.

      [–]francinerose 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Yah we also pay for Israelis army We give them billions of dollars

      Also women are more stressed out and more unhappy because they lack men

      It's a yin and yang lifestyle

      [–]francinerose 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Feminist want their cake and eat it too

      Demand to work and have paid maternity leave

      Which is forcing others to pay for the patriarchy that women should be at home to take care of the child

      [–]HeatseekingLogicBomb 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      This is kind of like, figuring out the maximum way to loot a store while a crime riot is going on, instead of stopping the riot.

      No argument here in the sense of, it's not a concerted "positive solution" effort. But it never will be. You described it accurately, it's an adaptation strategy discussion. So, TRP doesn't recommend anything. It just says how to go about getting what it is you want. Following the logic of men being less committed, more men being TRP and MGTOW, things eventually change course, but not in a positive fashion (economic collapse). And we've already seen some close calls. Granted economics is far more complex than that, or at least, the recession waves are, but it will only be harder to foster recovery from such waves as we go along.

      Also granted, "feminism burning it's host out", is possible in another fashion... men not caring to defend the society anymore, like you said. Which is where Europe is at. But you basically covered these things. Nice article.

      I will point out, as some others have said, "it used to be that men worked and provided, now both have to". That isn't strictly Feminism's fault. That's economics as well, and the devaluation of currency.

      [–][deleted]  (2 children)


      [–]LadyLumen[S] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

      I don't think patriarchy necessarily means that women can't get the most they want out of life. Patriarchies can change and evolve over time, as we gain more understanding of human nature and sexuality. If anything, patriarchy has a lot to offer women. The stability of a functional society. Egypt was one of the longest lasting civilizations in history, and women in Ancient Egypt had many rights along with high fertility rates -- but Egypt still a patriarchal civilization.

      I think people need to realize that patriarchy is a spectrum (after all, the U.S. is a patriarchy when you think about the fact that the main mechanism of governance and business is still controlled by men). Patriarchy doesn't automatically equal Saudi Arabia or ISIS -- i.e. a civilization where women have no rights whatsover and need male approval for every aspect of their lives.

      The rough definition of a patriarchy is a system in which men preside over the mechanisms of control in society -- i.e. men are the predominant members of government, business and heads of the house. This doesn't have to equal third world barbarism, like what we see in Saudi Arabia.

      As a woman myself, I like the idea of women having more room to grow/learn/improve themselves as human beings.

      My problem is with the 3rd wave feminist notion that any kind of perceived inequalities/differences between men and women are seen as an evil. Sameness is seen as strength, while difference is seen as weakness. But this type of thinking is antithetical to nature.

      [–]redesignfeelings 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Feminism Was Created To Destabilize Society

      tldr: Government could not TAX 50% of population before women's liberation

      [–]Mentioned_Videos -1 points0 points  (0 children)

      Videos in this thread:

      Watch Playlist ▶

      Society for Cutting Up Men, SCUM 5 - Sweden comes to mind The last video isn't actually real, but the misandry is quite prevalent.
      (1) Campus Speech Bullies - The real face of feminism (2) Schools deliberately targeting boys - the War against boys 4 - I agree that TRP is just making the most of the decline, and does not actually solve the problem. The problem isn't just feminism either, although that is something that, when it arises, does so at the decline phase of a civilization, and hastens its...
      Feminism Was Created To Destabilize Society 2 - Feminism Was Created To Destabilize Society tldr: Government could not TAX 50% of population before women's liberation

      I'm a bot working hard to help Redditors find related videos to watch.

      Info | Get it on Chrome / Firefox