TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

0
0

During the introduction of her book, The Second Sex, Simone de Beauvoir asks a question she doesn't attempt to answer (there, anyway): “where does the submission in woman come from?”. Submission here, refers to the submission to accept the identities that men decide for women. In his book David and Goliath, Malcolm Gladwell reveals that even today, positions of power are primarily occupied not by just men, but by tall men (except when such a position is located in France). Women are on average smaller and weaker than men. I posit that the reason for woman's submission over the ages is simply because big and strong intimidates, and therefore dominates, small and weak (men have always been bigger than women).

In his book How Brands Grow, Byron Sharp explains how … brands grow. A few findings from the book: Most customers are not really loyal to a particular brand. A brand's market share is largely determined by the portion of people who buy a category product sometimes and then choose that brand at that particular time. The larger the market share of a particular brand, the higher the percentage of people who buy it more often ('more loyal' customers). This is an example of a fundamental law discovered in consumer behavior, it's called the 'Double Jeopardy Law'. In short: the larger you are, the more benefits you have. The smaller you are, the less benefits you have. Brand advertising works. A brand that continually advertises itself sells more. A brand that stops advertising, will see its market share gradually drop.

My personal theory behind findings like these is the same very simple one: the more a brand dominates a culture, the more people will buy it. The conclusion here is the same as before: people submit to big and strong.

So it seems that whatever the situation, people submit to big and strong.

Feminism is big and strong.

In the same introduction, de Beauvoir argues that women have their identities assigned to by men. Let's suppose this is true, that is... there is some kind of Patriarchy. Her argument seems to be simple: in order to escape male 'oppression' these identities must time and time again be refused whenever men try to assign them. This part of feminism I personally have no problem with (outside the bedroom).

There is another part of feminism that is worrisome: women have hijacked the gender debate by basically doing to us what we have supposedly been doing to them (push identities onto us). We are privileged if we are rich (losers if we are not). We are often portrayed as mindless rapists. We are stupid and incapable of compassion. Even if it is true that the male narrative used to dominate gender roles, if anything has changed, it is now the female narrative that dominates (and it is no better).

This part is worrisome because if there was a Patriarchy, there is now a Matriarchy. It gives women the power to do to us what has been done to them. Personally, I think it is human nature to try to shape the world to our own advantage. Daniel Kahneman has shown us that human beings operate on an emotional level by default (our animal brain is still running the show). So I am not very angry about this as much as I am alerted and defensive. And it is exactly the reason that should enable us to liberate ourselves. Every time a woman tries to assign to us the identity of a privileged individual, a loser, only a real man if we are strong and successful and so on we must stubbornly refuse it. Because that might be the real 'toxic masculinity' and it could turn us men into the women of the 21st century.

I think the basis for solving this problem is simple: we simply copy successful feminist strategies. We must assert our own identities. Even if we cannot control women anymore, we can always control what we do. Your wife wants to be richer? Let her work for it. Your wife does not want to put out? Let her find a new man.

Of course we could possibly go further, we are still the physically and economically dominant gender (but we won't be soon) so we still have some leverage. And we are men. We love power. And why shouldn't we have it? After all, we are talking about liberation here. Every man loves being the boss. There's hardly any question. So... given this reality. What do we do? Do we let women have their way and confine this ideal to the bedroom?

It is possible... probable that something that like that will happen. They say marriage is compromise. Well, the global marriage between man and woman is in crisis. In Japan men and women are not even bothering with each other anymore, career is most important. Predictions are that the Japanese population will shrink and eventually disappear if it continues like this. A compromise it seems, is necessary if we are to survive.

The question then is how, how will we compromise? What things are we willing to sacrifice? Which do we absolutely want to keep? Do we want more from women than we are currently getting? Do they have too much for themselves now? Should women be allowed to have children without men? In discussions about relationship, I think all these things are fair game. And this whole gender debate is a relationship between man and woman issue (no matter how much the independent / delusional woman will deny it).

But before we can even compromise, we must negotiate. And before we can negotiate, we must know what we want. So, men, what do we want? What do we want for ourselves?


[–]Arahkne0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Compromise is impossible, because feminists don't want to compromise with us, because (as you stated) feminism is currently dominant. Why would feminists want to settle for a tie when all-out victory is within their grasp?

[–]RP-on-AF10 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Red pill men will already get what they want with women by smashing through the feminist illusion.

You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2024. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter