I’ve said before that I can sympathize with a lot of first wave feminism. Women had automatic value and special protection, but this came with a cost. Women were a dependent of their fathers, handed over to their husbands. Women were forced to deal with any mistreatment her husband gave her, simply because there was no where else to go. She either moved back in with her parents, assuming they were still alive (remember people didn’t live that long back in those days), or she could live homeless. There weren’t a lot of job opportunities for women in the 1800’s. She could be married or a prostitute. Sure there were show girls, maids, bar maids (who often doubled as prostitutes), and most other jobs women did were jobs they did from home (their husband’s home), such as being a seamstress. The term “spinster” refers to an old maid, or single childless woman past her prime or past menopause. Spinsters spun wool. It was one of the few jobs women could do and earn a salary to keep a roof over their head. In very old times such as medieval, a single woman past her prime was either the daughter of an aristocrat who could afford it by virtue of family wealth, or a spinster. This remained true for the most part right up until first wave feminism. The tradcons among us want to blame communism, but why haven’t they looked at their own traditional roots? Is it any wonder in a world where women had a proverbial gun to their head forcing them into marriage, forcing them into motherhood, just to survive, that the early feminists called marriage a trap, and seen a society that denied them equal access to higher learning, and equal access to jobs, as a patriarchal system that granted men power and control over women? An argument can really be made that the 19th century and earlier was patriarchal. Though it becomes a stretch by the 1920’s and a complete joke by 1964 and beyond ridiculous by today. But looking back to the later 1800’s, I can see where the idea of a patriarchy, as defined by feminists, could be concluded. Sure this would over-look the fact that women were not forced to work hard brutal jobs in the coal mines, railroad, military service, carpentry, brick laying etc. as their husbands and fathers were. It over looks the fact they were exempt from being conscripted into military or even firemen and police duty in an emergency. It over looks chivalry, the ultimate display of gynocentrism. It over looks all the special protection that was afforded to them. On one hand that special protection could amount to being treated like princesses among the common rabble (men), but on the other hand that special protection could look like they were eternal children devoid of autonomy and coerced into marriage and motherhood just for survival like a victim of human trafficking that has to spread their legs to clients in order to survive, and have no lawful autonomy. Imagine the lesbians. She could either marry a man who’s male body disgusted her and commit an act of sex on a nightly basis, spreading her legs to a man with the dread you’d have as a straight man spreading his ass cheeks nightly for a pay check, or if she were lucky enough, she could be a good obedient maid for a wealthy family, or a spinster. She was not allowed certain jobs that were men only, and even light weight jobs were off limits because of sexism, and lack of college, again because of sexism. This is where the stereotype of feminists being lesbians quickly came into play. By 1920, you can bet your bottom dollar that every lesbian was a feminist, because they wanted the right to live an autonomous life of independence. Women were quite literally “trapped” into the role of house wife popping out kids, even in a post industrial revolution time period with jobs available that a woman’s smaller weaker body could handle, and bring home a man’s wage, she was forbidden due to laws, and very real sex discrimination. The ceiling for women was a very low ceiling, and it wasn’t made of glass; it was made of concrete. Under these conditions, I find it hard not to sympathize with first wave feminists. I want you to picture women in those days. Not all of them wanted a dozen kids and to be bound to a husband, a husband that may mistreat them. How many women were WGTOW’s? Women Going Their Own Way, who just didn’t want to be a part of the “shack up with a man and pop out a million babies”. They just wanted to live as bachelorettes, even if it did mean social ridicule. But colleges turned them down, most employers didn’t hire women, and those that did only paid them half as much. And that isn’t feminist propaganda like it is today, women were literally often paid half as much as men, loud and clear up front when applying for the job.

Doesn’t it seem like maybe there was an effort to keep women in their place, forced into motherhood for survival? Again, some women were aristocrats, some women were lucky enough to be a maid to a wealthy family, some women got to be the exception and somehow bring home a livable wage. But this was not an option for most women. Again the fact that men working at the Johnson’s Corporation were paid just enough to pay for a house and food for himself, his wife and a few kids, but a woman was paid half that, which would be just under the cost of owning her own home and living an independent life style, must have felt an awful lot like a male oriented conspiracy to keep women begging for a man to ask her hand in marriage and pop out lots of fucking babies. They called it Patriarchy, and in many ways, I can see where they got that idea. But it does overlook their special privileges, and the fact that men worshiped them. Men gave them chivalrous worship, but this love was conditional. A woman was worshiped so long as she conformed to her role as obedient wife and mother, always staying at home barefoot and pregnant. It was an interesting system. On one hand women consciously or unconsciously forged the male identity, man as doer, man as protector, man as provider, who would sacrifice himself for the safety and well being of women. But in making men the doers of society, it was men that built society. And as the builders of society they created rules that put them in charge. Again, this is in tune with the identity that women built for them, that they worked hard to conform to. But as men had an identity women locked them into, they equally had to lock women into their identity, their role, in order for their own role to work. Women were then locked into a role. All the protection and provision, so long as they never made an effort to be capable or independent. And laws and policies that held them to their role as helpless baby making machines. How many women laid in bed, spread their legs while thinking of England, while their ugly hairy husband grunted and thrust into them, every night, just to have a roof over their head and food in their belly, because the only other option was prostitution, until syphilis ruined her of course, all because society fought against women having autonomy. Again, that thing they call patriarchy, it is the ultimate manifestation of women wanting to be pampered and protected. And it worked out to the benefit of most women. But there were a ton of women it didn’t work for. And by the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, the old ways became constricting for both men and women.

What I am trying to say is, communism need not exist for feminism to have been born. Only artificial constraints caused by antiquated gender roles needed to exist. And we can argue, as I just have, that this so-called patriarchy was born of women forging men’s identity as protector and provider to get access to their pussy, it ultimately backfired for a lot of women, and men were too stupid to see it wasn’t working out so well for them either, because men are simple like that. Men were, and still are, trained by pussy like an animal is trained with food. Early feminism was primarily women fighting for autonomy. And first wave feminism wasn’t even close to the shit that passes as feminism for the past 40 to 50 years now. And I am also not trying to claim that there was no misandry in first wave, it was there, but I don’t think it was that present, because misandry didn’t need to be present for women to object to a society of artificial constraints. But then women eventually got their liberation, they got their autonomy. So why did feminism persist and continue even now, even after they got equality, then got special privileges and are now currently enjoying the best of both gender roles while men are stuck in theirs, and are the bad guys no matter what. In this ridiculous environment of female supremacy, why does feminism continue to exist? Misandry is the reason. It was always present in feminism, because it is always present in women. As the artificial constraints of what they deemed “patriarchy” were removed, and they became advantaged because they could play it both ways while men were stuck in their role, the hate and resent towards male-ness continued in them. Women are greedy, narcissistic, jealous and resentful by nature, and they are especially jealous and resentful towards males. And the political feminist movement became nothing but a great conduit for their internal biologically driven misandry. They could fight for their entitlement, fight for more and more special protection laws, and fight to punish males for being male, and they could do it as part of a long and successful pro-female movement called feminism. They keep up the rhetoric about being subjugated by the patriarchy, and fight for “equality” by dismantling male autonomy and rights. They’re natural neurotic fear of men being out to rape them turns into a social hysteria called rape culture, and every man needs to be castrated or emasculated to keep women feeling safe from their man-phobic fears of rape. Once upon a time the hatred of men was hidden behind legit gripes about women not being given the necessary opportunities to live an independent life style. But once they completely broke free of their gender obligations, and got laws forcing not only equality, but superior opportunity, the excuses of being some oppressed minority, victim of a tyrannical male establishment called patriarchy, is seen as a transparent excuse to hurt men, and that’s exactly what it is. I insist that earlier feminism contained a lot of misandry as well but the fact they were fighting for reasonable and legit things helps to hide it. It’s like the fire bombing of Dresden Germany, a war crime committed by America. We can write that off as an underhanded act to help win the war against a dangerous and aggressive nation. But if America had continued to firebomb German cities after Germany had waved the white flag and surrendered, it would become obvious that a deep hatred of the German people had been the motive for the war the whole time, but this fact would have been hidden earlier due to the circumstances of having a legit pretense.

My point is, traditionalists among us blame the birth of feminism on communism. And while communism did fund feminism, to a certain extent, as it did with other things, and feminists did often register as communist due to the marxist concept of steal from the haves to give to the have-nots, and there is an undeniable link between the two, communism is not the cause of first, second, or third wave feminism. Feminism was born out of misandry and a rejection of artificial gender constraints, women’s patriarchal system backfiring on them as the industrial revolution now granted them remarkable job opportunities they were barred from. Women had enjoyed the ease of being female, the ability to stay home and play with the children while men worked the physically hard jobs, and died in the wars. They could live as eternal children, and this suited them for the longest time, until this very system became constricting in the light of new opportunities.

Past traditionalism (patriarchy) failed when the environment changed. In a harsh and brutal environment, women playing the role of the helpless eternal child, worked for women. And whatever suits women, becomes the system of a culture. But when things got easier, they wanted out of the role they had created. Women will be as loyal to men as they have to be. Women will be with men so long as men serve a function to them. A man that can no longer provide a service to her is like a car that no longer starts (worthless). This is the disposability of men. Men are disposable, and to women, they will always be disposable. The acquisition of a man is not the end onto its self; but a means to an end. If a man is needed for a woman to have X, than she is with him for the acquisition of X. If a man can no longer act as a proxy to having X, than that man is no longer needed. If she can acquire X without a man, she will go without a man. A man is a tool for women. Even the traits that we call “masculinity” is just men bragging about and showing off their utility to women. A macho guy displays his strength, and authority to women. This is him saying “I have muscle to do hard work for you, I serve as a great utility”. Men punk each other out to display to women “I am tough and can protect you, I serve a great utilitarian function”. Macho men show off their jewelry and fast cars to say “I have money and can provide for you, I am a great utility like that”. Men can’t wait to brag about what a useful tool they are, and beg women to use them. Interesting how a man will act like the toughest mother fucker on the planet, and buy thousands of dollars worth of jewelry to impress women, and then act shocked when she shows no loyalty to him as a person, but only to the utilitarian function he served. A man begs to be used, and then is shocked when he gets used. The problem here is, so long as men want pussy, and women are the gate keepers of pussy, women are in charge of men, and they set the rules.

The old ways worked for the longest time, and when they no longer worked to provide women with the easiest route to get what they want, they rejected the very patriarchal system they created. Again, men want pussy, women have pussy, this puts women in charge. Men will do as women command them to do so that they can get the pussy. Women are the one’s barking orders at men to do this that and everything else. Thus society, social rules etc, are built by women, using men as tools. Women have claimed they needed a man to be strong and do all the work and take all the chances and make all the sacrifices. Men agreed (because they need that pussy), and women quickly realized the weaker they act, the dumber they act, the more helpless they act, the more men will do for them to compensate. Thus women lived their lives as helpless children who can’t lift a finger for themselves, and men have acted “manly” to compensate for their weakness. The weaker a woman, the stronger a man has to be to pull her weight. Thus women consciously or unconsciously created the gender roles: woman as weak, man as strong. Men as doers, women as recipients. Men as capable and responsible, women as helpless children. Then came the industrial revolution, and now when women wanted to do a little for themselves out of convenience, since living became much easier, men said “no, you are woman, women are weak children, you must have a big strong man to do for you.” And thus the gender roles women made began backfiring. They fought for change, and even though men obediently give women what they want, in this case men felt threatened since he had to work hard and make sacrifices to live up to his identity as “a man” and women being less “feminine” made him by contrast “less masculine”. Women breaking their carefree identity they created, threatened men’s identities (that women also created). All of society was built on the premise of men as strong courageous conquerors, protectors and providers for women. If women tried doing for themselves, then men could not properly protect and provide for them, males would be “less manly” and males would be less needed. Deep down inside, men have always known that the so-called “love” women have for them, is the attraction to a man’s usefulness. If women did for themselves, then they’d have less use for men. Less use for men means less love for men. If women have less love for men, men get less pussy, and men are born with a chronic addiction to pussy. Therefore men are threatened by women being independent.

Gynocentrism works like this: the highest goal for a man is the attainment of sexual satisfaction (this is completely biologically driven). Sexual satisfaction requires a woman’s approval, thus a woman’s approval becomes the highest goal in a man’s life, and becomes the center of his self worth (this is a social construct based on a real biological drive). Male worth is thus determined by women’s approval. A man’s approval is based on his level of usefulness (usability) to a woman. Because a man’s function is to be “used”, he is disposable. Again, the fear of female independence is the fear that men will no longer be valued by women, thus not get their approval. Not having a woman’s approval means not getting pussy. If women as a collective ever switched their mating instinct to no longer desire togetherness with males based on their utilitarian function, the male identity would instantly be recreated to fit the basis for women being attracted to him. Therefore, the old ways of men and women, are the fault of the biological drives of men and women. If feminists want to bitch about patriarchy, they need to realized patriarchy was their invention, and then not beat themselves up so hard for it, because the entire damn thing is based on human biology.

If men ever find a substitute for genuine pussy, can find sexual satisfaction without a woman, or no longer desires pussy, than a woman’s approval means nothing what-so-ever. And thus women will no longer serve any function in the life of men, and all of their value and power is completely removed. Trust me, this will suck for women more than they could ever imagine, and the bad news is, I do believe this day is coming (I will be making a video on it). When a woman’s approval is no longer valued by men, women will not control the male identity, and when women no longer control the male identity, men will finally be free.

But I am getting side tracked. Feminism, was not born of communism, or socialism, or just a bad idea by a few fat lesbians, or whatever other theory is held by the traditionalist, it was born of the male and female role that women engineered, no longer being of value to them. It was no longer valuable to them because life got easy, and men were needed less. Right now, women are still parasitically reliant on men, but not through marriage and obedience; but by proxy. Government supports them. Government is the alpha male they are fucking. Government acts as the protector and provider of women. Government’s power is based on money, taxes from the working. And as we all know, men as a collective make the most amount of money, thus pay the most amount of taxes. So women are living off of men’s blood sweat and tears, by government proxy. The women-only scholarships, women only quota incentives in certain fields, the women’s battered shelters that illegally discriminate against men (yet still get government funding), the bulk of the entire welfare system, and all the other special women-only opportunities and safety nets, are all funded by a government which is funded primarily by male taxes. The drawback is that this is bleeding the nation dry, and also that as women make up the majority of college attendees, and their corporate quotas muscle men out of the way to make room for women, women are making more and more money, men are making less and less. This means women are beginning to really fund their own programs (though the lack of programs for men still sucks). Also, when job opportunities are higher for women then men, it becomes difficult in this day and age for women to be stay at home princesses in a world where technology does all of their house work and school does all their babysitting for them. Men can no longer afford to support women’s pampered life style, and women can no longer sit on their asses and claim “Oh but I can’t work, I’m just a girl. Provide for me big strong alpha daddy?” This is becoming less and less popular because it is becoming less and less of a choice.

So, in the same way that the old patriarchal system once benefited women (which is why it existed in the first place) and then was fought against when easy living made it obsolete for women, so too will feminism become under attack by women when its “opportunities” for female independence becomes an uncomfortable “obligation” for women’s independence.

Women built patriarchy when it suited them, then viciously stabbed it in the back when it no longer served a purpose. Women created feminism when it suited them, and will viciously stab it in the back when it no longer serves a purpose. They will toggle between patriarchy and feminism for all eternity (which is really just toggling between doing for thy self with freedom, vs having men do for them while giving up autonomy in exchange). Women will go back and forth to what ever suits them at the moment. And men, god bless them, for they are fucking stupid, will go along with each and every change. The tradcons among us are already blaming the entirety of feminism on communism. And now that women are slowly beginning to turn away from feminism, because it went from liberating them to obligating them, the tradcons among us will quickly restore women’s protection status, and pamper them for the benefit of women, and never speak of it again, because both men and women will call the whole thing a communist plot against good ol’ capitalism. No lesson will be learned, no human progress made. And then in a handful of generations, maybe 80 years from now, after our economy has done collapsed and gotten built back up, women will do this shit all over again. When life gets easy and independence is as simple as stepping outside and putting in a few hours of work at the office, women will jump up and yell “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle. Down with patriarchy!” But when they all get themselves “locked” into jobs and being independent and the economy goes south and they actually have to start fighting and sacrificing like a man to keep their head above water, they will instantly fall back to “a woman needs a man like a fish needs water, protect me big strong patriarchy”.

Men refuse to learn.

Even now, at the height of female power, the tradcons are white knighting for them and proclaiming it’s communism and socialism, it’s just a bad idea whipped up by a few bitter lesbians. I’ve heard white nationalists blame it all on Jews (of course they’d blame global warming on Jews if they believed in global warming). Males, and all of our ideologies and belief systems where we divide our fellow man into a million different groups to pit ourselves against while women stand united. Males will blame communism, they will blame Jews, they will blame whites and blacks, they will blame secularism, they will blame religion, they will blame the Illuminati or the boogie man, but they will not blame feminism, then or now, on female behavior. To the tradcons, feminism was not in the beginning related to female nature, nor in the 60’s, and nor is it today even remotely attached to female behavior. To the tradcon, women are innocent majestic creatures, and any wrong doing on their part is never really their fault, it’s all Karl Marx, that evil male, he made them do it. And don’t think I am kidding. My next video will be of a long in-box argument I had with a right wing fundamentalist bitching about MGTOW being socialist, and claiming that feminism is just socialism with a vagina, it has nothing what-so-ever to do with women or female nature, and those who claim it does are just misogynists. I had this argument back on my old channel last summer. I saved it and made a video out of it, and I never uploaded the video because I thought it was too long and boring. But now I think it is time I publish that video to show you I am not even joking or exaggerating about the dangers of the traditionalists and or right wing fundamentalists exonerating women and blaming the whole thing on left wing socialism, and just completely white knighting for the female sex and attacking MGTOW as a bunch of misogynists. Oh and quick tip, if you want to know who is a white knight, just listen for the man calling his fellow men “misogynists” that tends to be a dead give away.

This individual that I was arguing with, and many others like him, have told me that I am a useful tool for the communists, and that MGTOW is a useful tool for the communists. MGTOW just don’t understand they’re getting suckered by the commies, and that men fighting for their rights and autonomy and fighting against women/feminists is just going to cause big government, and more socialism, and it’s part of the divide and conquer strategy implemented by cultural marxism.

I wonder if it ever dawns on them that they are actually useful tools for women? I wonder if it ever dawns on them that petty and superficial things like communism and capitalism, left vs right, is all a big pissing contest within the larger arena of gynocentrism. Men have been dividing themselves by religion, race, national territory, political ideology, and slaughtering each other while women have stood united as women. How many times have you heard a woman openly state to another woman that “us women got to stick together”? Yes, women stick together. But together against who? Against men of course.

You ever notice things like racism and xenophobia are found mostly in males?

I need you to look back on history with new eyes. I want you to see the Greeks fighting the Persians, and the Chinese fighting the Arabs, and the Christians killing the pagans, and the Muslims killing the Christians, and the Germans killing the Jews, while women just sit there fanning themselves in their pretty dresses, watching the males on the battlefield compete, and realize this is one “big dick” contest. This is males competing to show off their superior cock to the ladies for mating rights. The German’s kicked Poland’s ass in record time, and then said “Hey ladies, look at my German dick, these Polish men couldn’t protect you, we German men are better.” And I have no doubt the Polish women felt moist between the legs when the big strong dominant alpha male Nazis marched down the streets with their goose-stepping combat boots clapping like thunder as they proudly display their dominance, showing they are truly worthy to mate with. This battle of male versus male for mating rights isn’t just a human phenomenon, the best I can tell this is most species. The output of offspring is dictated by that which has the least efficiency. i.e. a dick can squirt many times, but a womb can only be pregnant a few times. Thus the males are wanting to mate, the females are saying “I can only give it up to the one that is tallest, fastest, strongest, superior to the others” and the males then compete either through violence or some other display of dominance. The weak and unworthy males go without mating because the most dominant males get pussy after pussy after pussy. Just because it squirted a few hours ago, doesn’t mean it can’t squirt potent sperm again. Thus many females impregnated by a small pool of males, thus gynocentrism was born. And this has been true from species to species all throughout the evolution that eventually brought us Humans. Our entire purpose is to mate and reproduce, it is our strongest perpetual tendency, and it was constructed over a billion years of males competing against one another to mate with females. The roots of gynocentrism are deep, and will never go away entirely, even if current circumstances change and it is no longer applicable, the neurologically driven tendencies will be there. Gynocentrism isn’t something simple you can just vote against or sign a petition about. It’s a deep biologically driven fundamental behavioral drive. Reducing gynocentrism and producing social/political compensation mechanisms will be a challenge, but I thoroughly believe this is possible. All these silly and superficial battles for racial and religious supremacy over each other, is nothing more than men having a big dick contest for the benefit of women. This nonsense of capitalism vs communism, and the evils of socialism, Christ almighty what a fucking joke. Men dividing themselves and making bitter enemies and fighting wars, and the nuclear war standoff between the two world super powers during the cold war, all over who has a better economic model. An economic model that women will be the beneficiaries of since men work like slaves and hand their earnings to women. Again, all of history, men in the arena like gladiators slaughtering each other for mating rights as the women sit on the benches watching males compete over them, their clits swelling with desire over the strongest men doing the most killing. How many times have you seen this play out at school or in the clubs, big hard tough thugs getting into a brawl over a woman, as she stands there saying “boys, boys, don’t fight over me” all the while loving how men will savagely beat each other to earn mating rights with her. This is men and women on an individual level, and this is men and women on a collective and historical level.

Those who have swallowed the metaphorical “red pill” are aware of the gynocentric game. It is not MGTOW who are dimwitted suckers playing into communist hands; it is you people playing on the larger, older battle field of gynocentrism who are duped. Communism was just invented yesterday. Religious groups have fought wars for supremacy since the dawn of humanity, religions come and go, races and tribes come and go, political concepts come and go, economies boom and bust like the beating of a heart or the breathing of lungs. Class warfare is all based on men fighting to acquire the most amount of money to hand to women for mating rights. It all comes and goes, and it’s all a part of the deeper gynocentric battlefield that has been around for about a billion years now throughout practically every species.

Gynocentrism, I don’t believe, can ever just go away. But it can be worked with, reduced, and compensated for. But first we have to be aware of it. We have to swallow that red pill.

My fear is that with so many traditionalists (whether they know they are or not), and with so many right wing fundamentalists, we cannot properly fight for the liberation of men from gynocentrism. We cannot fight this battle if we are mistaken who the enemy is.

We must know that the old system was a system ultimately engineered by women by proxy of men competing for mating rights, and that the impending fall of feminism will happen exclusively because it will no longer suit women. In any struggle, what system wins? Which ever one benefits women of course. And that’s the damn problem. And those white knight tradcons among us are exonerating women, covering it all up, and saying “communism, it’s just communism, don’t blame women, you evil misogynists, just blame it all on Karl Marx.”

These are also the same blue pill suckers who think it is so uber important to have our movement appeal to your average joe, or that we must get as many women as possible on our side, because we can’t succeed without women backing us up.

These people don’t get it. The average joe just wants female approval to get his dick wet. Women, by far and wide, will not join men in a battle for male sovereignty, since fighting and “competing” is the thing males do for the benefit of women. Furthermore, even if we did get many women on our side, and we got on our hands and knees and begged “please please treat us like people and give us rights, please, pretty please” and women got all sentimental and allowed us to have our rights, we have still lost the war. We have only won the war for equality when our equality is “taken”, not when it is granted to us by women. We mustn’t whine and fuss about, asking women to be nice to us and give us equal status, the way a child would tug on mommy’s shirt begging to be allowed to stay the night at Ricky’s house. The war is won when getting women’s approval to have rights, isn’t even an issue. We are equal, we are “people”, when we reach out and take our god given rights. Movements are not won by the majority, it is fought by a minority that won’t back down and won’t compromise. The average Jane and the average Joe of any society will just role over and take whatever injustice is thrust upon them, because humans are naturally weak, cowardly, and down right lazy. They will always choose the path of least resistance. We don’t need women’s approval, we don’t need the majority of men, all we need is a high amount of vocal passionate men who are persistent and will erode the system. Look at the way something as soft and soothing as water can polish rocks and split mountains into canyons through persistent erosion. Our struggle will be a long one, and I intend for us to be not as soft and soothing as water, but as rough and abrasive as sand paper.

Feminism is failing, but only because it is becoming a burden to women. And only that which suits women is what succeeds. That is what we must learn.

Share this: Twitter

Facebook

Like this: Like Loading... Related