Feminism, complacency, and economic malaise: is there a connection?
I heard a theory once that feminism is promoted by the mainstream media (and indirectly promoted by governments) because feminine energy makes men docile and easy to control. In other words, how can men plot against their government or engage in dangerous activities if they are not even man enough to stand up to their wives?
Presumably, a household where the woman is in charge is more likely to make large expenditures on items of dubious utility such as arbitrary household additions, remodeling, and general one upping of the Joneses. Households that make large expenditures are great for the government, because citizens need stable jobs to pay for all their expensive toys, so they will have less time to really keep an eye on their government or take the necessary actions to protect their freedoms. Basically, feminine energy leads to stable family units and an easy-to-control populace.
Recently, Roosh wrote that Brazil's government is trying to push feminism because they want their country to be viewed as more progressive and advanced. However, I think the main reason is that Brazil wants to tame their masculine men into something more pliable.
And what about our recent economic malaise? Perhaps I am taking this theory a little too far, but aren't the countries with the feminist virus generally worse off than those without it? (excluding Africa, which is always in a rut). I mean, the countries that are taking on insane debt and printing money like wild men include America and European countries. The ones that are actually handling their cash situation like bosses are in the Near East and the Far East (i.e. not infected with feminism).
Your thoughts on this?
I heard a theory once that feminism is promoted by the mainstream media (and indirectly promoted by governments) because feminine energy makes men docile and easy to control. In other words, how can men plot against their government or engage in dangerous activities if they are not even man enough to stand up to their wives?
Presumably, a household where the woman is in charge is more likely to make large expenditures on items of dubious utility such as arbitrary household additions, remodeling, and general one upping of the Joneses. Households that make large expenditures are great for the government, because citizens need stable jobs to pay for all their expensive toys, so they will have less time to really keep an eye on their government or take the necessary actions to protect their freedoms. Basically, feminine energy leads to stable family units and an easy-to-control populace.
Recently, Roosh wrote that Brazil's government is trying to push feminism because they want their country to be viewed as more progressive and advanced. However, I think the main reason is that Brazil wants to tame their masculine men into something more pliable.
And what about our recent economic malaise? Perhaps I am taking this theory a little too far, but aren't the countries with the feminist virus generally worse off than those without it? (excluding Africa, which is always in a rut). I mean, the countries that are taking on insane debt and printing money like wild men include America and European countries. The ones that are actually handling their cash situation like bosses are in the Near East and the Far East (i.e. not infected with feminism).
Your thoughts on this?