[cybermutiny]

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?

[kerouac]

(05-03-2012 10:59 AM)cybermutiny Wrote:  

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,

I always thought female run households were supposed to be more prudent with expenditures. It's usually only when a woman is living in an extremely comfortable environment with an appeasing (beta) husband where the frivolous expenditures come into play.

There are plenty of women with broke husbands/"heads of house" who have to get the loser husband working and off his ass.

I actually think one of the major problems we are facing as a society is not so much "feminine energy" but more likely the fact that everyone has gotten pretty fuckin' lazy and is happy with the fact that there is plenty of booze and plenty of easy sluts. Women probably do not understand how the loosening of their vaginas has made men not give a shit about anything else, coupled with the fact that women are taking over men's jobs.

Men just don't care enough anymore, but why should they?

[dragnet]

+1 for kerouac

Quote:

"I actually think one of the major problems we are facing as a society is not so much "feminine energy" but more likely the fact that everyone has gotten pretty fuckin' lazy and is happy with the fact that there is plenty of booze and plenty of easy sluts. Women probably do not understand how the loosening of their vaginas has made men not give a shit about anything else, coupled with the fact that women are taking over men's jobs.

Men just don't care enough anymore, but why should they?"

The idea expressed here is, in my view, the basis for the eventual decline of feminist governance.

Put simply, the engine of gynocentrism is wealth transfer from men to women---but the core engine of institutional feminist power is gov’t-mediated wealth transfer from men to women. Whether through marriage, taxes, the divorce industry, healthcare, etc—the net flow of financial resources is always from men to women. This is how political feminism—indeed, all gynocentrism throughout the history of human civilization—has been financed.

Which is why the rational slackerhood advocated by bloggers like Roosh, the MGTOW phenomenon, Japanese grass eaters, etc is such a ticking time bomb for feminism. Once women become the primary taxpayers they will have effectively put themselves on the hook for paying for feminism—and everything else in our modern society. This is a dead end because, 1) many women work jobs that are either in the direct employ of the gov’t or in heavily gov’t subsidized industries and are simply paying “taxes” on gov’t largesse, and 2) women are less productive as a sex because of the constraints of pregnancy/childcare and their preference for “work-life balance” means they work as many as 25 percent fewer hours than men (google “female doctor shortage” for an example). It was easy to demand expensive feminist reforms when men paid 80 percent or more of the taxes, but these initiatives will be far less appetizing once women have to pick up their fair share of the tab.

The way to destroy political feminism is to force women to bear the full weight of their equality. Once that is accomplished through some combination of male indifference and female achievement, the current paradigm, which seems so robust, will begin to erode.

[kosko]

Women spend more of their income on goods then men. They make up about 70% of retail shopping volume. The whole "women are more prudent with money" is a lie. Women got a hold of the purse in the boom years which started a consumer binge which lasted until the end of the 60's.

I agree that feminism will eventually tap itself out since it is only given power through the govt. But advocating for men just to be schlubs and be lazy as femists self destroy them selves is a bad move.
I always bring up the fact that Feminism was founded and funded by large elite top-crust foundations. Their goals has always been to hold on to their power and money and the only way they can do this is by destroying the power and wealth of men. Femists are simply just the gate keepers or pawns they will be left to run around their hamster circles while us Men will get the raw end of the deal.

Advocating men just to chill isn't ideal because they will eventually not need us. Robots and sperm labs could replace 85% of Men. Simply throwing in the towel ensures our downfall as a gender and ultimately as people.

[dragnet]

(05-03-2012 05:42 PM)kosko Wrote:  

Women spend more of their income on goods then men. They make up about 70% of retail shopping volume. The whole "women are more prudent with money" is a lie. Women got a hold of the purse in the boom years which started a consumer binge which lasted until the end of the 60's.

I agree that feminism will eventually tap itself out since it is only given power through the govt. But advocating for men just to be schlubs and be lazy as femists self destroy them selves is a bad move.
I always bring up the fact that Feminism was founded and funded by large elite top-crust foundations. Their goals has always been to hold on to their power and money and the only way they can do this is by destroying the power and wealth of men. Femists are simply just the gate keepers or pawns they will be left to run around their hamster circles while us Men will get the raw end of the deal.

Advocating men just to chill isn't ideal because they will eventually not need us. Robots and sperm labs could replace 85% of Men. Simply throwing in the towel ensures our downfall as a gender and ultimately as people.

My post wasn't necessarily to suggest that individual men to take this path, only to explain what it has the potential to accomplish. Male slackerhood, MGTOW, Game, MRA activism, crippling national debt, etc---these things will work together to spell the end of institutional feminist power.

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

I agree that it has the effects of complacency and lethargy, but I don't think it's a conspiracy theory or even planned. Sure, some wackjob feminists might have a vision of sterilizing all males and whatnot, but for 99% of it, the continuing rise of feminism and its effects are a random event (natural, if you will). There is no shadowy group weaving webs of conspiracy behind it.

[dragnet]

(05-04-2012 11:35 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

I agree that it has the effects of complacency and lethargy, but I don't think it's a conspiracy theory or even planned. Sure, some wackjob feminists might have a vision of sterilizing all males and whatnot, but for 99% of it, the continuing rise of feminism and its effects are a random event (natural, if you will). There is no shadowy group weaving webs of conspiracy behind it.

I didn't say anything about any conspiracy. It's my belief that the confluence of these factors will seriously dent the impact of authoritarian feminism.

That's all.

[Greek kamaki]

It is about balance.You need women in the workforce so they need to have a dream.In some phase the whole thing gets out of control.Of course women in thw workforce ar part of today's crisis because they managed to get more than they are worth by political actions and the men refuse to pay.(passive resistance).

[kosko]

Its no conspiracy that rich people want to keep their money or power. Oligarchs and monarchs we're ran down and killed in previous days by a unruly public whom we're sick of getting fucked over. Its far from a conspiracy.

Weak Men = no resistance.