How government kills masculinity [Part 2]
Witness the hyper-feminized “where have all the men gone?” reality of the post-20th-century reality: Women have become entitled and by-default disrespectful to men. They feel no reservation to blanket-shame, humiliate or even physically attack a male, assuming they’ll get away with it. I don’t blame women for their predisposition against the masculine; they are unnaturally empowered by the state’s favoritism towards its largest voter base - females.
A woman understands well that she can take her husband to the cleaners any time she feels like it. The mere false accusation that he “beats the children” is enough to destroy his life, or any chance he has to maintain a meaningful relationship with his children.
The same occurs in the corporate world. Every woman knows that the mere claim that a male colleague “sexually harassed her” can end his career, reputation, and even life. She doesn’t have to prove her accusation - he has to prove his innocence in a blatantly low-IQ barbaric burden of proof fallacy.
Inevitable condescension
Sure, most women won’t abuse this state-granted power, thankfully - most women aren’t that psychotic. But simply holding such power must make them feel the kind of power-trip that would top the worst trigger-happy dirty cop’s fantasy the second he pulls you over and orders you to roll down your window. She must feel morally superior for having that power while patting herself on the back for being virtuous enough to not abuse it, as she condescends down upon the poor powerless males under her heel.
Under such conditional/institutional power, women can't help but feel superior to men, and men can't help but feel inferior to women. Subconsciously, a woman will resent and disrespect any man because she deep-down knows she holds greater institutional (albeit circumstantial) power over him. Can you blame her?
Shaming
But a woman’s power over men is not only institutional. Female shaming is a shame-based man’s kryptonite. More than death he fears being treated like “a creep,” or being publicly ridiculed and humiliated by women. Men in general literally fear women’s reactions to them. They fear approaching them, they fear looking at them, they fear talking to them. And this intrinsic female power expands through the institutional power of the state, as the latter baptizes anything as “harassment,” and therefore, deserving of public shaming and ridicule.
In such a hostile environment, why wouldn’t a male feel inferior to females? From school, boys are compared - by female educators, no less - to girls in an implied contest they can't win. Boys are naturally more energetic; passively paying attention to unmotivated government educators is more challenging for boys than it is for girls. “Let’s call that a disease - ADHD - and let’s medicate the boys to the point of mental retardation and impotence.” By the way, ADHD is not a real thing other than some useless academic’s (and big pharma's) wet dream. “Look at how well-behaved the girls are. The little darlings…” Schooling is child abuse, more so for boys.
Objection
“But most CEOs and politicians are men. Doesn’t that prove that men are in power?”
Quite the contrary, because for every male CEO, there’s a CEO’s wife who spends most of his money (minus the work and stress), who influences and emotionally blackmails him, and then decides to divorce him for half his wealth; no questions asked.
Just take a weekday off and go out during morning hours. See who drives on the roads - not the male van and truck drivers, but the luxury SUV drivers. It’s mostly women. Who’s in the shops? Women. Who’s at the hairdressers’? Women. Who’s casually populating the malls, the coffee shops, the restaurants, the gyms? It’s overwhelmingly women, and most of them don’t have to work because their husbands are working while they are spending.
So who’s the boss in such a relationship? The rich boss man who lives on valium and cocaine and obeys with a “yes, dear” to keep his unsatisfied wife happy? …or his wife who gets to spend his wealth while holding the Damoclean sword of female-favoring divorce over his head?
The richest woman in the world made her fortune using the most lucrative method known to woman: divorce.
The state is feminine
Emasculating power dynamics are imposed by institutional power (government). The state, by its nature, is hyper-feminine and anti-masculine. This is the state’s defining attribute: The feminine is equity of outcome (state taxes, welfare, wealth redistribution) regardless of meritocracy or meaningful earning of value). The masculine is equality of opportunity, free competition, negotiation, and thriving through conflict. Government is feminine sentimentality redistributing wealth equally within a tribe, blind to meritocracy, worthiness or fairness. Freedom is masculine competition and fair contest indifferent to petty sentimentalities. Men value meritocracy, and respect true worthiness. Men have no problem respecting one another when respect is earned. However, under a state, there cannot be meritocracy. Positions of institutional power are inevitably abused. Nepotism , favoritism and corruption always take over, and thus masculine virtues have no appeal anymore - only slimy unmanly sold-out suckups get to progress. Money, influence and intuitional power go to the unmanly, while the manly, who will not sacrifice their principles, will seldom get ahead in life.
In an ever-increasing state-feminized society, women can’t help but pity and resent men; it’s natural to do so. They can’t feel attracted to weak disempowered males, so they begin to be attracted to one another. Their disgust for weak disempowered males is just too much, and power-wielding women have more elements of masculinity than weak disempowered males. No woman can feel attracted to a man without power; and by power, I don’t mean money or circumstantial positions of authority. A man’s power is his self-reliance, his unwavering sense of self-ownership uninhibited by female shaming manipulation or arbitrary legal constructs.
Under the conditions of a female-centric society with disposable males and the exclusive female privilege of by-default victimhood, females can’t help but look down on males. Females then shame and disrespect their husbands and sons, because they inevitably see males as weak and pathetic under female-centric statism. Mothers condition sons to be subservient and fearful of women. This manifests in male subservience, pathetic simping to the point of cucking, and a total rejection of masculinity by males.
Dead masculinity
The term “toxic masculinity” was the final nail in the coffin of humanity’s respect for the masculine. And another nail was gaslighting males to fantasize that masculinity meant being a drugged-up thug gangsta rapper, or even worse, a subservient obedient bottom-gimp for the military - instead of a producer of value, a reliable protector, a steadfast “rock” with unwavering principle and self-esteem.
And then, weak males react in an estrogen-fueled eruption of caricature masculinity, injecting steroids and romanticizing false idols like corrupt degenerate Roman figures, or by idealizing the castrating homo-erotic institution of militarism. This over-correction attempts to overcompensate for weak male’s cowardly refusal to accept their vulnerabilities, thus deluding themselves they have none. Then they complain like man-children that “women are bad.”
Women aren’t bad; they just react to whatever emasculating environment males have built, tolerated and sanctified: government.
Related videos
48 Female Privileges Confirmed by a Feminist by Sargon of Akkad (Carl Benjamin)
50 female privileges:
Thank you for reading.
Follow, comment, share, subscribe… or not. It’s the same to me.
My target audience is people who haven’t been born yet.
Your warrior archetype
·
MAR 2
What Makes A Man
·
NOVEMBER 22, 2023
Laws without government
·
OCTOBER 30, 2022
