I am inspired by a brilliant piece of writing: blog.jim.com/culture/sex-and-natural-law/
I wish I could figure out how to subscribe to it. Am I an idiot or what?
“Jim” talks about feral female behavior which has somehow become the symbol of “empowerment” among feminists. Also reminds me of Simone de Beauvior’s take on Bridget Bardot’s carefully crafted persona–crafted by a man perhaps but no matter (Brigitte Bardot and the Lolita Syndrome by Simone de Beauvoir, 1962). Encouraging feral (perpetually immature) behavior among women is all part of the Cultural Marxist agenda.
In my view, feminism results “naturally” as a result of a surplus of unmarriageable women. These women might “hate men” or more likely “hate women who love men” and otherwise have created a culture where their own social loserism is considered superior. Because that’s what people do.
In short, less paternalism a.k.a. “Patriarchy” results in more feminism, demanding a rooster in every pot from a paternalistic government, as a proxy for men who actually love and care for women (and keep them in line!).
After the Civil War, WW I, WW II, a whole lot more men than women died and meanwhile advances in prenatal and postnatal care decreased death in childbirth. This resulted in a surplus of spinsters. All of them wanted a pony! They marched and got one, suffrage, when universal suffrage for men had only just been achieved in the West, as compensation for the draft. The women, however, were given no such obligation. In addition, the rights to the proceeds of their own children were granted to women, with the obligation to support said children remaining with the men. Similarly, birth control—invented by men—became “the right” of women (thanks to the effort of men) with men having no similar right. Girls just wanna have fun.
However any situation where there are more people than resources will also result in some form of feminism–it’s a population control mechanism in the end because it reduces fertility. Another population control mechanism is war wherein surplus males are basically sent off to kill each other. However, a society can hold together with just a few men and a surplus of women for the benefit of an elite class which controls most of the resources. In fact, the fewer men, the less likely there is to be a rebellion or revolution. An invasion by barbarians (males) is about all such a despot has to worry about.
Feminism therefore is also a product of megalomanical utopian schemes on the part of (usually) men. However, there’s no telling just how much their materialist, power-hungry wives drive the carefully crafted propaganda process.
Feminism also mimics livestock practices, namely, a select group of males is segregated from the females except for purposes of breeding. A large supply of breeding females creates the stock with the remainder kept for purpose of meat (along with the excess males). Within the female hierarchy, “alpha females” hold sway, beating down all other females until their age catches up to them. If they can poison upstart females against males, all the better as that further cements the alpha females’ positions of power.
Meanwhile, those men who willfully and deliberately marry feminists because they see it as a way of distributing income production tend to get their just deserts. I sympathize with such men–really–but, a mea culpa for your part in perpetuating the dysfunction would be welcome. Behind every miserable society-destroying feminist is a pussy-whipped man letting her have her way. Stop doing that!