An awful lot of Feminist and Leftist agendas in general start with guilt for one’s privilege, use of resources, and other robust acts of grabbing at life, happiness, freedom, and survival. Robust actions are the purview of the young-at-heart and physically sound. Being attractive also helps in that a smile tends to be contagious and promote good will. However, those with neither charm nor grace have guilt to use as weapon. Guilt, like any weapon, can be overused, such as to form a trend bubble.
I can imagine that when England tired of Puritan shaming tactics, a solution was devised. Sometimes the best solution for managing an unpleasant or disruptive population is to provide incentives for them to forge on elsewhere.
At other times, diplomacy might work, but only for just so long.
In polite conversations, one generally avoids the topics of religion, politics, sex, and money, thereby leaving the weather, television, consumerism, and sports as “safe subjects”. However, the Leftist guilt-mongers have thoroughly invaded all these “safe subjects” such that no subject today is “safe”. It would therefore be about time when discussion of the forbidden subjects be turned to sooner than later, since after all, one will be shamed regardless and therefore one might as well enjoy oneself.
It would seem to me that part of the rationale for avoiding the “undiplomatic” subjects would be because these things are the source of feminine power, and as such, cannot be mentioned lest those in power be offended.
I have spoken before that denial of the feminine sacred tends to magnify its psychological power such that by default, atheism, and monotheism result in the increased importance of the female archetypes of sacred: the young girl, the maternal woman, and the great grandmother a.k.a. Gaia or The Holy Spirit. The lack of maternal influence in so many peoples’ lives magnifies that spiritual loss such that any undeserving popular icon may be the idol of choice.
The Church’s decision to condemn polygamy and prostitution further amplifies female power over the social and psychological aspects of The Church and therefore effectively makes the female congregation members into sort of a lay clergy in terms of promoting guilt memes to preserve the status quo of entrenched power of demagogues and other parties of poor character.
Female enfranchisement has not helped the female or general human condition one iota. Females who participate in politics directly using the Chivalry card or other tools of power and guilt-mongering merely degrade the political process in general. Meanwhile, any male politician, regardless of character or effectiveness, can always harness the social and psychological power of women for his own corrupt ends.
I’ve stated it before that even knowing plenty of reasonable and rational civic-minded women doesn’t sway my belief that universal suffrage was never worth it. Rather, I would gladly surrender all of my “rights” if all women would do the same. Unfortunately, that last isn’t likely to happen barring a police state or outside invasion, either of which today is entirely possible. Personally, I am hoping for a military coup d’etat of masculinists who will ignore the protests of women that they either deserve a vote or are capable of shouldering civic responsibility, for their own good of course.
All politicians who promote political participation of women and their supposed self-determination effectively destroy the true powers of humanity in namely, motherhood, fatherhood, family, extended family, and community of persons with like-minds and invested objectives.
The sexual power of women, particularly young women, is the psychological fuel of economic and ideological engines. The power of domestic tranquility, largely in the less-than-capable hands of the females within the home, is of just as great a magnitude even if the effect is more diffused and slow-moving. Both The Left and The Right profit from the exploitation of this power, and it would seem to desire to monopolize the rules of expression of this power.
In addition to the power and money circulated as a result of sex, there is, of course, also the matter of eugenics and disgenics. How it could be reasoned that technologically promoting the survivability of poor and unhealthy women and their infants would benefit the human race demonstrates the power of guilt. Could this possibly have been God’s plan?
The economic power in the hands of women as both investors and consumers cannot be overstated. If it can be more easily pried from the hands of the more manipulable and less-mathematically-inclined the better. Therefore, the more economic and monetary power in the hands of women, the more likely such a society is to succumb to external forces.
Whereas although money cannot buy health and happiness, it surely helps. Therefore, even noticing that there are more women than men alive in the mature populations, who not only have their faculties but who exhibit all outward signs of consumerist robustness, it would seem offends those very beneficiaries of the purveyors of diplomatic conversational rules.
Rather than being concerned about this offense, I relish every opportunity to display my contempt. This, I understand, now constitutes “a Hate Crime”.