| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Culture Wars |
| Toxic Femininity |
| 2019-12-19 |
| Tt's Sarah Hoyt There is a lot of talk about Toxic Masculinity. No one ever talks about Toxic Femininity. Though every woman who is a functional human being knows about it, as does anyone who has ever lived or worked in a predominantly female environment. So, why does no one talk about it? Well, mostly because the left believes that "designated victims" TM are sacred and must never be called on their own bullshit, no matter how smelly. Hence also the bizarre idea of racial "privilege" that tells you holocaust survivors should be attacked for "white privilege" but the Obama girls raised as the creme de la creme, and never facing a day of privation in their lives don’t have any privilege and are victims. But there’s also other stuff going into it. To an extent ‐ to the extent that historically for biological reasons men dominated public life ‐ the fact that no one talks about the bad side of female modes of being in society is the result of patriarchy. Men are ridiculously, idiotically, insanely blinkered about women. They don’t really see women as they see other men, but through rosy glasses as much better than men. The "oh so smart" former president with the depth of a rain puddle in Colorado told us that women are so much better than men and that the world would be better under women. Which means he’s basically a bog standard male who has never given the matter a thought, and is going on what "everybody knows." (It occurs to me this man, if he’d been born to an ultra conservative Arab family in one of the ultra conservative Muslim countries would also be telling us that women’s hair emits seductive rays. He’s a suit that speaks. Or an empty chair, if you prefer.) Of course it is right evolutionarilly that men should feel that way about women. It keeps the species going. It is also bizarre though, and leaves men curiously defenseless now that women view themselves as an aggrieved class and are trying to take over public life and exclude men. In fact it leaves as the only defense in society that most women ‐ even the feminists who pretend otherwise ‐ unless completely and extensively broken and indoctrinated know what other women are and therefore will not trust any of them. As they shouldn’t. I can’t imagine a worst hell than what Obama is proposing. ...So, the problem is this: right now, men, due to their illusions about women are curiously defenseless against women in public spaces. As a result, and in many ways masculinity itself is being exterminated. ...You see, if you go back to what women and men did in the distant past before agriculture, the past that still shapes us because evolution is very slow, you’ll find that men hunted in groups, where the hierarchy must be absolutely clear, because you have to know who is giving orders, in a group that must coordinate their actions and might all die if they don’t. Also you must be sure that the best/strongest/most agile man is in charge. Hence males continuous testing "contests" with each other, but also the acceptance of the hierarchy thus established, once it’s established. While women also have hierarchies (after all, the alpha female raises more kids) it’s more subtle. Females, you see, gathered. They also watched kids at the same time. Your goal is to be able to gather the most food, while losing none of your toddlers who wandered off and didn’t get watched. Women try to have cohesive groups that from the outside appear to be smooth and loving because they are cohesive and do communal work (a lot). Women’s work is traditionally safe, boring, social, and capable of being interrupted by kids. This means the best of these groups is one that’s fairly homogeneous and minimizes personality conflicts. This is usually accomplished by alpha females by enforcing a stultifying conformity and destroying the social credit (and sometimes the mind) of any woman who steps out of line or is just too weird. In the primitive tribe this was best, because if all the women were more or less the same, they all watched every other woman’s kids, and more kids survived. Unfortunately, as with men, there is always a contest of wills to see who will be the alpha female who keeps the other ones in line and apparent comity. And the alpha female has to be fairly ruthless at rooting out threats to her authority. This usually boils down to "having something" on every woman in the group or making it up if she doesn’t. And being ruthless at using anything she has to pull other women back into line. When she loses that game, her reign is over and she becomes just another of the lumpen masses to be kept in line by the new alpha female. While this form of being social works pretty well in extended families (which is all the earliest human groups were) with the matriarch keeping charge till she can’t hold it together anymore, and the other women ‐ and often the new incoming women were kidnapped or traded from other tribes so had to learn the way of this one ‐ being kept in line by her, it works like heck in the modern world of offices, laboratories and factories. Not to mention universities. And because our society insists on being blind to the existence, let alone the dangerous side of female aggression, it destroys any possibility of accomplishment or excellence and in general makes the wheels come off whatever endeavor it is where women become ascendant. |
| Posted by:g(r)omgoru |
| #4 Two adolescent boys fight. They make up and become friends. Two adolescent girls fight. In the end, there can be only one. Mean Girls indeed. See - petty cliques |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2019-12-19 07:57 |
| #3 ^Probably because western ideas arrive in my part of the world at very slow speed. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2019-12-19 07:55 |
| #2 I can't agree with this oversimplification of how societal dysfunction in women got here, nevertheless we are here now. Somehow, I've never met these women. Maybe I was lucky. Probably because western ideas arrive in my part of the world at very slow speed. They are met with an ideological sieve so potent that it almost always reduces them to harmless 'fads' and 'quirks' for individuals rather than movements. And that's an idea. Strong roots and militant defence of culture, even if it's empty, ridiculous hubris like in India. America had so much better. Maybe instead of looking to history and biology and caveman psychology, we should acknowledge the forsaking of our roots. The christian archetypes we should have imitated, the ideals which created men and women with grit enough to get through world wars and depressions together without turning on each other like beasts. In my opinion, this thing called toxic femininity is just a symptom of the larger spiritual putrefaction. A manifestation of the spirit of Jezebel in wayward women, seeking to murder the righteous and steer Ahab, today's p↻ssywhipped buffoon toward folly. All you need to do to avoid them in your life is to not be an Ahab. Be an Elisha. Or at least be cautious like Jehoshaphat. |
| Posted by: Dron66046 2019-12-19 07:50 |
| #1 A potential key takeaway: The beginning of civilization was when the first man instead of pummeling another man into the ground with his club chose to hit him only once, establish dominance, and then make a pact of friendship. You find something like that in almost every early saga of humanity. You never find that among women. Women don’t fight for dominance and then become best friends. Because that’s not how female dominance works. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2019-12-19 05:03 |