A recent post by a commenter got me thinking… Does feminism actually say boys are better?
On the surface one would likely say, “Of course not!” It’s all about building women up, right? It’s about girl power!
Except feminism largely pushes girls to be more like boys. Hummm. That’s odd.
Girls are told to act less like girls. Dress less like girls. Avoid activities and topics that are deemed, “girl stuff.” To shun traditional girl roles in favor of more masculine ones.
When you think about it, doesn’t feminism actually encourage women (starting as girls) to ape traditionally male behavior rather than celebrate the uniqueness of being female?
I would agree with feminism that boys are better… at being boys. Women, however, are better…at being women.
But in a world where boys have been encouraged to act more “female” and girls have been encouraged to act more “male” for decades now, isn’t that counterproductive? What’s so wrong with boys being boys and girls being girls? Men being men and women being women?
Personally, I like being female. I don’t consider it a disadvantage. I don’t consider it a bad thing. I don’t consider myself “lesser” because of it. I don’t feel like I am a victim. I don’t feel held back. I don’t feel like I have missed out. I don’t want to be “something else.”
Why would feminists insist I (and other women) should see it otherwise?
Hummm….
Notes From a Red Pill Girl 
You nailed it in one. Feminism does want women to be men and vice versa. This is one of the reasons why everyone is so unhaaaaappppy.
Personally, I think we should all try to be more like octopi. Then we could work together on a common goal. 🙂
Ugly girls trying to fuck everything up for the pretty girls instead of actually working on self improvement. Envy and crabs in a bucket mentality.
And always keepin’ up with the Joneses.
At it’s core feminism has the most obscene instance of misogyny of all; that the way men live their lives is somehow the ‘gold standard’ that women should strive to emulate.
Most men who give it any thought would consider the life-arc that nature proscribes for us; birth, learn, prove ourselves, work, die, is pretty shit – but at least we are built for it. We are able to be comfortable in it and we play the hand we are dealt.
No wonder trying to force women into this model doesn’t work and makes them miserable. Women are built for a different arc – the one you in your turn feel so comfortable in. You too are playing the hand you were dealt.
When you have given birth to, and raised, nine kids before the onslaught of technology’s labor-saving devices, then you might understand the urge to say “on the whole, I would rather be a boy”. The noises of today didn’t get started in today’s abundant leisure environment. I think the ones making noise today don’t really understand that.
Have a woman of today tell a woman from 250 years ago that the modern woman’s biggest concerns in life are microagressions. Then listen to the howls of laughter.
People sometimes still confusedwith what exactly something that has to be women right, and something that granted from the God. They think that they got now is granted,can’t ne change so feminism not say boys are better, they just want to get what females should get.
Good post !!!
A new post at Spawny’s there is
https://spawnyspace.wordpress.com/2016/12/08/baby-sign-here-you-should/
Exactly what you said.
Also, octopi. Now they are truly fascinating creatures. They taste and smell and THINK all over. Not just from their nose and tongue and brain, but every little sucker smells and tastes and every tentacle can operate on its own and perform cognitive tasks… Consider what that’s like for a moment.
Too true. Feminists are simply too dumb to realise that they are actually endorsing male behaviour. Though to be honest I think they want to steal that ‘glory’ from actual men, as if to say ‘haha I’m a better man than you!’ to actual men. But the truth is, because they are women, it just doesn’t fit most of the time and they just end up miserable.
There really is no /real/ female empowerment in the movement, it’s actually quite oppressive to women because feminine attitudes are shamed and shunned.
Feminists are flawed in their reasoning because they believe that everyone is a “blank state” and that gender roles are learned. What they intend to is to put women in the place of apex males and make men subordinate to women. It’s not going to work because it goes against nature, but they will keep trying.
I think it’s not what the feminism saying. although it can be seen like this when they apply their theories to society. The message I see is: there is no such thing as a “woman” (or “man”). Gender is not a personal trait, it’s a set of norms imposed on you when you were too small to realise it. It was indoctrinated, akin to religious views, or norms of morality, or family values, or whatever else. It’s acquired trait, enforced trait, limiting trait.
This message is just an application of “social constructivism” theory (mostly driven by Marxists) to genders. If this theory have any truth in it is questionable. But if it is, deconstructing the gender might be perceived as a “great liberation”. “Hey, you can be whatever you want!” If this “liberation” is something that makes people happy is another big question: it seems that people claim to love options, while in fact being afraid to choose when there are too many; we might prefer a set of rules, a rigid carcass to complete lack of norms and judgements.
It might be that they got it wrong, and gender is not a social construct, but a part of shared unconsciousness imprinted in our biology, like it was perceived through the history prior to 1980s.
Unfortunately, Western society was always keen on following social theories up until shocking and horrific results (i.e. racial purity and Germans; or lobotomy as a silver bullet in 1930’s; or enforced sterilisation in Africa to ‘help the natives to civilise’). I’m afraid, we’ll have to have hard landing prior the narrative will change.
Of course boys are better. You don’t need special programs and what not for your side unless the other team is superior
Sergey wrote: “If this “liberation” is something that makes people happy is another big question: it seems that people claim to love options, while in fact being afraid to choose when there are too many; we might prefer a set of rules, a rigid carcass to complete lack of norms and judgements.”
Most of us, if “allowed,” would follow nature and do what comes the easiest and feels the best. That would follow along traditional gender lines most of the time.
Feminism seeks to shame women for doing what comes naturally. That is its great failing (one of its great failings).
But I would also say that some in the red pill would seek to do the same. They appear to be saying, “The heck with what you have always wanted, we have decided for you that this particular narrow path is your only path.” This is where we get some of the rhetoric about how all women are “only good for” one thing and no other. If there are any women who naturally and innately want something even a little bit outside of that rigid role, too bad, if (select) red pillers had their way, such a thing would not be allowed.
I personally think that if we just let nature take its course, it would all be sorted out just fine. MOST women and men would gravitate towards the inclinations and roles that have been there for them for centuries. Those who choose something slightly different (and such people have always been among us) could do that too.
Women only good for one thing? I love it when they bake cookies. I had hoped that there was more. *silly face*
As for being good for one thing, Only Arab stallions seem to be the only thing I know of. Doesn’t seem like much of a life. Horses are social.
@Sue
“Feminism seeks to shame women for doing what comes naturally.”
My point was that feminisms doubts that this comes “naturally”. It argues that “traditional gender line” is a script that was uploaded to your head when you was too young to argue or criticise. It is a valid assumption, if you can feel detached and intellectually honest about such things.
Now, based on this assumption, and using the tools, provided by the theory of “social constructivism”, they asked the question: if this construct is here, then who build it? And why? Now, classical Marxism is obsessed with power and hierarchies. For example, Marxists consider religion being just another social construct, promoted by bourgeoisie classes to keep hoi polloi at bay (that’s why Marxists were zealously atheistic: for them, it’s not about God, it’s about power, and tools that allow you to influence others – hence mass purges of clergy in Soviet Russia etc).
If you look for something, you’ll surely find it (hello, confirmation bias). And they found this hierarchy alright: The Patriarchy. The system, that promotes men over women. Men constructed this “natural” set of “feminine” traits: submissiveness, passivity etc – to keep on top of them. Crush ’em!
This is why, while never articulating this directly, feminism assumes that “(traditional) man is the enemy” and “(traditional) woman is a victim”. If gender IS a social construct – then surely someone build it to maintain their power over someone else, as those things are never arbitrary. Which means that men build it to dominate over women (as they hold all the positions of authority). Which means that all cross-gender relationships are unequal and hierarchical in nature.
Next, if you consider gender relationship to be a form of hierarchy, a “master-slave” relationship, it makes sense to start promoting for “slaves” to drop their “slavish” identity. But the only other clear identity the world can provide them with is a “master” identity. Men identity. It’s either that, or you have to construct something completely new – and this takes time, time that you don’t have. That’s why feminists push women to be more like men, switch their “inferior role” of “slaves” to “superior role” of “masters”. The very idea of Patriarchy/hierarchical relationships between men and women de-equalises the genders and creates this dichotomy. Answering the RPG question: yes. Feminism does push women to be men, as it consider women to be inferior to men. They’d gladly push them toward something else, but there’re only two identities on the market at the moment.
This is why we, men feel threatened by feminists. Because feminism indoctrinates women that they ARE slaves – and what slaves want is to have slaves of their own. They want to “flip the script” – and the script they have in they head is that they suffer. So they want us to suffer. Because this is fair. Also because they’re deluded by their little theory.
—
The rational critique of feminism is the one against the idea of social constructivism, and it’s basis, – environmental theory (“everything is nurture, nature doesn’t matter”). Which is The Core Idea of the Left itself. An attempt to maintain Christian values, while ditching the concept of Sin.
They’d gladly push them toward something else, but there’re only two identities on the market at the moment.
Changing very rapidly this is
Please, no crazy pronouns.
Maybe we should just stick to the male/female thing, for the most part. The 3% who do not identify with their birth gender, well they can do what they want, but I don’t see why everyone has to become androgynous and the same. Isn’t different good?
The heck with what you have always wanted, we have decided for you that this particular narrow path is your only path.”
……
That’s exactly what thriving and expanding nations do.
RPN: You are absolutely right. Feminists try to discourage girls from becoming first-class women and tries to make them second class men. Feminists think that women should become more masculine and men more feminine. That is a recipe for diaster.
Sergey wrote: My point was that feminisms doubts that this comes “naturally”.
I know. That causes a lot of damage, I agree.
“They want to “flip the script” – and the script they have in they head is that they suffer. So they want us to suffer. Because this is fair. Also because they’re deluded by their little theory.”
That’s very deluded of them. There’s no need to “get back” at anyone.
What I am saying is that if left to their own devices, if not shamed, pressured, or otherwise told what they “ought” to do, a majority of women will opt for some form of domesticity. They may or may not want to earn an income (have a career too) but their family would come first and they would take a part time job (or be a full-time stay-at-home mom) and they’d do it when they were younger rather than later.
Feminism has screwed that all up, pressuring them and shaming them into doing something that goes against their own nature.
At the same time, there have always been women who didn’t have as strong a drive to have kids, or wanted to wait, or wanted to choose a career instead.
I know that the red pill is full of absolutes, like ALL women do this or that–and we can choose to not take that too seriously. But still, there are some pretty strong statements floating out there. Some red pill guys will say things like if that woman who always wanted to be a singer or a ballet dancer or musician, well, she shouldn’t be “allowed” to do it until she has her quota of kids at a young age. Only after she’s had her kids, maybe at age 35, would some (note I say “some”) red pill guys “allow” her to pursue something else.
They also go on to say that men will do anything (like being a singer, ballet dancer or a musician?) better than women. Women will always be inferior than men, so why bother? They say that it was only feminism that artificially propped women up and told them this lie that they are as good as men (like writing, composing, doctoring, whatever), but the truth is that they will always be in men’s shadows, and so they should stick with what they are good at, which is birthing babies and taking care of the home.
There have always been women who have gone their own way, not had kids, had them later, or chose a career and turned out to be remarkable in it. Even if they lived in an era where society told them they ought not, even way before feminism took hold, some women wanted something else. It was what was natural for them. What I’m hearing is that some red pill guys would seek to forbid them from doing this. (If these guys had the power to do so–which fortunately they never will.)
To me it sounds like the red pill guys (some of them) are “just as bad” as feminists. Artificially telling women that they “shouldn’t” want something that they clearly do want. Feminists tell women that they should be ashamed if they want to be a stay-at-home mom and marry young. Some red pillers tell women that they should be ashamed if they don’t want to be a stay-at-home mom and don’t want to marry young. I think that if we all just backed off, that MOST women would want what comes natural, and for most that would be a home and marrying younger. Things would sort themselves out just fine.
Sue,
I t really is hard to say which way women would go “naturally”. There are a lot of unnatural societal pressures in play. What I see, is that a lot of women would prefer to maximize their options rather than restrict them. That must be why single motherhood is so popular. It can’t last. I don’t think the state will be a good husband.
@Sue
My guess would be that a lot of RedPill/PAU/Manosphere guys are generally bitter about women, and have love/hate attitude toward them. They want to have one around, sure, but either can’t attract them at all, or are not happy with those they can. As it is – sadly – natural for people to excuse themselves from responsibility, those guys tend to blame women, society, feminism – whatever – for this “state of affairs”, as they perceive it. Now, it’s not entirely false – the field indeed changed, that for sure, there’s a lot of truth is that.
But the other side of the coin is: if you want your woman to be a pin-up girl from 1940s, that admires you and is ready to spend her prime next to you, you’re better be a strong, silent, self-relient, can-do type from The Greatest Generation. I doubt those boys are up for the task, though. The few people I saw, they want to stay in this eternal boyhood bliss, while bossing a 9HB around with “go make me a samich” requests. “Because that’s how they have it before”.
In fact, it might be that those people bought that feminist’s imaginary vision of The Dreaded Patriarchy, and now they “want it back”!
It is also worth to consider that feminism was not a reaction to a “systematic oppression of women in Western society”, but rather a reaction to Western men becoming weaker (i.e. feminism boomed under the generation of men, who chickened out from the Vietnam war). Women seems to feel anxious next to weak men, so they take control and power (they willingly put in men’s hands over centuries) back from those of us, who lost – or, rather, never gained – it.
@Sue, I know Tarn hasn’t been around lately, but Tarn didn’t want children or to marry and was able to peacefully participate in many red pill sites. Tarn was Tarn, people accepted that. Tarn did not try to force Tarn’s ideology onto anyone else. Nor did Tarn demand acceptance or want the govt. to legislate Tarn’s way. That might be a good example of an individual being different w/i the red pill. Tarn never claimed that “for most” what applied to Tarn applies to most, or said that bc they weren’t true for Tarn, then they were untrue for all.
Note it is the exact opposite of a special snowflake “you have to accept whatever I believe (insert belief here) or you are a hater” sjw mentality.
There is a new post at Spwany’s
https://spawnyspace.wordpress.com/2016/12/10/whats-for-dinner/
I tried posting this before, but the Internet was slow, so I try again…
Fuzzie: “I t really is hard to say which way women would go “naturally”. There are a lot of unnatural societal pressures in play. What I see, is that a lot of women would prefer to maximize their options rather than restrict them. That must be why single motherhood is so popular. It can’t last. I don’t think the state will be a good husband.”
I think everyone wants to maximize their options, right? This is part of human nature.
I agree, there are a lot of unnatural societal pressures in play. What I wish is that any unnatural pressure, no matter from what source, would cease.
I think of what we see “what comes naturally” starting in little girls and boys. Most little girls want pretty things, want to play with dolls, play house, sewing, cooking, and so forth. I remember having many of the same instincts. Little boys will make sticks into swords and bananas into guns. You can’t stop them. These things are innate. Feminism seeks to say that it isn’t so–but they’re delusional. You can’t force that out of people. It’s what comes natural.
At the same time, there will always be those kids who took immediately to singing, or to math, or to dance, very young, way too early for it to be all the influence of feminism or whatever. Whether that kid be male or female, what I wish is that they choose what they want to do with their talent. Raise a family first, then go to college? Or go to college and later have kids? Let them decide. Some would demand that women (and only women) put off the cultivating of the talent until they’re in their mid-30s, in order to raise kids. I want the women to decide. Many will wait until after they have kids and not regret it. But they know their hearts better than any of the rest of us do, so it should always be up to them. It shouldn’t be up to the feminists, nor (some) in the red pill.
Sergey: “My guess would be that a lot of RedPill/PAU/Manosphere guys are generally bitter about women, and have love/hate attitude toward them. They want to have one around, sure, but either can’t attract them at all, or are not happy with those they can.”
I think you’re on to something there. I can’t disagree with anything you’ve written in your post.
rpg wrote: “Tarn did not try to force Tarn’s ideology onto anyone else. Nor did Tarn demand acceptance or want the govt. to legislate Tarn’s way. That might be a good example of an individual being different w/i the red pill. Tarn never claimed that “for most” what applied to Tarn applies to most, or said that bc they weren’t true for Tarn, then they were untrue for all.”
Tarn’s an excellent example of the diversity among the red pill. That’s why I was very specific when I said that some red pill guys want this or that. I know that not all of them do.
As for legislating things, I agree that having opinions and preferences isn’t the same as legislating them and forcing others to comply. But that’s another troubling thing–there are some (just some!) in the red pill who talk (and I know it’s just talk…) about things like disenfranchising women so they no longer have the vote. This is not a rare topic of conversation within the red pill. What is that if not talking about changing laws to fit their own preferences?
“Note it is the exact opposite of a special snowflake “you have to accept whatever I believe (insert belief here) or you are a hater” sjw mentality.”
It is, but at the same time, Tarn was not shy about expressing her opinion. In a previous discussion on your blog, it was brought up that some red pill guys want to remove women’s ability to support themselves so that these women will be financially dependent on men (and then each man can be more assured of having his own woman). If I recall correctly, Tarn bluntly said that such a desire made a person an “a–hole.”
You don’t have to demand agreement, but you can state your opinion about what you think of their opinion! 😉
I disagree, the feminist movement is working towards getting society to accept the feminine traits in both girls and guys, and it is not pushing for girls to be more masculine.
Thanks for adding that alexnotaly! I will ponder this… 🙂