Why is Patriarchy considered evil, bad, oppressive but Matriarchy considered good, natural, wise by New Agers?

[Winston]

I've been wondering something lately which pisses me off and is totally unjust. Why does literally everyone demonize and vilify male patriarchy, as though it were something evil like Nazism that everyone ought to condemn. Yet if you think about it, male patriarchy is perfectly logical and easy to justify. Do any of you wonder about this too? Why does no one point out the obvious?

I mean think about it. Men have obviously EARNED the the RIGHT to lead and govern the world by the fact that they built, designed and created everything all around you in civilization. Literally everything! Duh. Everything you can think of was built, designed and invented by MEN, not women. Such as roads, bridges, canals, buildings, skyscrapers, houses, cars, planes, trains, machines, computers, telecommunications, TV, radio, internet technology, cell phones, smart phones, etc. Everything. Even the sewing machines and hair dryers women use were designed by men. Thus there's definitely no equality here. This is super obvious! Does anyone ever consider this?!

Basic logic and wisdom says that if one designs and creates something, then that person should be the leader and manager of it. That's why patents exist. This is a right and makes sense too. Unfortunately women have no technological inventions to speak of in the last 2,000 years of history. At least not in general and nothing noteworthy.

Men build cities, empires, naval fleets, armadas, roads, mass transportation, etc. And they win great battles in war. Women do none of these things. Men are conquerors, builders, designers, creators, inventors, innovators, philosophers, thinkers, warriors, etc. Women are merely nurturers and sex objects. They are what they are. Why deny it? Why not appreciate and respect this? Why not be the BEST of what you are? Rather than try to pretend to be something you're not? Reality is reality. So what's the problem???

Men also dominate in most talents and skills, both mental and physical. For example, the best male athletes will usually beat the best female athletes in sports. And the best male chess players will usually beat the best female chess players. Men tend to excel in sports, combat, physical strength, chess, logic, computer programming, philosophy, innovation, inventing new technologies, new ideas, etc. Men are simply better at most things, both mental and physical. So how is that not superior? This definitely fits the definition of superiority, at least in terms of most skills and talents. So it's definitely not comparable with the earth being flat as New Agers claim.

For example, we all know that the best male athletes will win over the best female athletes in most sports such as football, baseball, basketball, volleyball, hockey, etc. Even in tennis men and women cannot compete. There's mixed doubles of course but not doubles in the form of two men vs two women. There's a reason for that. There's a reason why pro sports are gender segregated. Why does no one talk about it openly? Its a totally taboo subject to mention even though it's obvious. No one even dares to mention that men are stronger or better at sports anymore, even though everyone knows it. Lol. People are so gutless these days. As Clint Eastwood said, "People today are such pussies."

Now, women may have a slight edge in graceful sports like figure skating or ballet, however there are men who are very good at those artistic sports too.

Even chess tournaments are segregated by gender. They don't have men and women playing in the same tournament. Gee I wonder why. The best male chess player will also l usually beat the best female chess player. What does that tell you? And the best computer programmers and software designers are males too. So are auto mechanics, repairmen, etc. When you call someone to fix your house or car, who shows up, a man or woman? We all know the answer.

So clearly men dominate in mental cerebral activities too. After all there's no female equivalent of Albert Einstein, Nikola Tesla, Thomas Edison, Leonardo da Vinci, Benjamin Franklin, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, etc. So if men dominate in most physical and mental abilities, how are they not superior? I don't get it.

Women are only good at traditional female stuff like sewing, cooking, fashion, baby care, teaching elementary school and at getting attention with their looks. That's why they get more likes on Facebook than men do. And they get more attention on YouTube too, using only their looks and bodies. But they never build, invent or create anything in civilization or technology, besides having babies of course. Its a basic fact. Everyone knows this deep down. So whats the friggin basis for equality?!

Yet even all the men in the truth movement and new age movement demonize the patriarchy as though it were something evil and say that male superiority is as bogus as flat earth. Lol. Wtf? I don't get it. Do you? Doesn't that piss you off? Why is everyone in on it? Why doesn't anyone point out the obvious falsity in all this?

There's simply no basis in giving women equal power or total equality when they haven't earned it. Women did not build anything or invent anything or win any battles, etc. So what right do they have to lead and govern society? It makes no f***ing sense. Yet Hollywood now show women in leadership positions in most movies. Like Princess Leia is now General Leia in the latest Star Wars flick?! Wtf?!

Now I'm not saying that women should have to be subservient to men or that they shouldn't have rights or opportunities or be treated with respect. Of course they should. They are human beings. But that doesn't mean they should be totally equal to men in every way, especially since they are clearly not and have not earned it. No way. Thats taking it too far and is downright delusional.

Clearly men have earned the right to lead and govern in this world, since they built and invented literally everything around you in civilization, both past and present. So what right do women have to equality? It makes no f***ing sense yet everyone accepts equal power as gospel truth! It's totally insane yet you are not allowed to question it lest you be condemned.

We all know that giving someone something they didn't earn will spoiled them. Like when you give free money to someone they won't appreciate it if they didn't earn it. Same with equality. If you give women UNEARNED equality and UNEARNED power, then they won't appreciate it. It'll just make them spoiled and bitchy, which is exactly what they've become. So true huh?

I get more and more insights like this everyday. Truth is so enlightening but its so lonely too. Lol

Btw, when i saw Princess Leia become a general in the last Star Wars movie, I was perplexed. Wtf did she do to become a general? Just because she has a p***y she gets to be general? What the f**k kind of f***ed up logic is that?! Yet none of the male freethinkers in the truth movement would dare point this out. Lol.

A general has to earn the right to be general. He has to prove himself by winning great battles, like Napoleon did. Princess Leia didnt do any of that of course. Its stupid. How come no one pointed out the stupidity of this? Because any female with a p***y ought to be a leader or general, even if they aren't qualified? What kind of f***ed up logic is that?!

Since when has there ever been a great female general in world history? Can you find even one? Lol. I can't. The last time there was a female general I think was 2,000 years ago in ancient Britain when the Romans invaded it. The Briton tribes were a matriarchy with a female general and leader named Budabago (sp?) or something. Well she and her men got totally whipped and clobbered of course.

There's never ever been even a decent female general. So how could Hollywood even imagine one? Lol. Its as silly as having me being a cheerleader for the Dallas Cowboys. Totally nonsensical and out of place. Hollywood must be so desperate for women to lead. Too bad they lost the presidential election when Hillary lost. Lol.

America is a hypocrite. It claims women are equal to men in every way. Yet if they really believed that then pro sports would be all coed. The NFL and NBA would put female athletes with male athletes. Yet this would be so ridiculous that even feminists do not propose it. And the US military would put women on the front line in combat. Yet no one wants that. Why not? Aren't they totally equal in every way? Lol. Friggin hypocrites.

Everyone knows all this above. Its common sense. Yet no one dares to point this out or challenge this hypocrisy. Crazy isn't it? Doesn't that piss you off and make you wonder whats wrong with everyone?! Do you ever ponder these things secretly too? Yet you know there are very few people you can bring up these things with of course, because its so friggin taboo! Lol

Regardless, anyone who faces the honest facts above can see that men have definitely EARNED the right to lead, govern and rule. Theres definitely no gender equality here, at least not in terms of talents, skills, strength, intelligence and power.

Thus the right of male patriarchy is completely justified, logical and clear. Theres no valid reason to argue against it. Sure some men may be bad people and abuse others or mistreat others. But thats life and is true of anyone in authority or power, not just men. It doesn't mean patriarchy is bad in general. Only that some individuals are bad and corrupt. Not that the male gender is bad in general.

Every group, society or organization must have people who manage, administrate, govern and lead or else it cannot function. Just because some leaders are bad doesn't mean no one should be leaders or all authority should be abolished. You simply need to get good leaders who are wise and just. Not do away with leaders in general. Leaders also need to be qualified. And based on the above there's no doubt that qualified men are better at leadership than women are in general.

[ssjparris]

hey yeah i have always believed in men being the most important and most dominant thinker, creator, leader and ruler in the land. women secretly desire a man to dominate her. both emotionally and physically. civilizations have successfully flourished for centuries if it is a patriarchy. if it is a matriarchy it never lasts. just look at usa and where its headed. its a real matriarchy.

i have not posted here for years. I used to be a regular poster. some of you may remember me. my most popular post was " nice guys finish first " here on the happier abroad forum. i posted like 890 posts damn. anyways. i always believed it was important for men to be the most important when it comes to culture. women are simply the support. they are meant to support the leader and do what he says. obey. winston is dead on.

[Winston]

Yeah well men are clearly the dominant gender. However that doesnt mean that all men are fit to lead though. Some men are bad and foolish and stupid and reckless. They should not lead. And smart women should not follow them. But this is about the genders in general. Doesnt apply to every individual of course.

I have a theory that is original and makes sense. Its like a revelation. You notice how american women are obsessed with self esteem and blabber about it a lot, but foreign women are not? Well theres a logical reason for that. American women badly want to be equal or superior to men. They feel its their right. However they know deep down that they are inferior to men. Theyve never built or invented or designed anything in civilization. Theyve never won any battles or built any empires. Or invented any new technologies. Instinctively they know that. So it makes them feel insecure and they resent it subconsciously. As a result they need to boost themselves with lots of extra self esteem, which is fake and pseudo of course. But its like a band aid that helps them think they are patching up their inferiority complex for not being truly equal to men.

Moreover, they've suppressed their feminity and hate it. So in a sense they hate their true selves that nature gave them. Hence, since they hate themselves, they truly have low self esteem. Thus they have to find artifical ways to keep boosting their self esteem, using stupid new age mantras and self help books, etc. If they had accepted and embraced their feminine nature and who they are, then they would have true self esteem and confidence, the way foreign women do. And then they wouldnt blab on about self esteem like some wounded animal. Thats why you dont see women in Russia or China blabbing about self esteem. Only american women do. Furthermore, before the era of feminism, american women did not blabber about self esteem either.

What do you think of my theory? Does it make sense?

Plus of course, american culture produces low self esteem in general because no one truly likes you for you. People only like you if you are useful to them in their business or career or you help raise their social image. Hence no one feels truly loved and accepted for themselves. That's gotta be a factor as well.

[Winston]

Note also that since the 1960s when women gained political equality with men in America, they have not invented anything since then either. So they can't use the excuse that they were too oppressed in the past to invent anything.

Since then the 747 jet engine was invented, by men of course. And the personal computer industry was innovated and commercialized by men of course, men like steve jobs and bill gates. Not women. The internet was designed by men too. And of course cell phones and smart phones were designed by male engineers and programmers too.

So how do women explain that? They can't. Its their achilles heel. And they are ashamed of it and feel inferior by this fact. All they can do is attack you if you speak the truth. Yet they have the gall to tell men that they lack confidence or self esteem or self love?! What hypocrites! Its they who are insecure and trying to project that onto men. Simply put they have no accomplishments to be proud of. So they have to shame men for it.

[Adama]

There is only one real reason, despite any possible superiority. It's simple. God said so. He is the Maker and our Commander.

Also, man was made in the image of God, not woman. The woman was specifically made to help her man, not to compete with him or to try to hurt him or measure herself against him in anyway. She's to obey and revere the man, not try to dominate him, and he will respect her so that God doesn't destroy him.

Even the nature of the male and female bodies can tell you just by looking at them. The woman is the glory of the man.

This is an interesting topic, and I could go on and on, but really, most of you are the choir.

[ssjparris]

women just are not up to par with a man. nature intended for them to be pure yin and men to be pure yang thats why.

[Winston]

Besides physical strength and mental intelligence, I should also point out a third major area where men excel over women as well:

3. Soul, character, moral principles

This is the right area where one ought to be judgmental about, because a person's quality of soul and character are far more important than superficial things like his looks, money and social status. So if you are going to be judgmental, be judgmental about that. Incidentally, people who are judgmental about a man's soul and character usually like me, because I have good marks and positive vibes in those areas.

If you think about it, even in this deeper area, men are better than women in general, for a myriad of reasons. Consider the following patterns and comparisons:

1. Women are more materialistic and like shopping more than men do. As we all know, most women love shopping and they buy most of the items purchased in a shopping mall. That's why most advertisements and commercials are targeted to women, not men, because women are more influence-able by them. But men tend to only buy what they need and do not like to spend much time shopping. We've all seen this gender difference.

Women also care a lot more about having material luxuries like having nice houses and cars, fancy things, clothes, perfume, etc. They definitely get off on such things a lot more than men do. Men are more simple and are happy with a clean simple room with basic bed, shower and TV. Men only need food and sex, and don't need luxury items, but are content with minimalist living. Women care more about beautiful objects and material things whereas men care more about ideas, innovation, knowledge, information, etc. To women, beauty is found in material things like dresses and shoes, whereas to men, beauty is found in women or nature. That's why women do not love men equally the same way. They reserve most of their love for their children and for material things. It therefore logically follows that the more materialistic someone is, the more corruptible they will be, and less spiritually oriented as well.

This is ironic though, because women are seen as being more into New Age spirituality, psychics and astrology than men are, however many of those women are posers, who are looking to have an upper edge on men by trying to use spiritual metaphysical forces to their advantage, to compensate for being the weaker and less intelligent sex. It doesn't mean they are trying to be less materialistic. Such New Age women I'm sure, would love to have a nice fancy house and car and high status clothes, rather than live as a minimalist. I know this personally because I've had a New Age girlfriend before, despite her "spiritual life" she was still very materialistic.

2. Money and success change women a lot more than they do men. Money does not change men the way it does to women. Men are more down to earth and remain the same regardless of wealth. For example, take a look at George Lucas. He made millions from Star Wars and is very wealthy. Yet he still wears blue collar clothes like T-shirt and jeans and eats hamburgers like a regular guy. He is too down to earth to live like an elitist. And when you listen to his interviews, he comes across as being very down to earth and genuine. Not a poser or snob with an attitude.

To give you another example, in the early 1900's when Henry Ford became wealthy and successful for founding the Ford Motor Company and being the first to mass produce automobiles by factory production, he also remained the same down to earth man that he was. He still lived out in his farm ranch and did farm work the old fashioned way. And his social company consisted of farmers still, not social elites, because he disliked elitists and preferred to be around folks who were more down to earth like himself. He even built a little private village where everything ran like it did in the 1800's, due to his nostalgia for the simplicity of the past. He disliked the modern industrial world, which ironically his cars helped create. So he still remained very down to earth and principled, with moral values and integrity.

In contrast, do you think a female CEO like Marissa Mayer, Yahoo's unpopular CEO with a dismal record who brought the company down and discriminated against men, became very down to earth after she became CEO of Yahoo? Hell no! Take a look at her photos on Google Images and see. She looks very cold, bitchy and hateful. Not down to earth at all, but the furthest thing from it. She looks quite wicked, and is even being sued for discriminating against men, which she obviously hates. She's a sexist and misandrist no doubt. So you see, women are more easily corruptible by power, wealth or success. Especially if they didn't earn it or deserve it, in which case it's not even their proper place and they know it.

Now there are exceptions of course. Oprah Winfrey is pretty down to earth, but that's because she's black and blacks tend to be very down to earth. And the famous white female journalist Barbara Walters of ABC 20/20 is pretty down to earth as well, but she's a rare exception. Most women who are given power and money become nasty creatures, like Marissa Mayer, not down to earth at all. In contrast, notice that Bill Gates does not look cold and hateful, but rather mellow and nice. Why do you think that is? Obviously, if most women are corruptible by money and power, it means their character and soul are low quality and they have no core inner virtues or principles.

In addition, women are more changed by power than men are. You see, when a man becomes wealthy and successful, he will still be a man who needs food and sex, and still need a female partner as a lover or wife. Thus his basic nature will not change. However, once women have enough money, they will believe that they no longer need a husband for support or protection. (We all know of wealthy women who no longer seek marriage and don't need it) They can do everything on their own and be independent and support themselves. So their basic need for a man will be changed. And if they do want a husband, he will have to be someone who makes more money than her, because women are hypergamous - they can only marry up, not down or equal. And if they are wealthy or successful, then it will be hard for them to marry up because the pool of men that would qualify is too small and often unavailable to them.

But this begs the question though: If American women truly wanted equality, then why don't they want a man of equal height, strength and income as themselves? Why do they always want a male partner who is taller, stronger and makes more money, if they seek "equality" as they claim. As usual, feminism and equality is rife with double standards and discrepancies, which is obviously because it's based on lies and falsities, not reality.

3. Women lie more than men do, generally speaking. I'm sure we've all experienced this. Women are known to lie about trivial things, even if they are unnecessary, just to save face or manipulate others. But men usually only lie when they feel they have to, or there's a good reason to, or they want something from you badly, or it's their job to, or if they feel it will prevent a disaster or ruin from occurring, or if it will make their partner go berzerk. But they don't lie about frivolous things like many women do. Women are far more manipulative, they have to be since they're the weaker sex, and manipulation usually involves deceit.

Now I'm not talking about male politicians or salespeople here, since those are occupations where lying is part of the job. That's what politicians and salespeople do, both male and female, so what do you expect? It's not like Hillary Clinton, a female politician, is any more honest than any male politician anyway. No. I'm talking about regular down-to-earth men here. Such men do not lie much unless there's a good reason to. Women also have less of a conscience about lying and do not feel as guilty about it as men do. So, if men lie less than women in general, that means that they have more integrity, honor and conscience, all of which are virtues of character of course.

4. Men are more straightforward and down-to-earth than western women are. Even many American girls themselves often say they prefer having guy friends because guys are more straightforward and down-to-earth and do not play games or create drama like girls do. Being more down-to-earth means that one is more genuine, honest, sincere and stable. These are traits associated with good character and soul. I've also noticed that soulful people usually are very down-to-earth as well.

5. Men have stronger principles and will often stand by them even if they are unpopular, whereas women tend to follow whatever is popular and trendy, even if it's bad or wrong. In general, women do not usually have strong principles and inner convictions. They are more fickle and tend to go for whatever is popular and trendy, even if they are bad or degenerate. (e.g. Such as when women were conditioned to smoke cigarettes in the 1920's, even though there was a negative stigma attached to it, when the advertising media mogul Edward Bernays convinced them to smoke by making it popular and trendy and fashionable.)

That's one of the reasons why women were not allowed to vote in the past. They didn't care that much about what was right, only what was popular and good for their social image. You see, women care more about what people think, rather than following some core set of principles or moral values. Very few women will stand up for principles, values or ideas which are not popular. Men are more likely to do that. History shows this.

Also, if you put women in a corrupt degenerate society with bad moral values, they will usually conform to the bad culture and become bad themselves, especially if they are young girls. So females are usually far more corruptible than males, especially when they are young and less mature. They simply don't have inner convictions or virtues to stand on. As you know, having strong principles and values attests to one's quality of character and integrity. It also shows strength of character to stand up for what you believe in, rather than bow to pressure from others.

6. Most great artists, poets, philosophers, writers and composers are men. If you study history, you see that most of the greatest painters, sculptors, writers, poets, philosophers, classical music composers, etc are men, not women. There are some great female writers and novelists too, but most throughout history have been men. These are artists with deep souls, often mad geniuses too who were misunderstood or too deep and sensitive for this world. Such great composers like Mozart and Beethoven have no female equivalents.

There are a small handful of great female philosophers though - such as Ayn Rand, Helena Blavatsky, Hypatia of Alexandria (from 5th century) - but these are all white and European or Russian, none of them were from Asia. Asian women are never into things like philosophy, they are only into practical and materialistic things. That's just a fact. So, overall men dominate most artistic fields as well, except for maybe ballet dancing or figure skating. All this means that men are capable of having deeper souls and more creativity, than women are, at least among men who are talented and gifted in those areas.

7. Women are less able to handle negative truths and are more offended easily. Thus you cannot be as honest around women the way you are around men. We've all experienced and noticed this. Women's feelings are easier to hurt, their egos are more fragile, and they get offended a lot easier than men do. No one would deny this. It's self-evident and common experience. Women are also bigger on political correctness than men are. That's why around women, men tend to have to tame their mouth and words and cannot speak freely, because women also don't like hearing anything that's politically incorrect in general, or any negative opinions or observations about any culture or people, even if it's completely true and accurate. Obviously, this means that women are more weak and insecure if they cannot handle the truth as well as men are. Truly strong and confident men, such as Chuck Norris, Sylvester Stallone, Clint Eastwood, Arnold Schwarzenegger, etc do not get insulted or offended easily, because they have true strength and confidence, both inner and outer, which few women have.

So you see, in summary, men excel over women in all three major areas of life:

1. Physical strength, athletics, sports, combat, raw power.
2. Intelligence, logic, brains, computer programming, math, science, innovation and mental skills.
3. Soul, character, moral principles, spirituality.

On the other hand, women of course excel in using their looks to get ahead and in being sex objects and getting attention that way. They get noticed more for their sexy bodies and get more likes on Facebook than men do. It's one of their few weapons of advantage and power over men, since they cannot use strength or intelligence to win over men. However, American women will not cite that as something to be proud of, because they dislike being treated like sex objects, even though they will use it to their advantage if they can of course. After all, you gotta take advantage of what you got.

However, such an advantage if fleeting and fades with youth. It's not an advantage that lasts for life, like the three areas above are. So it's not an advantage they can hang onto for life. The bottom line is: Men excel in far more areas than women do. Therefore, it would be very logical and justifiable to say that men are superior in most areas than women are, even though it would be very offensive, taboo and politically incorrect to say that, and thus they have earned the right to rule, lead and govern. Hence Patriarchy makes sense and is very logical and self-evident.

I think deep down, women know all this, or at least they instinctively do. American women resent it, because they want to compete with men and believe they are entitled to equality and independence from men. That's why modern American women with feminist attitude hate men and try to shame them. But foreign women do not try to compete with men and do not seek independence or equality, so they do not resent these facts. I think virtually all men, if they are honest, prefer women who do not resent them than ones that do. Hence foreign women are preferable as wives and girlfriends.

So, instead of trying to become men or equal to men, why don't these American women seek to be the BEST of what they were meant to be - caring, nurturing wives and mothers, or even sex objects which is what they excel in best. Why fight it? Why fight nature, reality and God? Why keep trying to be something they are not? Why not embrace what they are and who they are, and be the BEST they can be? That would be the smart sensible approach, one that would bring optimal happiness to all, including themselves, their men, their children and society as well. It would be a true win-win situation for all.

[MrMan]

Winston,

I was just thinking of some of the things on your list. If you discussed this topic with women, they might say men cause wars and that men are more likely to commit violent crimes. That last part about the crime is probably true. I've heard the idea that if women ruled, there would be no more wars. But it seems like in interpersonal relationships, women can have more difficulty getting along and can have a harder time getting past a conflict and moving on to have a productive working relationship.

Back in the old days, philosphers thought of men as superior, but fighting to protect ones own people was considered a noble thing, so they probably did not think of that as a liability.

I've seen episodes of TV shows where there was a world where there were only women or women were in charge. If hypothetically all the men died out, what would the world be like? The streets would probably be unusable because they would be filled with broken down cars that the women couldn't repair. Buildings would wear out due to lack of maintenance. The buildings might last a generation. If these women had lots of sperm banks with only XX sperm, then over time, womankind might have to move out of large apartments and houses as they wore out, and eventually have to move into some kind of hut. Is there any culture where women do much of the building of housing that don't just have simple huts with leaf or grass rooves?

[Misko_Varesanovic]

[Winston]

Winston,

I was just thinking of some of the things on your list. If you discussed this topic with women, they might say men cause wars and that men are more likely to commit violent crimes. That last part about the crime is probably true. I've heard the idea that if women ruled, there would be no more wars. But it seems like in interpersonal relationships, women can have more difficulty getting along and can have a harder time getting past a conflict and moving on to have a productive working relationship.

Back in the old days, philosphers thought of men as superior, but fighting to protect ones own people was considered a noble thing, so they probably did not think of that as a liability.

I've seen episodes of TV shows where there was a world where there were only women or women were in charge. If hypothetically all the men died out, what would the world be like? The streets would probably be unusable because they would be filled with broken down cars that the women couldn't repair. Buildings would wear out due to lack of maintenance. The buildings might last a generation. If these women had lots of sperm banks with only XX sperm, then over time, womankind might have to move out of large apartments and houses as they wore out, and eventually have to move into some kind of hut. Is there any culture where women do much of the building of housing that don't just have simple huts with leaf or grass rooves?

LOL. If there were no men, then women would not have cars or buses to move around in. Nor cell phones to talk on. Or even phones to talk on. Because men invented all those things. They probably wouldn't even be able to hunt, only gather berries and plants. So wild animals would eat them all. lol. They could not build houses either, only live in huts. It'd be back to the stone age. lol. Their only chance is if men or aliens built robots or AI for them to serve them and do all the work. lol. That's probably their ideal world. lol

Btw, the common man does not want war. Only the male rulers and elites do. So that argument is only partially true.

[Misko_Varesanovic]

I think deep down, women know all this, or at least they instinctively do. American women resent it, because they want to compete with men and believe they are entitled to equality and independence from men. That's why modern American women with feminist attitude hate men and try to shame them. But foreign women do not try to compete with men and do not seek independence or equality, so they do not resent these facts. I think virtually all men, if they are honest, prefer women who do not resent them than ones that do. Hence foreign women are preferable as wives and girlfriends.

This is the crux of the issue: why American women in particular and (Anglosphere) Western women more generally are trying to be something they are not, i.e. men.

They are probably this way at least in part because the dominant societal narrative seems to have swung towards radical androgyny in recent decades. Women are therefore ashamed of being women and are attempting to undergo extreme defeminisation.

You can see this in the evolution of language: for example, in some countries, the usage of female nouns such as 'actress' has become strongly looked down on in polite society over the past five years. Women are now meant to be referred to only as 'actors'.

Of course, how this represents progress or female empowerment is anyone's guess. Rejecting the most essential part of your being isn't usually the act of a confident group. It's a extremely sad trend, actually. Truly tragic.

[Adama]

Satanic doctrine is against God and His will. So if God says men are to rule, then those who follow Satan are going to do their best to make women our rulers in the home. It really is that simple. Society is under the direction of those who hate God and love Satan.

This is obvious, because who in their right mind would imprison a man for not being able to pay for his child, while women who can't pay get a paycheck from the government and do not risk imprisonment.

All you have to do is elevate women and the structure of society will be destroyed. Because it removes the authority and power of the man, who needs to be there as the father. It also displaces men and boys, leaving no real place for them. Women have usurped the authority of men. The apostle Paul was also against female leaders. Women are subject to their husbands. They are not independent and they are not over the man. And any woman who rises up out of her place to boss the man is in trouble, because according to marriage and the household, the only person above the husband in authority is Christ.

[Misko_Varesanovic]

Satanic doctrine is against God and His will. So if God says men are to rule, then those who follow Satan are going to do their best to make women our rulers in the home. It really is that simple. Society is under the direction of those who hate God and love Satan.

This is obvious, because who in their right mind would imprison a man for not being able to pay for his child, while women who can't pay get a paycheck from the government and do not risk imprisonment.

All you have to do is elevate women and the structure of society will be destroyed. Because it removes the authority and power of the man, who needs to be there as the father. It also displaces men and boys, leaving no real place for them. Women have usurped the authority of men. The apostle Paul was also against female leaders. Women are subject to their husbands. They are not independent and they are not over the man. And any woman who rises up out of her place to boss the man is in trouble, because according to marriage and the household, the only person above the husband in authority is Christ.

But is it really that simple? Maybe the problem is not the elevation of women, but the type of 'elevation' being preached.

There are many highly talented professional women - graduates working in fields such as medicine, commerce and law - who remain deeply feminine and love and care for their menfolk.

However, virtually none of them are in the developed Anglosphere (US/Can/UK etc.). This is almost certainly because there are deeper cultural issues at play here. Factors like whether a country has had an elected female head of state are actually pretty meaningless. Indonesia has had a female president and the US has not, but you tell me where the more feminine women are to be found.

Or take the examples of Switzerland and Bosnia. Both these countries are mountainous European nations who are quite good at soccer. You put a Swiss person and a Bosnian next to each other and it's a struggle to tell the difference. But Switzerland has a divorce rate of 42%, while Bosnia has a divorce rate of just 13% (cf. the US at 46%). Again, deeper cultural forces at work.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce_demography

Possibly the biggest cultural force is the addiction of certain developed nations to work and buying stuff. If you work long hours to buy lots of stuff, then that doesn't leave much time left to maintain a pleasant household - and if women get sucked into that cycle, then it's goodbye to many of life's pleasures, such as home cooking and leisurely sex. Consumerism: the clue is in the name...

[Adama]

Satanic doctrine is against God and His will. So if God says men are to rule, then those who follow Satan are going to do their best to make women our rulers in the home. It really is that simple. Society is under the direction of those who hate God and love Satan.

This is obvious, because who in their right mind would imprison a man for not being able to pay for his child, while women who can't pay get a paycheck from the government and do not risk imprisonment.

All you have to do is elevate women and the structure of society will be destroyed. Because it removes the authority and power of the man, who needs to be there as the father. It also displaces men and boys, leaving no real place for them. Women have usurped the authority of men. The apostle Paul was also against female leaders. Women are subject to their husbands. They are not independent and they are not over the man. And any woman who rises up out of her place to boss the man is in trouble, because according to marriage and the household, the only person above the husband in authority is Christ.

But is it really that simple? Maybe the problem is not the elevation of women, but the type of 'elevation' being preached.

There are many highly talented professional women - graduates working in fields such as medicine, commerce and law - who remain deeply feminine and love and care for their menfolk.

However, virtually none of them are in the developed Anglosphere (US/Can/UK etc.). This is almost certainly because there are deeper cultural issues at play here. Factors like whether a country has had an elected female head of state are actually pretty meaningless. Indonesia has had a female president and the US has not, but you tell me where the more feminine women are to be found.

Or take the examples of Switzerland and Bosnia. Both these countries are mountainous European nations who are quite good at soccer. You put a Swiss person and a Bosnian next to each other and it's a struggle to tell the difference. But Switzerland has a divorce rate of 42%, while Bosnia has a divorce rate of just 13% (cf. the US at 46%). Again, deeper cultural forces at work.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce_demography

Possibly the biggest cultural force is the addiction of certain developed nations to work and buying stuff. If you work long hours to buy lots of stuff, then that doesn't leave much time left to maintain a pleasant household - and if women get sucked into that cycle, then it's goodbye to many of life's pleasures, such as home cooking and leisurely sex. Consumerism: the clue is in the name...

Although a female president or a queen is not a good thing, that is not really what I am talking about. I am talking about the power balance within personal relationships.

The USA pretty much allows women to run over men, and men are basically just powerless against cruel women. The state supports women stripping men of their children, and they even put men in prison on the whims of women. There is not much that a man can do to a woman with the legal system behind him.

The elitists want to make women the heads of the household instead of the father and instead of the husband. This is what I am talking about. Instead of rule by the father, there is rule by women, within the home. That is a disaster.

And for those who still think there is some other cause, just look at the statistics of fatherless children. Children whose fathers are not in the home are much worse off on average than those children whose fathers live with them, unless the woman is domineering and overpowering that man.

[Winston]

Great video about why Patriarchy makes perfect sense and is mandatory lest society collapse.



Men are smarter than women, deal with it!