Posted by pater on
URL: https://coalpha.arkian.net/A-review-of-Sexual-Utopia-In-Power-tp6229740p3512715.html

For some odd reason I cant add to the thread!

Nevertheless, I just wanted to say I have read it in detail and its pretty much similar to the sort of thing I have read or understood from my own observations over the years in its description of the "effects of feminism"..

Not sure I really agree with the model he presents of the "male sexual utopia" as that is not from what I have noted about mens nature a possibility under any reality for the vast majority of men, breaking marital relationships to enable men to have sex with many women would not create "harems" for men, as equal numbers of both sexes would mean that they would merely have "time share" access to women, does not take into account the feelings of men or women who while they may like the idea of having more choice, natural jealousy would preclude them from wanting to share...

The same goes for the female "sexual utopia" idea, it was never a realistic notion..

I am not even sure that "feminism" is the true culprit, we can always assume that the elite shapers of society had a hand to play in directing social attitudes, but the individuals shaped their behaviour towards the "immediate gratification" model of selfishness when social attitudes and also technology (invented by men) made such things possible with "limited implications" (legalised abortion, the pill, etc..)

The elite encouraged "individualism" in both men and women, and feminism was embraced by MEN eagerly as part of this selfishness..

Declining birthrates were deliberate policy of the elite. They noted the correlations between high populations and several damaging factors, namely POVERTY and WAR.. The west was "optimally populated" for the next 40 years following the major culls of two world wars and a brief baby boom following.. LOW DEATH RATES are more of a problem now, with massive numbers of retired and non productive elderly folk..

War has never been a popular pastime for men, who die in wars, nor is poverty (men seek to avoid it especially when they feel responsible for women and children, as they have always done..)..

So, the ways of feminism, were accepted, nay, actively enjoyed by the first few generations of men who rolled in the economic "doubling up" of earning power.. (while it worked that way!)

The serious failings with feminist statist ideas were always predictable by anyone with enough foresight, because quite simply, its a total fucking dumb ideology that was bound to burn its own tits off after 3 generations.. 3 generations of selfish fucks.. Who did they expect to keep them under control when the responsible generations had all died off? The Nordic states are getting to realise that the old work ethic of the protestants is just not there anymore in the "rights" based culture.. Even raising kids is a state job these days in their minds! The more you prop folk, the harder they lean!

But, that dumb ideology was appealing to men who did not like being traditional men, (too much responsibility) and women who thought men had it easier, hence, did not want to be "powerless" (money) women!!

So, they pulled the wool over the eyes of even quite intelligent sheeple..

Ideas to deal with the situation, such as the marraige strikes, breeding strikes, increasing selfishness and rejection of women by men are of course doomed and make matters worse in the long term for people all round..

The suggested solutions provided by the author, well, they are pretty much on the ball!!

It is rare to see anyone setting out such a pretty clear and hard to fault set of corrective measures..

However, of course, it is more likely that "feminism" will also simultaneously have to run its ugly course, and men will suffer, as men always have..

Before the advent of full-scale feminism, they suffered death at war, suffered in the work place etc..

Now, they suffer pretty miserable lives, but is that worse than wholesale slaughter of millions and tyranical work ethics?

Individuals, as ever, make their decisions on the micro-economic level..

That has to work within the constraints of the macro level laid down by the faux democrasy of the state..

The only way to tie the two ends together and get them working properly is the unthinkable..

Get rid of the vote for married women.

Give men the family headship they need, and the right to vote for their families interests..

The man is talking my language!!

Any woman or man who does not like that, well, they are welcome to carry on in feminists equalitarian "sexual utopia" and become miserable or extinct with the childless greers.. End of the line for feminism!

Love honour and obey..

That is the bottom line and the time-proven answer to the problem..

For those who know the score!! Men and women alike!

Those old bastards were not far wrong were they?

As Harry Patch, (last surviving WW1 soldier) used to tell the new soldiers when he did his tours of the camps aged 108.. "The idea of women fighting on the front is the most ridiculous and stupid notion.. Wars can decimate huge swathes of the men, but as long as the women folk are kept safe at home, the remaining men can get the population back up to the correct fighting level with a generation.. Kill your breeding stock, and you are buggered.. You may even bring the enemy home inside them!" (Or that was how my nephew recounted it to me anyway!!)