the professor

redefining the new Renaissance Man

[context] Feminism & Communism – a striking similarity

Feminism is similar to communism. It preaches socially enforced Equality and sameness under the veil of greater good, yet in practice, yields disincentive, hatred, resentment, and ultimately inequality in power to the benefit of its philosophical proponent.

Communism (economical sameness) guarantees equal resources for all, and concentrates power to the hands of a few, which results in absolute power, absolute corruption, and disincentive for anyone with potential to contribute to society to their full ability due to lack of reward (social, economical). Innovation in such societies is dictated as a competitive measure, and coerced through government military might. Furthermore, the welfare trap (work less, get a handout) enables the lazy individuals in society to make bad decisions and continue to be guaranteed a seat economically. Albeit laws that limit crime and disorder to the state, society will only be sustained temporarily until it fails. A body of power is only as strong as its subject base – the disgruntled citizens ultimately take a stand and overthrow their government. Look at the rise and fall of any communist state. Or even modern communist states, battered with corruption, bribery, coercion, and non-humanitarian conditions for a vast portion of the populace. Military is their might, and taxation/nationalization is their capital source. They are failed states.

Feminism (female equality), which also started as a noble concept to level the playing field for women, has morphed into post-modern feminism – a social monster that enforces its heavy hand through government policy, media, and social conventions. The quest to grant equal access to economic and political privilege has evolved into western society full of unsatisfied women who continue to shame men for not providing them with their wants or needs, even after equality rights have been granted. This results in family law biased towards women, the pedestalization of women (thus shaming tactics towards men when they do not fulfill the needs or wants of women, without consideration towards men’s needs), screams of pay inequality (though this is mostly the case at extreme ends of the spectrum), and a slew of other dynamic changes towards inequality that tilt power in women’s favor, and consequently devalue/commodotize the value of the average man. When feminism is exercised to its extremity, the average woman will engage in promiscuity from an age of sexual maturity (teens), pursue career and independence through her 20s while riding the carousel of sexual promiscuity and serial monogamy, and proudly wave the flag of sexual freedom and liberation. Ultimately in her 30s, when her looks start to fade, her biological clock starts to tick louder and faster, and as her male counterparts opt for younger more feminine women, she will now open herself up to the prospect of the hard-working provider male who she had neglected all those years because she had the tingle for alpha characteristics (statistically 20%). Then, she will get bored because he does not excite her, and for no reason, she may initiate a no-fault divorce, keep the kids, and half of his assets. She may continue to look for another male provider using any shaming or seductive tactic. In this scenario, law-abiding, hard-working, respectful, kind, gentle, beta provider nice-guy males are at highest risk, for they work the hardest, and attain the least reward, while alpha males who disregard women’s stated needs and wants, are often unabiding of the law or social norms, and are non-committal, benefit the most from a male perspective in such a system. Of course, ALL women benefit the most from this system (whether old and out of grace, or young and feminine, or even homeless single mothers). Eventually, frustrated beta males will act out in a classic fight-or-flight response as evolutionary survival instincts dictate. They will either recognize and increase their alpha characteristics, depart the system and expatriate to other more suitable cultures which reward their merits, or act out in violence to society. Ultimately, even the reformed beta male who realizes his full masculinity will be aware enough to maximize feminist promiscuity for his sexual needs, but never ultimately settle with a feminist; instead, if he chooses to settle, he will opt for a younger or more feminine woman who has not been tarnished by the feminist imperative and preserved her sexual market value. Equality proposes one norm, while human nature dictates another.

The great irony is that the feminine women who understand that they have a different biological burden to yolk (maternity) also seem to best understand the power that comes with their virtues (youth, beauty, kindness, patience, support). When they marry, they look for an upgrade in social status and resource provision, and often end up with a significant (if not majority) controlling interest, and the men are okay with this because their value complements each other without abusing it. You will rarely see a feminine woman in this position wave the flag of feminism, because she truly understands the incredible yet indirect feminine power in a patriarchy. She will never claim equal rights and responsibility, because she understands the delicate yet beneficial imbalance on both sides.

Below are a few feminist claims of equal rights, and the lack of correlation to equal responsibility.

inequality of pay: usually the same at most levels, given equal education, experience, and ability. Men tend to negotiate more for salary jumps, and are more willing switch companies more than women, thus contributing to pay gaps in the longer term. Labor laws limit discrimination of pay based on demographic factors, so there is no false higher entity that predisposes men to earn more than women, contrary to popular belief. Corporations operate on a profit motive – if they could supposedly hire a woman at 70-80% of the rate as a man, wouldn’t they just hire an entire workforce of women and save on all that extra cost? It doesn’t add up.

inequality of high status positions: Though feminists love to cite the inequality of female pay and positions at the executive and political ranks, they never mention the inequality of the workforce at the lowest ranks, or manual labor ranks. Let there be an enforcement of female laborers, construction workers, sanitation workers, or any dangerous activity (which is counterintuitive and counterproductive), before there is any enforcement of mandatory placement at higher levels of the spectrum. similarly, mandate female enrollment in selective service, all military activity, and any other male-required activity. Equal responsibility.

inequality of sexual freedom: feminists love to claim that men are celebrated for sexual conquest, yet women are demeaned as sluts for engaging with multiple sexual partners. Thus, women should be allowed to explore their sexuality freely. This premise confuses equality with sameness. The ability to engage in consensual sex is disproportionate for men and women. See SMV chart. From an evolutionary perspective, Men are biologically inclined to pursue sex to maximize the spreading of their seeds, and, well, men are just horny in general. Women enjoy sex, yet don’t have to pursue it to get it, thus are socially shamed as sluts for freely acting on their promiscuity. They simply need to place themselves any forum where they are approachable (standard meat markets such as bars, clubs, or online dating venues). Simply put, it is much more difficult for a man to be sexually promiscuous, for he must have many characteristics (charisma, social status, confidence, maturity), financial assets, good physique, or combinations of the aforementioned. This generally includes 20-40% of men. Alternatively, women need to maintain some element of physical attractiveness, and some element of femininity (flirtiness, general etiquette). This generally includes 50-80% of women. Biologically, mathematically, socially, pretty much any way you cut it, women are predisposed to more sex than men, and their challenge is not to acquire a mate, but to make the best selection within their options. A key that can open many locks is valuable, but a lock that can be opened by many keys is not valuable.

There are a myriad other proclaimed inequalities, but these are the major touted ones. For a more comprehensive list of myths vs. independent statistics, see the link below:

Feminist myths vs. statistics

The flaw in both philosophies is that they both brainwash the masses with their utopian theories, yet fail to acknowledge fundamental differences (neither good nor bad) between its participants. Ultimately, the proponents for each philosophy who preach equality end up with lopsided power, punish the most productive members of societies, and reward counterproductive behavior. When the reward becomes the punishment, the system implodes. It is ironic that feminism cannot co-exist with communism, even though they both preach equality and sameness. This is because beneath it all, the power structure is contradictory – an authoritarian communist government will not place a feminist equality agenda above its own political and economic interest, because equality only applies to the masses, and there is no room for equality in power dynamics. Similarly, a feminist society would never submit to communist agenda, because they would truly have to settle for equality without biased privilege or selective gender freedom. Theory is one thing, practice is another. Feminism has seamlessly integrated itself into western civilization, and has become a culture of convenience for the modern woman while emasculating the average man in the process. Boil down men and women to their biochemical basics, and you will find that societies which blend the optimization of a man’s masculinity and woman’s femininity while catering to basic human needs (see Maslow’s hierarchy) security, education, and economical safety, yield a safety net from social risk while enabling economic opportunity. Obviously, society is more complicated than that, but a small government which protects its citizens from economic and social risk, and allows market forces to generate the natural spectrum of economic success, will do more for society than a big government, dictated by a few interests, but polluted with high power and high capital. The latter is destined to implode. Neither communism nor feminism support the concept of small government, because they manipulate a large government to exercise their bidding, thus driving inequality, and extricating any high producers of society.

Cultural Marxism is a sham. Equality is confused with sameness. Equal opportunity is the gold standard, not entitlement. Let government protect from risk, provide educational opportunity, and uphold infrastructure, not dictate social norms and facilitate interests of select groups behind the politically correct facade of service to the greater good.

Advertisements - Mapping the Manosphere

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: