cult-of-artemis-and-athena

[cult-of-artemis-and-athena]

The main point of my last few posts summed up as a TikTok dance

#modernity #gender equality #gender divide #gender wars #corporatism #economic fascism #blackrock #vanguard #inflation #housing crisis #Youtube

[cult-of-artemis-and-athena]

Did feminism create angry incels?

If you don't watch any other part of the video, watch from ~38 minutes to the end. I have a knee-jerk reaction, based on how unpleasant the manosphere is to interact with, to say that if someone's good nature is predicated upon being completely catered to and never compromising, then was it ever good nature to begin with? It seems irrational to me to hear someone lament that they don't have a female romantic partner, while complaining that women have become "too masculine" and women need to become traditionally feminine in one breath, while in the next using traits associated with traditional femininity to rationalize why women are inferior and unpleasant. Why would someone want to be with a woman if they don't like women?

Sex doll technology has come a long way, after all.

There is no beast without cruelty. --Friedrich Nietzsche

The above quote, I think encapsulates the origin of the flaws I find in feminism as well as the origin of modern misogyny.

In my last post, I invoked the idea of the bronze age chieftain exclusively focused on the bottom two layers of Maslow's hierarchy -- fuck everything else. In that circumstance, women, slaves, etc. were likely more accepting of their circumstances because they were also focused on the bottom two layers of the pyramid and normalized different things. You're unlikely to want something you don't know is an option. "My husband beats me. I can stay here or I can become a prostitute. If I leave and become a prostitute, I will have more freedom, but I will be a social pariah and could get beaten by men maybe 0 days a week or maybe every day of the week. However, if I try to just do whatever this tyrant wants and give him as little reason possible to be mad at me, I'll be considered a 'respectable woman' in the community and I might only get beat once a month."

The pattern I notice - why the Vedas and the Bible discuss what women can/can't/should/shouldn't do, or why Plato and Aristotle debated the topic, etc. - is that when a civilization moves into a phase where most people move beyond concern for their physiological needs and physical safety, limits and divisions of labor that may have been intuitive under "harsh Darwiniain conditions" become arbitrary. Men go from hard labor and guarding the town or whatnot, and their limits expand to art and leisure, commerce, thinking, reading, doodads, etc. Women get a bit of a trickle-down - more time for fashion and beautification, servants or automation free up their time for approved leisure activities, as those become accessible to the middle and working class - but they often remain very corralled into the private sphere for reasons that stopped being self-evident.

If there are roving rape gangs everywhere at all hours of the day, I think any woman who claims she wouldn't leave the house only when necessary, and with a bodyguard, or wear a convincing male disguise and carry a weapon, etc. (all ancient ways to deal with this) would be naive or lying. However, if the chances of being raped or assaulted are small enough that it becomes evident that women can go out and be reasonably safe, if someone imposes a rule that they can leave the house only when deemed necessary and with a male escort, it becomes an arbitrary restriction and women will want to push back against it.

This is the nth time I've said this but urbanization and the industrial revolution removed the intuition behind many old social codes. I think men were aware of this and wanted to maintain the existing social order - their monopoly on many social institutions and spaces - so they came up with new moralistic rationales for why women have to behave in certain ways, don't say this, don't go there, etc. The fact feminism really started to gain traction at the same time is no mystery.

When men feel subject to arbitrary restrictions, it's called "tyranny", and they kill people and start wars over it. Millions of people died due to men feeling arbitrarily restricted by, for example, the Treaty of Versailles. To the group that imposed the treaty, the conditions were reasonable, and necessary for maintaining social order. I'm not assigning a moral value to this, I'm just saying it is what it is. The resistance women encountered to renegotiate a social order based on this new environment -- it took over a hundred years and they had to, relative to historic female behavior, become quite nasty. However relative to the scope of male behavior, the typical "man-hating feminist" is being moderately rude. Feminists have not waged war. From the beginning, women not having the resources - in a naturalistic sense of muscle or nerve, or in a societal sense of not being acculturated to wielding lethal force - to wage war is part of why women find themselves in the recurring predicament they do.

I think feminism made a mistake when it stopped seeking equality and started going after vengeance and a sort of collective punishment. I think there's 3000x more misogyny in the 2020s than in the 2000s. Who thought they could say "kill all men", "we don't need men", "men are trash" for a decade and get any other result than this reactionary Andrew Tate bullshit.

It's like we traded a bit of benevolent sexism and lad culture for a underclass of deranged men who are "kill women, behead women, urinate in a woman's gas tank, launch women into the sun, roundhouse kick a woman into the concrete, crucify filthy women, defecate in a woman's food, slam dunk a female baby into a trash can."

Again, I struggle with the question of whether these people would be abusive degenerates anyway, even if they got the submissive virgin tradwife they claim would set everything right in their life.

But what if these people are a direct product of being told "men are bad, men are bad, men are bad", and internalizing that message, then who is surprised when they became a caricature of everything they're told they were their whole lives? Maybe they would be decent people if the world weren't telling them at every turn that they were the opposite of decent?

It's almost as if people of any kind react badly to being tyrannized and treated like subhumans.

[The] political divide could lead to lower rates of family formation—after all, who wants to sleep with the enemy?—and potentially even lower fertility rates. [Family] life is typically an anchor for our identity and purpose. We are already at risk of a “friendship recession.” Fraying ties between men and women could make it deeper. [...]“Women are being pressured ... to believe that their past status was brought about by male oppression. At the same time men ... are being accused of being oppressors—and angry oppressors at that. The whole process of change is taking place in an atmosphere of the greatest bad temper.”

Internet echo chambers, I think have a lot to do with this. Algorithms amplify vocal minorities often because they say something controversial, not because they say anything valuable. People who are chronically online have an unrealistic view of life and the human experience that would be otherwise tethered to reality if even half of their interactions took place in person.

But the problem is so many people are chronically online. What choice do they have though? There's very little to do, most young people don't have money, there's little motivation to go somewhere in person to talk when you can talk online, and nobody feels like they can trust each other.

One thing to understand about the internet, be it TikTok, dating apps, etc., is that they're not honest representations of what people are actually like. You see a lot of vocal minorities, idiosyncratic viewpoints signal-boosted by algorithms, intentional ragebaiting, etc. Dating apps give a very distorted view because a lot of people on there are either looking for casual sex, or have some sort of problem that prevents them from finding and staying in a serious relationship. You're going to see a lot of people who are promiscuous, unfortunate, or unpleasant - the thots, the fuckboys, the single moms, the divorced womanizers, the PUAs, the gold diggers, people with unrealistic standards, people with over-inflated egos, people who are cheating, people with massive deal-breakers - simply by nature of what the app is. I understand how someone could see that collection of weird people, their monkey brain tricks them into thinking that's real, and they think "Everyone's a fuckin' piece of shit."

Hopefully men and women aren't at as hopeless of a stalemate as Whatifalthist's video suggests, and the animosity can be walked back. However, when the videos below are what men see in women, and women see in men, respectively, I completely understand why neither side thinks the other deserves amnesty.

Some traditionalist and redpillers have discovered my blog and posted smooth-brain copypastas at me, that don't meaningfully refute any point that I actually make. One of these copypastas asserts that corporatism and government corruption is not the primary cause for inflation or the housing crisis, but that it's all women's fault. Of course, politicized misandry is the other side of this coin -- the belief that women's worse enemy is men and not the corporatist economic system and its beneficiaries.

Being divided against each other and displacing the blame away from the responsible parties is exactly what government and corporations want. If all the people they oppress are busy blaming and hating each other, constantly in-fighting about whatever Current Thing the corporatist media feeds them, those people aren't hating who they need to be hating.

I think when we see something that's promoting extremism or hate against something that we are, always assume these are deliberately designed to distract and divide, and instead of taking a reactionary position, simply don't engage in the dynamic you're being asked to participate in. Call out the dynamic.

When something is posed as a strict binary choice - one extreme vs. another extreme, "you're either with us or against us", "all _ are like that" - or when moderate views are derided as fence-sitting or contributing to the enemy's cause, when you're being told to dehumanize your opposition, that's a good sign that you're being asked to participate in empowering tyranny. It could be our own corporatist Fascist government, or some minor extremist group who wants to be the tyrant instead, but nobody who has any integrity is going to pose this sort of scenario.

#feminism #amazon feminism #traditional gender roles #camille paglia #gender roles #gender equality #modernity #gender divide #sexism #misogyny #misandry #redpill #manosphere #populism #incels #extremism #psyops #idpol #the 1 percent #the 1% #classical liberalism #Youtube

[cult-of-artemis-and-athena]

I’ve always had an issue with posts stating girls/women as inferior or stupid. A woman’s thoughts are influenced through her emotions (this gives her a sharper memory, and many other things, not all are beneficial). A Man’s thoughts are influenced through His logic (this gives a Man a clearer picture, but also makes him seem detached from emotions sometimes, which he’s not….. he’s just able to compartmentalize them).

I’ve known many intelligent women, Doctors, Lawers, Scientists…. but I find the smarter they are, the more their own mind acts like their worst enemy, and is harder to tame (because they know, or can see, the usual tactics to tame them). Encouraging them to let go of their thoughts can be difficult, but it’s also what she craves or needs at the end of the day. Often, more extreme measures are needed to accomplish this, spread over a much longer time…. most Men these days give up, and learn to gravitate toward the less intelligent women. Which seems to me to be a shame, after all, we ALL deserve happiness, and are trying to find/build it.

Today (thanks to feminists taking things too far), women are often too prideful to allow themselves to let any Man hold authority over them, and therefore, dispite massive successes in life by every metric, often find themselves still unhappy and feeling hollow…. like a rib is missing around their heart (dispite having an extra).

This is why I support the Patriarchy. Such women need more radical approaches to allow themselves, or to be pulled through their barriers to find that missing purpose…. some may find what others needs to be humiliating, or degrading, or ridiculous levels of praise or slutty. That’s why we all need to realize these things aren’t “bad” if they don’t speak to you…. they exist because it DOES speak to someone.

You probably would benefit from radical approaches to help you let go of your thoughts.

[cult-of-artemis-and-athena]

housing prices in North America and Europe have been rising steadily since the 1940s. This wouldn't be a problem if the average person's median income were to rise with it. Unfortunately, it has stagnated. Government corruption and abuse of power has also continued to rise since WWIl, with governments taking more control and requiring more people to rely on it primarily in order to survive. Nowadays, when there are more women working most jobs than men, food prices are higher than ever, rent and mortgage prices are higher than ever, gas prices are higher than ever, the rate of virtue signalling instead of actually fixing problems is higher than ever, illegal immigration is higher than ever, and the gender pay gap has been flipped around so now, when every detail is accounted for, men are the ones who earn less than women for doing the same job. Women said they could do anything men can, started doing what men do, didn't like it, thought it was bad, voted to change it to meet their liking, and now look at the world we live in. The fact is, women can't do what men do. They're simply not equipped. That's not a bad thing, women should be doing far more important things than working male jobs thinking they're "empowered". Women have never run a successful civilisation because they’re not designed to as evidenced by the past and present reality.

46% of the workforce is female so "more women working more jobs than men" isn't correct.

Gender income comparison Income level by gender in the United States, as of 2021, can be summarized as follows: Women: Median income of $51,226 Men: Median income of $61,180 These figures are based on the provided context, which includes data from Bankrate and other sources. It’s important to note that these figures represent median incomes and do not account for factors such as age, education, race, or location, which can also impact income levels. Additionally, the gender pay gap is a measure of income inequality between men and women, irrespective of differences in education, experience, and occupation. The unadjusted pay gap in the United States is currently 83% (women’s earnings are 83% of men’s earnings), but the controlled pay gap, which considers these factors, is at 99 cents for every dollar men earn. However, gender pay equity is not projected to become a reality until 2056.

Nothing is that simple.

[cult-of-artemis-and-athena]

5 reasons why is it important to be feminine:

Everything in this world - from a fork to a neurotransmitter- has a shaped connected to what it should do, and when something doesn’t have a function, it doesn’t have value. Do you agree that humans are worth a lot? It’s because they have a finality. And it’s about the goal of a woman that we are gonna talk about today.

We can observe that what wasn’t created by man, nature, usually has a higher level of perfection. And with that we can move to a very important topic. Who created all that. Do you think everything in our bodies has a function and connects with each other by chance. Do you think randomness could create such a level of order and perfection? It can’t, only something superior to our intelligence and reasoning could manifest something so great.

When we look at ancient pyramids, inc structures, Greek temples we can observe that there was an intelligence behind it . Things come to the world first through and intelligent mind and then are created into reality. So it is when humans want to create something and so it is with the supreme mind that created the world.

So if every structure reveals a goal

We might not want to write with a pen but that’s what it was created for, just as women were created for a specific role. And it’s undeniable that a pen that writes is way more useful and cherished than one that doesn’t

Because everything has a Function and is shaped accordingly. .Do you think we humans could be created with such perfection and order, an inner machinery that is working in very determined functions by chance? As Saint Thomas of Aquinas (as well as Aristotle before him) once said only something with a much higher intelligence and perfection could manifest something with such order and beauty, that is enough to believe in a higher God. And if every structure reveals our goals, our bodies as women do so. So, to understand what is feminine let’s observe what’s out bodies points towards, what’s our finality. Just like a pen, We might not want to write with a pen but that’s what it was created for, we might not want to be feminine in this world but who created us made us to be that. What is different from the female physical structure compared to the masculine? We have curves, something that attracts - that already reveal part of our goal-, when we observe we women have a uterus and men don’t, well there is something the uterus does. We have a sweeter, higher pitched voice, what hormones and neurotransmitters cause that? There is a reason, a why for our sensibility and care. Our shape points towards the function we should develop in the world, we can discover which qualities we should put in each of our actions and choices in the world to be better women. And what does our bodies points towards? That we are receptive! Who receive men inside their bodies? Us! Our genitals are turned inwards cause we are receptive. When we receive the semen inside us us and we welcome it inside our uterus with our egg we turn it into life. And that’s something only women can do. And In this physical but also in the symbolic sense we can turn what we touch into life, happiness, love and kindness

Because you’ll be happier. Being feminine will elevate your level of oxytocin - the affective bond hormone - when we feel loved and appreciated, safe and secure by someone we love this hormone that makes us super happy will rise. Oxytocin in men make them sleepy, one example when it’s release it’s right after ejaculation. What will make a man feel more like a man, ready for combat, like an «alpha male « - although red pill guys made me hate the term - is a higher level of testosterone. Lower levels of testosterone is linked to sadness and depression. While higher levels of testosterone in females - when we work or study too much, have to deal with a lot of pressure, have to deal with deadlines - will only raise our levels of cortisol - the stress hormone. We will feel happier and more feminine with balanced hormones. Men’s levels of testosterone rise when they Workout, when they receive the recognition from a woman “wow love, that’s a great idea”, when they achieve professional success, because men represent the external world while women represent the internal. And we women feel satisfaction when we feel loved, when we received gifts, when we feel safe.

Because an overly masculine world is true chaos. All the wars, the extreme level of capitalism we live in takes the world to be extremely materialistic, aggressive, competitive and brutal. Half of the world is made by male. And if we let the world unregulated , with the other half wanting to be masculine and forgetting characteristics like being nurturing the world will become unbalanced bringing to light the worst of the masculine traits.

Because you want a masculine man in your life. The polarity law is universal. Men and women are like opposite poles. Energetic opposites attract but it’s common interests that make them stay. That’s what brings true connection in a relationship. So if you want a man that has success in the external world - the structure of his body reveals he is the penetrating one, and thus his genital projects outwards and women with a cavity that embraces. you liking it or not that’s how God created it, this is not vulgarity it’s just an observation of reality- you must be in your feminine pole. His body represents what a man should look for in the world: penetrate reality, conquer territory, conquer muscle, look for career accomplishments and generate safety for the other half of the world women. So if we want a man that exercises his function in the world we must be feminine. Being the receptive pole is not easy, specially now that we live in a society and a lot of us have families that encourage us to talk in an aggressive way, be brave, Court men, take risks. The man that penetrates the woman is also the man that penetrates our inner kingdom. The sexual symbol is nothing more than a representation of what happens in a relationship where each one is in their pole. The woman lives in the internal world, living her emotions more intensely, doing a thousand things in her mind. And that’s exactly why we need a certain level of protection, that’s why we can’t let any person enter our intimate world. After this contact, after they enter our inner world it will affect us, affect our feelings and thoughts and we need to have order in our domain. We got to treat our inner world like it’s our home. If we constantly expose ourselves to a lot of different random things that will affect us without discretion that will create chaos. The truth is women want to be penetrated, because when no one frequents our inner world it’s empty, without nothing new it becomes dry, we want people, situations and informations of value to enter in our world so ifs lively and happy, so connection, love and care can exist. A woman like this is happier. And this symbolism replicates when a child grow up and leaves the nest but return to visit the mom, when the man she loves leave for the world and returns home. This exchange is truly satisfactory for a woman, it liberates an oxytocin bomb.

To set a good example for your (future) children. It’s the reference of the parents that form the children’s psiqué. The vision of what your parents were has an imprint on you even if they don’t live up to what they should be. If these references are inverted it becomes harder for you to put yourself in your place, harder but not less necessary. We want to be good references for the next generations, that our kids see the archetypical feminine in us. We want our partners to be masculine so our children can learn protection, safety and the role of a man from them. It’s the children that will give continuity to the world so a good education for them is vital.

As for being beautiful…

You should want to be beautiful not to gain something from it... That would be vanity, which is the selfish aspect...

One of the things that define being feminine is concern for others… You know how to put little flowers on tables, in bathrooms and beautify the environment? When we see this we always know it was a woman — a woman cares about the beauty of things...

And the total lack of concern about this is a sign that something is VERY wrong.

Beauty is a rest in the midst of life's inevitable suffering...

The beautiful woman levitates the man, pleases the eye and brings peace. The beauty that women offer serves the world and brings joy to everyone around them.

I often get the question: “How can I be more vain?”

Check it out…

If your goal is for others to look at you, If your goal is to attract attention, If your goal is to get something in return, If your goal is to feel powerful or better than others…

So it's better to continue as is.

Vanity is not virtue.

Beauty only makes sense when it is altruistic, otherwise we easily fall into the fallacy of self-love.

Exactly why there are irrefutable standards of beauty.

Because beauty is not used to make you feel desired, loved, accepted by a group or well-liked by someone.

It's not to make you feel better or superior,

Beauty is not relative - because it does not serve the individual, it does not serve selfish desires and it does not suit personal opinion.

Beauty is a service to the world.

She brings peace, tranquility and order to people's lives.

A woman's beauty makes the world a happier and happier place.

Beauty generates hope.

When a woman doesn't take care of her appearance, she is saying that she doesn't care about other people's state of mind.

Who doesn't mind being a source of chaos and discomfort.

Becoming unquestionably beautiful in the eyes of the world is a conscious act of love, an act of service.

An act of maturity, of respect for others and of encounter with the Will of God.

Some may have different preferences, which is fine, but having a penis was an important criteria for marrying my husband.

[cult-of-artemis-and-athena]

Women wanted to be corporate slaves like their men. So now they have it. Suicide, heart attacks, addictions. Most men HATE their jobs. So now you ladies get to be equal. What you've proved is that you aren't as smart as you think you are.

Maybe you should get a different job if it's that bad, because that hasn't been my experience.

[cult-of-artemis-and-athena]

This generation’s women are the first ever, in the history of mankind, to be told that it’s not okay to submit to men.

Think about that.  

This is why so many girls, including many feminists, end up desiring male leadership and male authority.  It is biologically baked into us.  And that is why so many boys and young men have difficulty leading.  Even I have had to learn to overcome some of my own upbringing to understand how the relationship can best work.

This is also why in many relationships the dominance and submissiveness only comes through sexually.  Many girls feel guilty for submitting to a boyfriend in a relationship, but feel more comfortable doing it sexually.  Boys feel guilty dominating a girlfriend in a relationship, but feel more comfortable choking or slapping a girl in bed.  

We need to get back to dominance and submissiveness being understood as an important part of a natural and healthy relationship between a man and a woman.

Not sure if you expect a response or you just wanted to talk at me, but I'll bite. I don't know what you mean by "submission" but there's a fixation with "how women are" and "how men are". Generalizations don't get into relationships, individuals do. The complement has to be between those specific individuals, and maybe that looks traditional, and maybe it doesn't. Male and female personality traits have a lot of overlap, and there are obviously big differences at the extremes. A lot of people have sex-typical personalities, but a lot of people have personalities that are some degree of sex-atypical. I can agree that someone faking a sex-atypical personality when it's not their nature is setting themselves up for failure in a relationship, but so is a person with a sex-atypical personality faking a sex-typical personality. When a relationship is based on fake personalities, it's a fake relationship.

[cult-of-artemis-and-athena]

I agree with Kayla Shaye's fundamental point: you do not owe anyone your health, you do not owe anyone your body. The issue of whether women have self-ownership, and to what degree, pre-dates feminism to the dawn of civilization. The nature of human reproduction is at the heart of this. Especially in a tough ecology full of war, enslavement, starvation, disease, etc. the success of a civilization depended on the ability of that civilization to out-breed those around it.

I can empathize with the mind-frame of some bronze age chieftain who's hyper-focused on strictly the bottom two layers of the hierarchy of needs. Self-ownership - for men and women - is subjugated to the needs of the tribe. The idea of Christians' bodies (IIRC Islam and Judaism also have this) belonging to Yahweh/Allah mirrors the very-common idea at that time, that commoners' bodies belong to the ruler.

If the civilization didn't use all (non-ruling-class) male bodies for economic production and warfare, and all female bodies for making more people, their alternative was that someone who was better at making people do those things would kill all their men and enslave all their women.

The Enlightenment made men sovereign individuals, all created equal, and with inalienable rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness granted by their creator - the basis for the American and French revolutions - but there was some debate during that time whether that concept also applied to women. If men were no longer the property of the king, applying the same logic to women would lead to, depending on your view, either first wave feminism or a new form of proto-feminism (in my view, there's been cross-cultural proto-feminism for all of written human history).

You take the second wave of feminism, and you have feminists going up against the persistent idea that women exist for society, whereas men exist for themselves, and everyone in society has a responsibility to provide guide rails for women in a way that they don't for men. Men aren't off the hook entirely, since they can be drafted - an ideological fossil - but when a man fucks up his own life, it's framed such that he unilaterally made the decision and comprehended and accepted the consequences. When women fuck up their lives, it's like she ignorantly blundered, or was mislead by some opportunistic rapscallion, into being a victim of a tragedy beyond her comprehension..if only someone had done something *staples hand to forehead* the poor angel would be safe and sound.

Relating this tangent to body positivity, I don't think the body positivity movement has progressed anything. If anything - considering there's people getting very emotionally invested and indignant over what other women are doing with their bodies - I think it's just horseshoed the same idea of women's bodies being communal property to the opposite ideological side, instead of abolishing the concept entirely. Conservative men getting upset that some women get tattoos, and leftist women getting upset that some women lost weight, are not the opposite of each other.

For a while I thought body positivity just lost the plot, because I had assumed it was about not feeling unworthy of basic dignity because you don't fit society's ideal to a small or large degree, and promoting the idea that people shouldn't be dehumanized based on their appearance. Who in the world would disagree with that? That, however, is the unproblematic public persona of something that is actually revolutionary Marxist theory applied to weight and attractiveness. When someone who's down the body positivity iceberg, who actually knows what they're talking about, speaks with apparent animosity against thin people, pretty people, etc. "thin" and "pretty" are dynamically equivalent to "bourgeoisie". If you understand Marxism 101, the animosity is completely intentional and ideologically correct. People who understand this position also understand that people who think normally have a problem with the idea of making an enemy out of a whole class of people, so when recruiting, activists can't say that up-front at risk of alienating people. Instead normies are initiated with ideas no one in their right mind would disagree with, and then they're given breadcrumbs that move them further down the iceberg without them really noticing. When women who were doing body positivity activism lose weight, they've essentially become counter-revolutionaries. Whenever someone defends them like, "If they're allowed to be fat, they're allowed to be thin. They can do what they want, it's their body," that's a Liberal point of view.

By viewing women (or other classes as people) inherently as victims, I don't view this as a rejection of a Fascistic view of them as a subhuman class. It's just a different view of the same dynamic, and that's why I don't think body positivity is progress. Another commonality between Marxism and Fascism is collectivism, so both require individuals to dedicate their bodies toward ideological goals while condemning individualism where it doesn't further the ideology. Any movement that advocates women to make objectively unhealthy lifestyle choices, or shames them from getting healthier, is inherently misogynistic. I think any ideology that claims to be pro-woman should prioritize women's health. There is a large component of feminism that are very concerned with women's health issues which is really good, but there is also some strains of feminism that seem to have an idea of "Become as unattractive as possible to own da menz." "I thought you said no one owes anyone else health or their body." Individually, people should be able to do what they want - and be reasonably assumed to have agency, regardless of sex - if they're not harming other people with it. However, getting your eyeballs tattooed or being 400 lbs and living your life for yourself is different from intentionally organizing a religion or ideological movement where you use coercion (making an "us vs them" narrative, using social shaming, encouraging people to cut off anyone who questions their decision) and misinformation (saying something risky is actually totally safe or actually-healthy, only using sources from the same ideological group, forbidding engagement with opposing views) to influence other people to do the same thing.

Here's an example that comes from the right -- a number of men's fitness/lifestyle grifters use steroids while promoting an image of idealized masculinity, often with socio-political baggage, like "Buy my Product so you can be a Real Man like me and not a beta cuck contributing to the fall of Western Civilization." It's arguably worse when they say they don't use steroids because it makes these men think, "I'm doing everything Liver King says and don't look like him. I must be a low-T beta physiquelet." Rich Piana, on the other hand, while also idolized by a lot of men, had the balls to say "I use steroids and know it's destroying my health, but this is what I want to do even if I die doing it." (spoiler: he died)

In a similar way, the body positivity movement preys on people's (women's, mostly) insecurities, and makes them worse by constantly exposing them to a victimhood narrative while sabotaging things they could actually do, in most cases, to relieve the insecurities. There's actually a lot of money being made off selling body positivity -- is it at all sus that Unilever promotes body positivity with Dove while also owning brands that sell cereal, ice cream, and soda, but also selling Lynx deodorant with sexually objectifying commercials. Body positivity also sells well in the attention economy, and it does better the more people (mostly women) identify with the content.

#feminism #gender equality #body postivity #grifters #camille paglia #modernity #extremism #classical liberalism #self-ownership #personal agency #Youtube

[cult-of-artemis-and-athena]

I wonder if you're still around and if you'd like to share your opinion about the Barbie movie? If you even have it in you to keep up with the mainstream stuff that politicized Americans churn out every second, that is.

I haven't watched it, but I've seen other people responding to it - feminists, tradcons, and "others" - and I have an opinion on who I think might have the most accurate read. I couldn't justify $25 to rent it online when it came out, but maybe the price has come down. If I watch it, I'll make a post about it.

[cult-of-artemis-and-athena]

I read your recent posts -

https://www.tumblr.com/cult-of-artemis-and-athena/743865308145664000/married-single-mothers?soutce=share

https://www.tumblr.com/cult-of-artemis-and-athena/743871419712176128/did-feminism-unintentionally-create-married-single?source=share

And as I read the stuff you said about how the trad larpers idealize the 1950s, and it being an exceptional time, I was wondering what you would make of takes such as the following which include claims that people who try to undercut the nostalgia are abnormal, trad wives being medicated is a lefty lie born from people trying to kill the idea Americans had a strong sense of culture etc. sorry if you don’t like links to other people’s content in asks but I was just wondering

https://www.tumblr.com/goodmorningsunshinemyfriends/743845033966436352?source=share

https://www.tumblr.com/goodmorningsunshinemyfriends/743845560309727232?source=share

Every era is a mixed bag and everyone alive during that time is affected differently by it. Overall, history is characterized by people solving the problems of one era and finding, after the fact, that their solutions created problems that need to be solved, and on and on, which I don't think is ever going to stop. There are good and bad aspects of the 1950s like any other time, so both positions of "we need to go back to the 1950s" and "everything about the 1950s was terrible" are based in some truth but are ultimately distortions, I think. The good aspects of the 1950s were mainly technological advancement and applying wartime technology to improve people's lives in peace time. There were a lot of advancements in medicine, engineering, infrastructure, housing accessibility, etc. Some of those things went too far and now we're dealing with things that ran away and became real monsters - environmental disasters, social atomization, consumerism, the obesity epidemic, etc. - despite the net positive of those advancements. As far as women being medicated, I completely agree with the point that The Current Year doesn't really have room to criticize the 1950s for housewives on Xanax (I don't know the actual prevalence of this) when more women than ever are on SSRIs or some other psych med. I think this is something we carried through from the turn-of-the-century psychiatry movement and that era's general attitude toward women being irrational and weak-minded.

What was different about the 1950s is that scientific advancements replaced physical institutionalization for "hysteria" with medication for anxiety or depression. I'm not saying everything in psychiatry is arbitrary, but I find it hard to believe that many women have a honest-to-god spontaneous chemical imbalance in their brains and they're not just having a fairly reasonable reaction to a fucked up society.

[cult-of-artemis-and-athena]

Did feminism unintentionally create married single moms??

Feminism isn't one thing. There are many flavors of feminism, some that completely contradict others on points. If your flavor of feminism doesn't promote what I'm charging "feminism" with, then I'm not talking about you, but what I'm about to describe is a rather prominent line of thought across many types of feminism.

Feminism may have painted itself into a corner with respect to family and childrearing.

Some of the strains around the second wave were not concerned or actively hostile toward these things. This was either, at best, because they were intended for a politically or earnestly Sapphic audience, or at worst, because they were reactionary and/or anti-natalist and misandrist. There was some controversy in the second wave as to whether a SAHM could even be a feminist, for example.

In my last post, I said the push for women to enter the workforce wasn't accompanied by a complementary movement to bring men into the home.

We go forward two waves to The Current Year, and while there are some feminists who view (voluntary, non-Blood-And-Soil, non-theocratic) tradwifery as a valid choice for women and not "taking women back 100 years", if we're being perfectly honest, I think a lot of feminists recoil at the idea of being a SAHM or view it as a choice for some-women-but-not-me. Secretly they have some contempt for those women. It's framed often as "It's valid and feminism is about choice but personally, I would be so bored. I don't want to waste my potential," (or similar statements) which unintentionally frames being a SAHM as something good for boring women without a lot of aspirations or things going for themselves, but not smart and interesting women with potential.

In the manosphere, I've seen being a SAHM framed as perfect for women because it's intellectually undemanding, and that women are low-intelligence and never mentally develop beyond adolescence, by nature, so they can do tedious tasks and spend all their time around children without wanting to blow their brains out like an Alpha Male would want to because he's too smart and has better, more important things to do.

Sometimes tradcons couch this a bit more gently, that "Why would women rather submit to their boss who doesn't care about them, but not submit to their husband who loves them?" It's still acknowledging that they view this as a one-way power dynamic where one person is important and the other person is not, and the full-time parent is the one that is the lesser. "Women wouldn't be so mentally ill and stressed if they just stayed home and had kids," which is still framing stay-at-home parenting as something for mentally fragile, neurotic people who can't cut it in the "real world".

The same logic is used by those men to shit on men who do chores and childcare in a significant capacity, or those who are or aspire to be SAHDs -- that those men are wasting their potential, lazy, weak, incompetent, pushovers bullied by their wives, etc.

(What an odd thing for them to say...)

Feminists generally perpetuate the same beliefs, albeit couched in different language.

If we're the type of woman to grrr at the idea of being a SAHM, we need to examine what part of that we're grrr-ing at.

Is it because it was de-facto compulsory in the past and we've adopted a sort of inter-generational trauma, so we say "Never again!" and are reflexively avoiding anything that looks like it could turn into a slippery slope?

Is it because we associate it with necessarily being shackled to a domineering and insensitive patriarchal figure who barely treats us like a real person?

Is it because we dislike the lame-ass, square, hokey-dokey, pastel-colored, squishy, cow-eyed - or maybe even cheugy - aesthetics of marriage and/or motherhood we inherited from the Victorians and see reinforced by Mormon and Evangelical influencers?

Is it because some of our childhoods were actually kind of fucked up and something adjacent to motherhood is severely triggering, or we're afraid of becoming our shitty parents?

Is it because we - be honest - think it's a lower-status position, a waste of talent of some form, suitable for someone inferior in some way, etc.?

I think the latter one - between traditionalist and redpill men, reactionary feminists, and antifeminist pick-me's - is how society views SAHMs at an aggregate level. Society doesn't give a lot of prestige for stay-at-home parents -- the less educated, less intelligent of the two parents, they gave up their job because it wasn't worth much in the first place, and if you talk to them, all they're going to talk about is their kids.

If humanity is to continue, people need to have kids, and someone needs to raise them. I think outsourcing this to corporations and the state is fucking inviting trouble, but literally who is going to raise the kids if neither parent wants to do it because everyone from the right to the left has shit on the concept of childrearing for 70 years or more?

I think that was the problem from the beginning of the women's liberation movement. It's created a situation where men entering the home without being seen as lesser is the logical response to women entering the workforce without being seen as lesser, but it's turned into a very hard sell because it comes off as "Come do this thing we don't want to do because it fucking sucks and it's for dumb people."

#feminism #manosphere #stay at home mom #stay at home dad #stay at home parent #gender equality #traditional gender roles #gender roles #sahm #sahd #amazon feminism #gender stereotypes #redpill #motherhood #pronatalism #men's liberation

[cult-of-artemis-and-athena]

Married Single Mothers

A married single mother is a married woman with kids, usually in a dual-income household, who receives no help from her husband with cooking, cleaning, or childcare, such that the way she spends her time - take kids to daycare, go to work, pick kids up, make dinner, put kids to bed, clean (maybe), go to bed - looks like it would if she were a single mother.

Back In The Day(TM) when a dual-income household looked more like a man working a strenuous or high-stress job for long hours, while his wife worked part time, or perhaps full-time in something that was low stress or didn't pay a lot, maybe it could be justified that he could come home, crack open A Beer, sit in the Recliner, and watch The Big Game with no asks or responsibilities. After all, they had a big yard for him to cut, a picket fence to keep painted, two cars to keep up, and a "Honey Do" list. To avoid rehashing the history of work hours them over time, and the factor of profession choice, here are two sources if you don't already know what I'm talking about: https://eh.net/encyclopedia/hours-of-work-in-u-s-history/

https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1997/04/art1full.pdf

Now, however, the gap between men and women's hours worked and the type of work they're doing is closing. If there's a couple who are bringing home similar wages at a non-management desk job, and maybe she works 40 hours and he works 44 hours. It's really hard to argue why that 4 extra hours of work justifies him watching TV, hanging out with friends, or doing his hobbies instead of helping with childcare or other "indoor chores". If they're urban renters, he can't even claim that more strenuous but less frequent chores like home repairs, cutting the grass or fixing the cars compensate for not cooking, cleaning, or raising his kids. Oh you take the trash to the dumpster? So does the 60 year old lady down the hall?

As I usually do, I'll start by blaming the Victorians by democratizing upper-class gender roles because, now displaced from their farms and having their work taken away by machines and mass production, middle class women had nothing to do. Now, working was just for the poor, and middle-class Victorian identity revolved a great deal around not looking poor. What were they supposed to do all day? Definitely not become rigorously educated or political active...At the same time, child labor was outlawed (considering factories and mines are different from family farms, justifiably so) and children became "economically worthless but emotionally priceless". So, like eugenics and breeding fucked-up-looking dogs, a contrived version of floral saccharine motherhood became the status quo -- be dedicate the whole of one's being, identity, purpose, and existence to raising children.

The 1950s were almost like a Renaissance of this ideal, likely as a reflexive response to men being away in the hell that is war. Women who may not have chosen to do so under any other circumstances were working in factories, filling in other jobs men left for the war, and having to live in relative austerity due to wartime rationing and shortages. A lot of men returning from the war were lonely and homeless, and they'd spent their time away living in inhospitable concrete bunkers and mud holes, constantly surrounded by death and destruction, and not knowing if they will go home at all (would home even be there when they returned?). Women whose husbands or boyfriends were drafted spent all that time wondering if that man could be dead. Single women had to mostly put their romantic lives on hold. When the war ended, most people was overcompensating toward cocooning and romanticization of home, social order, and family life.

Do I blame them? Not necessarily.

Has it still had unintended negative consequences? Yeah.

Trad LARPers idealize the 1950s when it was actually a very exceptional time. On one hand, it was the result of a psychological reaction against WWII. On the other, it was a time of unprecedented economic prosperity -- and what goes up must come down. I'm not an economist but I do subscribe to the cyclical view of history and even if the general trend line of something like GDP trends upward, it has to go down to some extent to move upward. https://ourworldindata.org/female-labor-supply

Women's labor participation in the US and UK had marginally increased from pre-WWII to post-war. Interestingly, Germany had about 15-20% higher female labor participation than the US since about 1895, which also increased gradually during the pre-WWII era, and peaked during Kinder, Küche, Kirche Nazi rule before returning to a similar level as 1895, where it remained until the 1980s. It's not as simple as every Western woman was once fulfilled as a docile tradwife, then Betty Friedan wrote a book, and then the fabric of society was torn asunder by the Boss Babe Apocalypse.

If not feminism, then what do I think made it so hard for families to live on a single income - gender of the earner irrelevant - and made things so generally unaffordable?

Three words: The Powell Memo.

I would caution against taking the memo at face value as many do, as an earnest call for business leaders to defend themselves against Communists and Fascists who hate "free enterprise". Rather, it can be read as an emotional fear-mongering call for businesses to weaponize the government to, really, take over the country in a multi-pronged effort which resulted in neoconservative and arguably neoliberalism.

At timestamp 48:17 Historiansplaining starts analyzing the memo and placing it in the larger context. Please listen to it. It's comfortable to listen to at 2x speed so it's not that long. There are shorter views but they are extremely biased and not near as nuanced as this one.

The banking industry is a problem. Obviously having the most people with the most debt possible that they're still able to reliably pay on is in the interest of banks. If it exists, there's a loan for it. Credit card debt is a huge problem for Americans. The 30 year mortgage was introduced with the New Deal to help destitute people buy houses, now most people who buy houses use a 30 year mortgage to have remotely affordable payments. There are now 50 year mortgages and those will be the "new normal" if the trend doesn't reverse.

Part of the housing cost crisis is due to 1920s-1060s zoning restrictions created to protect property values, but also to create de facto class- and race-segregated neighborhoods. I'm not the type of person to argue that it's a human right to live in downtown LA or Manhattan, but if it's possible and desired to build affordable housing in a certain place and the only thing preventing it is zoning law, lobbyists, or NIMBY Karens, then that's a problem that can and should be addressed.

The auto industry and adjacent corporations lobbied urban planners to design in a way that would encourage or force people to buy their products. We have the automakers weighing in on efficiency standards such that, instead of like every other country that bases efficiency on weight, American cars are based on footprint which gives automakers leeway to sell more profitable SUVs. Do we need screens and cameras in our cars? No, but people who want new cars don't have another option. Can't afford it? Some companies (ex. Nissan) have moved from 7- to 10-year car loans. By the time you've paid your car off, the transmission will have turned into a tube of K'Nex and it'll be time to finance another one.

College loans, whether they're through a bank or the government -- universities win because they got your money. The Boomers were the last generation to be able to pay for their tuition with a summer job flipping burgers. The midcentury expansion of federal lending - which like the 30 year mortgage started as a measure strictly for the very poor - has caused tuition to fill the space allotted. Useless majors and required electives have exploded since the federal student loan expansion.

Speaking of which, credential inflation means that not only do you have to pay more for college, but you have to go longer just to access the same jobs. In some fields, someone with a Masters degree and the debt to go with it may end up earning just a bit more than the hypothetical $15/hour minimum wage.

The majority of Americans live in a state of debt slavery as a result of what some may call "crony capitalism" but I prefer "economic Fascism" because a) The F-Word makes a lot of people uncomfortable and b) it's technically true. Corporatism, the economic facet of Fascism is defined as "the organization of society by corporate groups, such as agricultural, labour, military, business, scientific, or guild associations, on the basis of their common interest".

If we don't live in economic Fascism, then what the fuck would we be doing different?

After addressing the contrivance that is gender roles-as-we-know-them and going on a meander through economics, I'll now acknowledge my digression and return to the topic of married single mothers.

Due to these economic conditions, most households with kids are dual income by necessity. Tradcons like to portray dual-income households as self-indulgently depriving their kids of an at-home parent for the sake of affording a bigger house, nicer cars, or more vacations. That's not the case and most dual-income households are that way moreso to afford necessities, and I don't think it's reasonable to expect a whole family to move into one of their parents' house, get on benefits, or live in a van just to be able to be able to afford being single-income.

In general, the root of the problem, unsurprisingly, is the mismatch between neo-midcentury ways of doing things and the reality of The Current Year.

The neo-midcentury way goes somewhat like: go to college for your Passion. Get an advanced degree because - don't worry - you will be able to get a high paying job and the debt won't be a problem if the name on your diploma is a Very Good one. Just go to college. Just get a degree.

Like the mainstream media tells you, look for Love At First Sight. Don't be a buzz-kill who thinks or talks about your future plans until at least 6 months into the relationship when you're afraid to leave due to sunk-cost fallacy and secretly afraid to commit due to FOMO. Time to get married. This is such a special time to have your first debt together. Make sure you have a credit card to put your honeymoon on.

Move to a high-demand area, but not so high-demand that you can't afford it obviously. You're going to want to move to the second most popular area so your commute can be between 1-2 hours and your mortgage will assure you live paycheck to paycheck. Because you're commuting for so much of the day, you'll need a nice car, so definitely buy it new.

Now it's time to have a kid. Everything you've done to this point, you find, has set you up in one way or another for failure. It would be cheaper for one to stay home, but their future earnings would be at risk and it's too expensive to pay for two student loans with one paycheck. Plus his spreadsheet job is just so much more important than your spreadsheet job. Because why? Because it just is. You've already moved a few hour drive away from any relatives who could help with childcare.

"Did we really agree to have kids? Did we really want it to be like this? Or were we just going through the motions, smiling and nodding to the expectations of society and our parents?" you wonder as the 18 month old in your arms noticeably shits their diaper and hits you in the face with a sippy cup while you stoop to pick up the dino nugget the 3 year old has dropped over and over again while some Cocomelon bullshit plays on their greasy, sticky iPad...all while your husband plays Elden Ring in the next room. You call out for help. Did he really not hear you, or does he want plausible deniability. Who is this man you married?

But wait...your vision is black with a glowing orange circle above. You hear distant music. You open your eyes... "Destination wedding? Cocomelon? Married single mom? What are you talking about? You must have hit your head hard," says a teenager with greasy black hair and a Korn t-shirt. They extend their hand and help you off the ground. You stand. "Come on, we're gonna miss Hatebreed."

I'm not an antinatalist, so I lean toward most people probably should at least consider having kids. I, for one, want the human species to persist. People who don't are pretty cringe -- black-pilled about the environment, or they're mad that they were born without their consent (?) because they have to wake up every day and experience First World Problems.

Who we decide to marry is possibly the most important decision we make. More than where we live or what profession we choose. We're caught between the old-fashioned way that works under a specific set of circumstances that largely don't apply anymore, and a modern way that is little more than a reactionary movement against the social mores of Old People without considering life beyond age 27.

As Nietzsche foretold (PBUH), modernity puts us in a position with no easy answers. We don't have a god telling us what our values are and what we should do with ourselves, and existing with so many possibilities is almost more dangerous and burdensome in a way than having a pre-determined system like tradition. The boundary between good and evil isn't always clear and it's rarely straight. Many enemies take many forms; they can appear as anything and can speak from both sides of their mouth at the same time.

Freedom is very hard because you're not just yourself. You are yourself and god at the same time. It's not as simple as obeying a disembodied voice anymore. I'm not blaming married single moms at all for the position they find themselves in because they're victims of society. People who were supposed to be giving them good advice were giving conflicted and outdated advice, and probably acting out the old axiom that misery loves company.

I really have a beef with the Boomers, too, for normalizing the idea that being married is hell -- the end of one's individuality and anything they once enjoyed or valued. When society holds up doing the bare minimum - it's miserable but it's not outright abusive - as what young people should expect from marriage, it means the young people aren't looking for or insisting on better for themselves.

Women get accused of having unrealistic standards. "They all want a man who's 6' tall, has 6-pack abs, and makes 6 figures!" Fair enough, that's statistically a rare type and not enough to go around to all the women who want that. However, any time a woman has any standards beyond the absolute bare minimum - not physically abusive, not addicted to substances in a functionally detrimental way, has a job, has all his appendages, can walk and talk - it gets compared to asking for a "666 man".

When women complain (rightly) about being a married single mom or the "double shift", particularly tradcon and redpill men will say, "ACKSHYUALLY you don't want a man to help with chores because such and such statistic says women will go bang Alpha Tyrone if their man does chores, so you don't know what you want and you'll actually be happier if you do all chores and childcare yourself because that's what makes women fulfilled."

That's a convenient conclusion to reach.

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." -- Mark Twain

People can't want different things, too. Women aren't a monolith. I definitely believe too there are women who don't know what they want. A lot of people in general are running on societal programming that, on some level they recognize is herding them off a cliff, but they don't have the vocabulary - they don't even have the gastalt(?) - to describe what is happening.

There's a very good faith contingent of the men's rights movement that's expressing very admirable sentiments that are compatible with what the good faith contingent of what feminists are saying.

They're saying: "Why are we assumed to be expendable? Why is it shameful for a man to say he wants to stay home and raise a family? Why is a man's worth still based on how much money he makes? Why do some people assume that if a man is interacting with a kid in public that he's a predator? Why are chores and childcare seen as emasculating?"

Some people can believe in and live according to traditional gender roles, which is their business, but there's a missed opportunity here. Many women find conflict between wanting a family and pursuing their career, and/or want a more equitable distribution of housework in dual-income households; and there is a portion of men who would like to be able to care less about their career and more about their family, or they want to raise a family and don't care about work at all.

To the extent that men - or a particular man - are held to a traditional gender role, any woman who involves herself will be expected to fill the complementary support role. In a society where dual-income households are economically mandatory, women can't fulfill that role whether the individual woman wants to or not. Even if she would otherwise enjoy childcare and chores as a SAHM if the choice were available, adding full-time work to that- no one has the mental bandwidth for that.

While the interim quasi-solution for this requires, on an individual level, women to be pragmatic and creative, to look beyond the inadequate guidance of people who grew up in completely different conditions - who arguably didn't even do that fucking great for themselves - "just make better choices" doesn't fix the problem. The push for women to enter the workforce wasn't accompanied by an equal push for men to enter the home, and I'm going to dedicate a post to that.

#feminism #amazon feminism #married single mothers #performative femininity #stay at home parent #modernity #corporatism #debt slavery #stay at home dad #men's liberation #the second shift #traditional gender roles #gender roles

[cult-of-artemis-and-athena]

MGTOW discovers healthy relationships

As it turns out, women who are satisfied with their relationship and in love with their partners don't cheat on them and want to have sex with the guy they're with and not Jason Momoa.

#mgtow #redpill #obvious things #Youtube

[cult-of-artemis-and-athena]

JustClownyThings

She thought about this, she said it, she watched the recording back, edited the video to make this into a Short, and thought "This is definitely an intelligent thing to say."

I should emphasize: She's made statements in the past decrying women who get married in their late 20's. The average age of marriage in the West is 28. She is 28 and unmarried, not in an LTR or engaged. Yet again, she is breaking her own rules.

Based on her comments about women's appearance and on topics like marriage, she's way out of her lane and saying the things the Redpill community wants to hear while not practicing what she preaches. For example, her net worth is estimated to be over $200,000, but she says women waste their "most fertile years" focusing on their careers, and women don't respect men who make less money than them, and female-breadwinner households are more likely to divorce.

She's not married, and I'm not saying she can't give her thoughts, but she's not in the position to speak definitively, with authority on the subject. The things she says, I'm just like...have you ever spoke to someone married? Did the adults around you conduct themselves in this bizarre way that doesn't seem very healthy at all?

I am married, and have been for 5 years, and we co-habitated for 4 years before that. My experience isn't everyone's experience, but I'm just gonna reflect on these things she says. The context of the Short is a conversation where she's admonishing working women who think their husbands should do part of the indoor chores. If both people work, I don't see what is unreasonable about balancing the chores accordingly. She thinks it's putting too much stress on the man.

There are some cases where that could be a valid argument, such as if the man is the one who works significantly more hours -- like 12-16 hour shifts, 50-80 hour weeks, etc. (I don't think she'd like my opinion on chores if the woman were the one working long hours...) Or if the woman's "job" is homemaking.

However, assuming both people have normal full-time jobs, if it's such undue stress to do some laundry, run the vacuum, or wipe something off every now and then, then it contradicts what she's saying about working women being whiny sissy boo-hoo babies when they don't want to do all the chores while their also-working husbands get to relax between taking out the trash and cutting the grass once a week.

Then she says "Marriage is hard!" I can see how a family would be hard, so putting a concerted effort into raising your kid(s) in a way that they're not going to be fucked up or become a plague on society -- but she didn't say "family", she said "marriage". However, your marriage should be a source of peace and safety, not stress, for both people. Maybe it's a little bit "hard" in the sense that both have to consider the other person and not be impulsive, doing whatever the fuck they want at all times with no regard, but it shouldn't be a semi-adversarial relationship that feels like a job every time the other person is home.

After giving her total ass take about working couples and chores and saying how hard marriage is (speaking as an un-married person no less), her fucking example is a relative who was cheated on in a 50 year marriage, and took the guy back after the side chick died.

If staying with her unfaithful husband was literally how the woman was most comfortable dealing with that, that was her choice. However, consider that in most religions that condemn divorce, if there is any exception to that rule, adultery is that exception. In the secular world, marriage is like a contract and it has certain terms or assumptions implied. Some people get married and go into it with a mutual understanding that they're going to swing, or have a poly relationship, or an open relationship, and they do fine. Some cultures practice plural marriage or concubinage, and that's normal for them. However, committing to what is understood to be a monogamous relationship, then changing the terms without the other person's enthusiastic consent and buy-in, that's betrayal and the person who was defrauded has no obligation to sit there and tolerate it.

She's a simp for trashy men by promoting the idea that all men cheat, all men want to cheat, if you want a "high-value man" you have to accept he's going to cheat, there's nothing wrong with men cheating, it's natural, it's acceptable, it's actually a GOOD thing, etc. The Manosphere promotes her because everything she's telling women to do serves trashy men and goes against women's interests.

There are probably women out there who don't care if their husband fucks other women. However, Redpill grifters like Pearl are telling women who want or expect monogamy that it's selfish, or their standards are unrealistic, or it's unnatural. In reality, it's possibly the most basic, minimal standard for Western marriage, and that's been the case for thousands of years. Get the fuck out of here...lmao...

Trashy men want the benefits of traditional monogamy - the house is clean, they get to make little heirs (that they don't have to directly care for), there's home-cooked food every time they come home, they get to be an authority figure, and their wife is obedient, hot, modest, and exclusively loyal to them - while not sacrificing the partying and casual sex of the bachelor lifestyle.

A lot of the times, I notice Redpillers say "relationship" instead of "marriage" or "girlfriend" instead of "wife" when they're talking about things that generally exist inside the context of marriage, such as providing for the woman, the idea that outside relationships or sex is "cheating", sharing of property, etc. and it's almost more insidious because it's like they want the additional cake-and-eat-it-too of a live-in girlfriend playing house, who they can kick out and replace at any time for any reason. Women getting involved with this are getting scammed.

Women who, for whatever reason, want to live in a traditional sort of relationship are going to be fucked over if they follow this advice. Because traditional couples haven't been the norm in the West for several generations, they don't have a real life point of reference and are getting low-quality information from the Manosphere and reactionaries.

The model that Pearl is promoting isn't traditional by Western standards. With few exceptions, adultery was taboo in Christianized Western Europe...so traditional Western culture. Maybe you can go back 2000 or more years and cherry pick a pre-Christian culture that practiced concubinage or plural marriage, or considered it normal for married men to visit prostitutes, but that's 2000 years of ancestors, the near-complete majority of whom would be appalled by adultery.

A problem I've noticed that feminism has created for itself is the extensive list of oppression women have experienced through time and across cultures has become like an undifferentiated hulking mass. It's like: everything everywhere all at the same time.

In a previous post I mentioned the differences between Greco-Roman culture and tribal Germanic and Celtic Europe with respect to the relative restriction or freedom of women in these cultures. The Romans were very strict; tribal Europe, less so. Although none of the "less oppressive" cultures would constitute a feminist paradise by modern standards, they allowed women more freedom and rights compared to others. Another example is the topic of foot-binding in China. In reality, it was practiced by the Han, but rejected by the Manchu and Mongols, cultures which both allowed women more freedom and higher social standing than Han women. The Kama Sutra describes a number of types of marriage in addition to the arranged marriage commonly associated with Vedic culture -- love marriage, marriage to a woman who wasn't a virgin, marriage to a prostitute, and some others. Some customs viewed as oppressive, such as arranged marriage where neither person had much choice, were practiced among the upper classes but less frequently among the lower classes, which allowed women to reject suitors or choose their own husband. While the Romans didn't have any official empresses - they are the fathers of the idea that women are utterly unfit, under any and all conditions, to be rulers or involved with political matters - the Byzantine Empire allowed empresses and had a handful throughout its lifetime. The Victorian/industrial age in the West was relatively more restrictive than the time period before - moralists were freaking out about "women's place" without the intuitive division of labor maintained by agrarian society - and the strict code of conduct for women applied primarily to middle and upper class women because it was impossible for the lower classes to conform.

In practice, the Western reactionaries' favorite view of women in Islam is more shaped by how Islam was practiced after the Islamic Revolution in the late 1970s, rather than during the Islamic Golden Age. Most of the time they don't give a fuck about the rest of Islam, just the part that seems to shit on women the most through a fundamentalist reading.

The reality is that there has been an ebb and flow across time and place. However, due to how women's oppression has been compiled, it's easy to see human history as a steady stream of forced marriage, forced impregnation, wife-beating, chaperoning, control, veiling, suppression, rape, dominance-submission dynamics, quasi-slavery, actual chattel slavery, mutilated bodies, bride kidnapping, harems, trafficking, disenfranchisement, etc.

The problem this creates is that it sets reactionaries up to compile the worst oppressions against women across time and culture into one template that reads like Aristotle on bath salts and a 40, and call it "tradition".

#feminism #amazon feminism #justpearlythings #mgtow #redpill #traditionalism #marriage #division of labor #gender roles #andrew tate #the second shift #infidelity #adultery #reactionaries

[cult-of-artemis-and-athena]

Pussy Power

I was an awkward girl so I couldn't rely on being cute to get what I wanted. I had to impress people with things like athletic or artistic talents, adult-like speech, or good grades and knowledge. I could clown for attention, or in certain situations, opt for shin-kicking or cat-scratching (complete with cat noises). The organism does what it takes to survive, I guess...

That was my normal for approximately 20 years, then puberty was finished with me, and it dawned on me that men were now polite to me. They were willing to give me things. They were interested in me as a person, and what I had to say. They cared for my well-being.

That's how it seemed, at least, to my oblivious self. I didn't know how this worked at all. I didn't know how any of it worked for a while.

Eventually I realized I could use this to my benefit to get little perks: free drinks, help with small annoying tasks, etc.

There's women be gettin' whole-ass dinners out there...

Eventually, also, I got into a sketchy situation while trying to throw my pussy power around.

Pussy power, from the male perspective, works a lot like doing favors for others with hopes that they'll do a favor for you or at least feel indebted to a favor you can cash out later.

Pussy power exists because of simps in the same way that scratch-off-tickets and payday loans exist because of poor people -- because there's a market of people who will make bad investments and opportunists exist to take advantage of it.

The more refined male sexual predators - the Les Wexners and Harvey Weinsteins of the world, and their lower-level forms like an Andrew Tate-type character - are taking advantage of the pussy power marketplace.

Their model relies on the fact the women with the most pussy power also have the least insight into how the pussy economy works, and aren't extremely well-off in other economies such as the actual-monetary-wealth economy, or the economies of other forms of social capital such as respect or reputation.

Where there's an economy, there will be fraudsters. If they're good fraudsters they will cover their asses, you're going to consent because you're naive and they're good con men, you're going to get ripped-off, and if you try to take them to court you're going to lose because either what they did was technically-legal or there is no evidence of wrongdoing.

Fraudsters inevitably exist in the pussy economy, as they do in every economy, and you aren't as smart as you think you are.

Pussy power is like waking up on your 16th, 18th, 21st, etc. birthday with a 6-digit bank account balance and zero financial advice. In a traditional culture, they'd say "That's not for spending that's for [something akin to a reverse dowery, or the intangible thing purchased with a dowery]!". That's not your only choice anymore, but what happens when you have money and people who have no money know that? They beg you - "Can you get me a pack of cigs? Can you lend me $20? Sorry, I forgot my wallet, I'll pay you later", there's people who pretend to be your friend thinking you'll buy them shit - and the more you flaunt your cash, the worse it gets with these people. You're not watching your money, you're not investing, you're not paying the IRS their extortion fees, you're trading it for short-term gains and clout purchases. If you're not careful, scammers and opportunists can bleed you dry. If you're not thinking a step ahead, you can be left with nothing.

As a "post-wall" woman I'm not saying pussy power can't be a useful tool in certain situations, but it has an expiration date. If you have pussy power in your 20s, you should be immediately thinking about how to convert it into other forms of power - monetary capital and other forms of social capital - without shooting yourself in the foot by making yourself an unemployable social pariah clown who's getting audited by the IRS.

I've seen a number of articles over time, written by women in their 30s and 40s, lamenting that they can't get what they want anymore because men stopped sexualizing them.

Pussy doesn't work on the labor theory of value, the market determines its value. The market, in this case, is about 98% heterosexual men and they're not going to value your pussy at what you say it should be worth as a 30 year old woman just because you point out a couple of porn stars (the exception, not the rule) who make money doing MILF or "mature" content.

Having pussy power is like living on easy mode in certain ways - you can get things for free, you can get favors, everyone wants to be on your good side, etc. - but it's also a burden in others. You got simps nickel-and-diming you, and 8 out of 10 dudes multiple times a day might as well change their name to Scam Likely. They don't like you per-se, they're just desperate for a crumb of pussy. They don't care who it comes from. You're interchangeable with any other woman they desire.

If you sublimate your pussy power wisely - learning and skills, a meaningful relationship, respect and authority in your field and community - the time your pussy power expires is going to coincide with the time that you grow out of having to rely on it. You can let it go when it goes, and be at peace.

Again, me being "post-wall", I feel vastly more equal in society this way. The majority of people's perception of me isn't skewed by them viewing me as a sexual object. I can get negative and positive feedback that's more accurate because I'm not competing with other women, and men aren't concerned about staying in my good graces and lying because they think they might have a remote chance to fuck me.

The conventional pussy path is to marry in your 20s and be monogamous, like the conventional economic path is to work a 9-5 and save to retire at 65. There are many other alternative paths to making money - investing, entrepreneurship, counter-economics, etc. - and each comes with a set of benefits and potential risks. It's not necessarily bad to go down one of those paths of high risk and high reward, but you're more likely to get burned if you don't do your homework. I'm not going to say, unilaterally, never have sex out of marriage, never do sex work, but there are serious consequences to these decisions.

I think before, women were restricted because society had a view they were incapable of making a decision and dealing with the consequences. In turn, it's still normal to view a woman who made decisions that backfired on her as a victim who didn't know better.

To be equal, I think is to be able to say "This is the decision I made, I fucked up, I'm doing what I can to contain the damage, and I take full responsibility for my part in this."

There are definitely societal factors that unconsciously instill self-defeating messages into women and put them on unequal footing, there are men with prejudiced attitudes, but are women going to passively wait for permission to have agency?

#pussy power #simps #simping #feminism #amazon feminism #libertarian feminism #andrew tate #sexual market value #smv

[cult-of-artemis-and-athena]

get a fucking life

Stop trying to "re-invent" or "re-brand" yourself. A new aesthetic or "era" will not fix your life. Aesthetics-as-lifestyles is something that seems to have proliferated while people were locked in their houses for 2 years. Not necessarily your fault in all cases. I think I understand where it comes from, but I don't think it's healthy or a helpful way to fulfill the desire and longing for things to make sense.

I'm not saying you can't have aspirations, have role models and inspirations, try new things, have a personal style, or change your personal style.

I'm objecting to the idea that if you curate your life a certain way and gaslight yourself into behaving like a different person, it will fix any of a number of problems that present themselves in your life -- take your pick.

"If I wear certain clothes and eat certain things, I will become An Halthy Gorl (TM)"

"If I wear certain clothes and listen to certain music, I will become An Fartistic Gorl (TM)"

Etc.

Pursuing self-improvement - to become more health-conscious or creative - is not the problem. Pursuing these things in a way inauthentic to your Self is the problem.

Online trends are very neat because they are sometimes grassroots. Sometimes there is, but often there isn't a corporation or a brand behind everything with a motivation to sell you some absolute bullshit. It seems since the trend of "aesthetics" has taken off, however, corporations are jumping on the bandwagon and using influencers to astroturf their products to online trends.

Everyone and their dog, at this point, is onto Shein and their crap, but that's a great example I don't need to over-explain.

With the exceptions of what is astroturfed by a corporation, the origin point of a trend that everyone wants to jump on is often ONE person innovating, taking a risk, and being true to themselves. They may do that thing for years in spite of receiving no clout, being considered a weirdo, or getting shit on for what they're doing.

If you look at why punks wore Doc Martens, leather jackets, or military surplus, or clothes with awkward patches and holes, they all go back to practical reasons. Before punks were punks, lot of them were poor and worked in factories; if they were going to have one nice pair of shoes, it was going to be their work boots, and Doc Martens were the best investment for that purpose at the time.

Leather moto jackets were popular in the 1950s and 60s, after that trend passed, a lot of them ended up in thrift stores in the 70s and 80s. If you're a poor kid trying to look cool, you're going to do the best you can with what you can find in a thrift store.

They had holes in their clothes because they were, again, poor and their clothes were naturally worn-out. Perhaps the rebellion lay in the fact that even poor people did their best to be "presentable" and did not wear worn-out clothing in public if they could help it, but it's not like they were buying pre-ripped jeans from a store for $100.

The people who came after, who made a conscious decision to adopt the punk lifestyle, may have ripped up their pants to still piss off anyone who felt worn-out clothes in public was disrespectful.

Then the media makes movies about punks, and punk music starts getting radio play, and normies get exposed to a romanticized and context-free image of punk that they like, and it's still rebellious enough to piss off their parents. However at this time, there are still "real" punks from the original movement, so one foot is still grounded in reality, so to speak.

Then decades pass and punk has become fully commodified into a cartoon character meme. It's a trope that's been remixed, satirized, and deconstructed by Big Fashion. The bottom tip of the iceberg still exists, but the entry point - from where someone gets into Avril Lavigne or MGK at age 11 and they're shopping at Claire's and Hot Topic (I'm probably showing my age...) - is so far removed. And sometimes, people just fuckin stay there unless it was a phase and they move onto something else.

There's a difference between adopting punk almost accidentally because you went to the skate park and interacted with punks, and starting to skateboard because you just discovered The Ramones and you're checking off the punk checklist: "Put safety pins on my bag, check. Wear a dog collar, check. Next, I gotta get a CBGB shirt and dye my hair purple. I gotta get more piercings, because the more piercings I have the higher that my punk level is."

I'll be the first to admit 13-year old me was the latter one. Now, with 20 years of hindsight, my boomer father was 100% correct to make fun of my pre-ripped jeans and tell me I should buy non-ripped jeans and do chores in them to get rips. In my own defense, however, naturally-ripped jeans often rip in a way that makes them unwearable instead of derelique.

This is not a commentary on how to treat posers, but the poser-like thought process of curating a persona that checks off aesthetic boxes without regard for practicality or individuality. However, it's applied toward being a "clean girl" or "French girl" or "alt girl".

On one hand, "aesthetics" are self-aware in acknowledging their superficiality. On the other, that in itself is a red flag that they're about as attainable and sustainable as the artificial environments and scenarios in media that inspires them.

The only outcome of trying to check all the boxes of a "French girl" aesthetic in Peebles, Ohio is disappointment.

I'm not saying you have to embrace minimalism, but in the wardrobe minimalist community, there is the concept of dressing for your real life instead of your aspirational life.

In a way that men don't, women have a mysterious pressure put upon them to be everything and everyone except who they are. "Unattainable standards" gets thrown around a lot, and it's easy to dismiss as "someone who feels entitled to credit from a result without attaining it" but what's actually being lashed out at is not always the standard itself, but sometimes it's likely the moving of the goalposts once that's reached.

I don't know where this started, and going into the possible historical and cultural genesis of this mindset is out of scope, it's largely an internalization. It's the feminine impulse to disregard twenty people who consistently say positive things or don't care and then hyper-fixate on the one person who made an off-color comment once. How many of those people are in your head?

Perhaps it's true that females, on average, are predisposed to negative emotions and conformity. Perhaps it's true that society systemically conditions girls from a young age to be obedient social chameleons who view themselves in third person. Likely both have something to do with it.

I think women who adopt the persona of being a staunch "man repeller" are just as obsessed with their image and potentially Self-denying as the pick me's who would break their feet in half if someone told them it's what attracts High Value Menz. None of this should be about cultivating approval or revulsion in a social audience.

This issue intersects heavily with consumerism, which is why I invoked the example of early punks. We have to get out of the mindset that we can go on Amazon and, within a few hours, order a brand new personality of new clothes and hobby supplies that will be used for a few months then discarded.

"Just be yourself" is advice that's given lazily, and abused frequently as a cope for not improving, but I believe that's close to the solution. Nietzsche said it better, though: become who you are. This could involve discarding and deconstructing forms of identity that come from destructive and schizophrenia-inducing sources such as mass media, social media, and consumerism and affiliating yourself with timeless identities based in culture, craft, spirituality, the natural world, and immutable personal characteristics and talents.

"Show me the face you had before you were born" -- The Buddha

#feminism #amazon feminism #beauty culture #beauty standards #identity #personal identity #aesthetic #aesthetics #trends #fast fashion #posers #poseurs #personal branding #personas #inauthenticity #authenticity #consumerism #consumer culture #mass media #social media #performative femininity #performative identity

[cult-of-artemis-and-athena]

Not new Tate news, necessarily, but a bit of ridicule.

Women commentators, sadly, mostly, do not handle him appropriately. By "appropriately" I mean as a LOLcow. The female community has got to stop taking this man so seriously. Take someone like Cyraxx, the third-generation sex offender, deluded pathological narcissist, and domestic abuser. Tate is just Cyraxx with a conventionally attractive appearance, money, a boogah'ee, and maybe 20-30 IQ points, which is not saying much.

#andrew tate #andrew taint #narcissist #lolcow #Youtube