Feminism: The God That Destroys

“Bullhorns are a core principle of eco-feminism.” – Futurama

Why are the books on Dwarf Rights on the top shelf?

The GloboLeftist use of power can be objectively observed to be feminine.  To put it bluntly, GloboLeftism is feminism.  One way this is especially apparent is the tactics that the GloboLeft uses – it uses the tactics of gossip, the swarm, and ostracization of those that it deems unworthy.

If you look carefully at how the GloboLeft attacks, it follows that pattern.  Gossip against an enemy, a swarm against that enemy, and finally the ostracization of that enemy.  With men, the way to solve a problem is simple – get up, get a hammer (or other appropriate tool, like a much bigger hammer) and solve the problem.  Or fail.

If necessary, and the problem is big enough, get a friend.  If that’s not enough, go build better tools and recruit more friends.  Or a brigade.  Or tanks.  Or an army.  Or take this newfangled flight and build jet engines to fight at the speed of sound and play with the fundamental forces of nature to create a miniature star to cause your problems to evaporate.

Simple.  Okay, not simple sometimes.  But it is direct.  This is how men historically kept other men (and other tribes) in line, just various sizes of hammers.

I hope that joke didn’t catch anyone by surprise – I don’t want to be convicted of involuntary man’s laughter.

Women, however, use the gossip/swarm/ostracize technique naturally to keep the group members of other women in line.  I’ve seen it.  When women are together in a group and they split away from the main group, they begin the gossip to keep other members in line or to pull them down.

When a big enough transgression occurs, they swarm against the offender.  Then they kick them out of the group.  In smaller tribal groups this behavior was probably entirely necessary to keep the peace.  Many of the historical tribal punishments were directed not at adulterous men, but adulterous women.

Why?  Men have the key, and women have to have the lock otherwise the fighting and killing start.  Also of note, is that in every point in history up until the modern society, women depended on men for their power – so women had to rule over women to keep the worst female impulses down.

What do you call a letter from a feminist?  Hate male.

Back in the day, the worst case for a woman was to be shunned and shamed and denied resources.  Being denied resources meant (in many cases) death for the woman, and her children if she had them.  This is the core feminine fear, and is the basis for society today.

This was why, of all the crazy things developed by the commies, that feminism was the worst, because it preys upon a core fear.  The result is that feminists have done everything that they can possibly figure out to remove any consequences for their action as feminism took hold.  Examples?

  • Abortion made the defining hallmark of real femininity, having kids, an option.
  • No-fault divorce was next – having an affair no longer meant that a woman was liable in court for her actions – now divorce could happen just because she was tired. But that wasn’t enough – women needed cash and prizes for leaving the marriage:
  • Community property and child support followed. That was fine for high-status females.  But what about poor females?
  • Well, for them we need welfare and Aid For Dependent Children so they can have as much irresponsible and unprotected sex as they like.
  • I’m generally not in favor of slugging women, but domestic violence laws have made men guilty until proven innocent, with many jurisdictions requiring an arrest if the police are called out for domestic violence. But even that isn’t enough:
  • Making fun of Lizzo because she’s the size of a school bus is now “fat-shaming”. And making fun of a woman who had sex with all of Wyoming is now wrong and called “slut-shaming”.

All of these are intended to insulate a woman from the consequences of her actions and choices.  No society on Earth can afford this for long, because the consequences of insulation of consequences are what we see around us.

  • Rampant criminality because removing consequences should apply to everyone, up until they commit murder.
  • Declining birthrate as women avoid having children and having families until they’re at the point that having more than one or two for them is impossible.
  • Lower than optimal family formation is happening because women are skipping the family to become the drunk wine aunt that makes PowerPoints® for a living but can’t get a “good” man to commit.
  • Lower than optimal family stability, since there are no consequences, women can monkey branch from one man to another and this be accepted.
  • Sentimentality as a basis for public policy rather than rationality – i.e., illegals are viewed as individuals in pain rather than a contagion that will turn the Untied (it was a typo that I thought I’d leave) States into the average of Venezuela, Eritrea, Cambodia, and the Congo.
  • Degeneration as all consequences for anything sexual are removed as sex becomes the new sacrament for the feminist religion – note that in any argument with a member of the GloboLeft® they’ll soon drop a sexual insult.

Name something that goes better together than “Wilder” and “procrastination”.  Go ahead.  I’ll wait.

Oddly, feminism does the opposite of what it says on the label – it either turns women into cut-rate men, making them unhappy tramps who “settled” but still thinks she deserves a Chad because she slept with fifty Chads.  Conversely, it deprives them of family, making them unhappy drunk wine aunts by having them chase a career so they could be complete women that don’t need no man.  In fact, keeping women unhappy is better for the GloboLeftElite because it keeps women dependent on feminist ideology and makes them defend it all the more.

Go figure.

What African country do neckbeards hate the most?  Chad.

The reason this all was available was because we have amazingly abundant resources and could pay for it out of the spare change that we had from printing money.

The good news is that this can’t last.

To be clear:  I really like women.  And I know that women are different than men.  I know that this might be heresy at places like Harvard™, but it’s true.  Women add to society, but when they’re in unmitigated charge of society, it just creates a big mess like the one we’re seeing now.  The future needs women, acting like women, in families, making children that are worthy of being called men and women, which can only be made by the atom of society – the family.

The future won’t be the feminism of the GloboLeft – it’s a cancer.  And the methods that it uses gossip/swarm/ostracize aren’t ways of solving the problems that we have right now as the resources of the eternal summer end – that’s when the only real solution is the solution of men – get a tool and fix it.  The only real question is what form that solution will take.

Will it take a miniature star to fix it?

What did fatman say to little boy?  “Nuke, I am your father.”

Author: John

Nobel-Prize Winning, MacArthur Genius Grant Near Recipient writing to you regularly about Fitness, Wealth, and Wisdom - How to be happy and how to be healthy. Oh, and rich.

53 thoughts on “Feminism: The God That Destroys”

  1. Glad to see your back blogging. Hope the family situation is doing well. I would have said back to “normal” but I shudder what “normal” at the Wilder household is LOL.

    “We can ignore reality, but we cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.”
    ― Ayn Rand

    At least this woman gets it.

    Welcome back John.

    1. Oh, all is better than well! Normal at home is interesting – we’re a tough crowd. If you ever listen to the podcast, you’ll get what it’s like between The Mrs. and me.

  4. ‘The GloboLeftist use of power can be objectively observed to be feminine. To put it bluntly, GloboLeftism is feminism’

    da-doink . . .

    https://www.channelnewsasia.com/commentary/global-gender-divide-gen-z-politics-ideology-conservative-liberal-4076986

    Humanity still struggles mightily against God, preferring Goddess Woman to Him, insisting upon female equality, empowerment and eventual supremacy . . . the girls reveling in authority over men, the men hearing and obeying their daughters and wives. Ciao, God!

    Conservatives and Christians are as overtaken by feminism as progs and seculars. Neither woman nor man wants the remedy to the disease, largely because feminism is a compact between females collectively and third-rate males, who often front institutions and crush masculinity. It’s the ole Jezzie ‘n Ahab twostep.

    This alliance hates and oppresses strong men, especially strong Christian men, who would rule and repair society . . . and return the hens and the manginas to their proper places and roles. Thus country divided, two long solar shadows scribing an X upon the land. Eclipsed nation, even the heavens attest. ‘Give her a double portion’.

    Feminism’s gone global, though in truth always was core religion of the planet and its trans-generational ruling elite, whose own rites betray their worship. The rot is headquartered in America, whose ruling spirit is the tsah-rah cited in Daniel 12:1, the female adversary/tribulation.

    1. Yes, the influence inside some churches is horrific. Sermons for men to man up, but never to control the worst impulses of women.

  5. Your nuclear war jokes are all DY-NO-MITE!

    Speaking of feminism…I get a real kick out of the Twitter X channel Libs of Tik-Tok. The channel owner Chaya Raichik merely reposts Tik-Tok videos made by leftists and lets their insanity speak for itself. Taylor Lorenz is one such insane leftist journalist who “doxxed and outted” Raichik as the woman behind LOTT. Lorenz is notable for a later viral whiny video she made about laid-off journalists after she became one herself.

    Anyway, these two opposing female internet icons got together and did a “friendly” interview. This review of the ensuing catfight is worth reading. Tip o the hat to Zero Hedge for linking to it.

    https://chrisbray.substack.com/p/emergency-brake

  6. Another great post, John, thank you! One additional thought I had, while reading the part about the unhappy women/feminist reinforcing loop, was that, additionally, a benefit to the beast is women’s propensity for retail therapy.
    Maybe it’s rooted in the original gatherer role women once held but, to my mind, the fairer sex seems generally more inclined to frivolity of purchases. By keeping them unhappy, and working, there can be an endless train of sales made; each painstakingly marketed as the panacea to their woes.
    The financial benefits, here, are multiple. By constantly spending they have to be constantly working and incurring endless taxable events while they do. All the additional labor creates a supply side glut that suppresses wages too. In all, the movement has been brutally effective.

    1. Christopher – insightful, +1. Great point – divided and spending, they become economic entities . . . .

  7. I actually think I am a thoughtful voter. I read contentious bills in the original text (to avoid depending on partisan summaries), take the time to investigate voting records of candidates, even if I have previously supported them, and take my civic obligations seriously.
    However, most women, and many men, do not. They vote for convenience, peer pressure, and ‘what-am-I-gonna-get-out-of-this?’ The big difference is that men – generally – favor less government, fewer taxes, and less regulation.
    Women favor Big Brother, pandering to women’s ‘special interests’ – i.e., abortion, and politicians’ willingness to exact retribution on enemies (as long as the enemies are also the women’s enemies).
    So, although I would miss that mark of citizenship (and there would be a reduction in my household by one vote against the Leftist agenda), I would be willing to restrict the vote to:
    – people who work for a living – if you collect non-earner money from government (the only requirement to get it was breathing, not having contributed when you were working), you cannot vote, as you have no skin in the game (this provision to be repealed, should the USA eliminate income taxes)
    – people who head households independently (they pay rent or mortgage) – only ONE per household, if they cannot decide who should vote, the person with the higher income does. In my case, that’s my husband.
    – citizens with verifiable ID ONLY

    1. The big change with women and voting patterns comes with *married* women, who are more focused on family.

      I’m glad you’re here, Linda!

  8. Well…on a lighter note, we’re all going to die and leave this shit hole behind. I’m old, I’ve studied this most of my life. Of course, (obligatory) your mileage may vary.
    Tree Mike

  9. I know I’ve noted this before, and guaranteed, I will note it again, but the increase and the rate of increase of columnists noting that feminism, and suffrage, are destroying civilization is quite interesting. One wonders when it will reach escape velocity and suffrage will be repealed for the good of civilization… before the West falls, or after Islam fills that evolutionary niche, making suffrage an historical irrelevance.

  10. To this moment, I cannot think of a single “loner” I’ve ever known who was female. Sure, there are plenty of misfits who seem to live to tangle with other women for power and supremacy (my half-sister is prototypical). But it seems from my experience that no woman is ever an island. They crave acceptance and reassurance, at least from one another, and fear ostracism and abandonment more than death itself.
    It is precisely this desperate longing to belong to the group that influences their every decision and action, even to the suppression of obvious cognitive dissonance. My DIL’s best friend and most despised enemy is one and the same person, her own mother. They agree on literally nothing, and nearly every phone call ends with one of them hanging up on the other in furious rage. Yet they wouldn’t have it any other way.
    I assiduously avoid contact with any and every woman in my workplace who is not yet through menopause. And I leave a cordial but wide berth around most of those who have experienced the change of life. There is simply no way for a cis hetero White man to win in any confrontation with a woman other than to avoid that confrontation altogether.
    Hey, I don’t make up the rules. I just live by them.
    TBC

    1. What happens to the paragraph breaks and blank lines when you comment anonymously? There’s little I hate more than a wall of text, and I went to the trouble of breaking mine up, only to have it squashed together again. What gives?

  11. Your post brought back to mind conversations I had with women about working with women. Most didn’t like to work with other women. Office politics, cliques, vicious gossip and outright confrontation is what was described as a normal occurrence. How this relates to feminist organizations is beyond my knowledge, but I have the opinion it’s best described as a miserable group of those that placed blame on things that were their fault, and in the pecking order, most would be the hen with all the feathers plucked by the other hens.
    Jess

    1. Yeah there was a great article about a woman in England that made a woman-only (I guess you can do that there) office. It was her company. She hated it.

      1. Scripture makes plain that in the last days Christ first will snatch out a remnant (harpazo) and then, after a brief delay, return to this world to stomp, romp, and take names.

        That means He will fix it, or it doesn’t get fixed. The shame of it: God will actually have to come LIVE on this planet before it turns around! After a term, the King then will ‘fix’ this world permanently.

        Christian men are expected to be about Father’s business and to make war on this world as preparation for Parousia. We also are responsible to maintain the sovereignty of our birth-nations. We each have a (limited) duty to those nations. But our freedom comes from Father, not from earthly polities.

  13. I can agree with most of this except for when men are in charge too many a) fooled around on their faithful wives, and then b) dumped them for a younger version, often leaving them (and their offspring) poor since women who were middle-class and up tended not to work.

    So if men could keep it buttoned and not screw over their wives (both literally and figuratively), I’d be for the old ways. If not, no. As a kid, I saw too many women ruined. Some recovered, many never really did.

    2. What you wrote is exactly what the feminists wrote (and chanted) in the 1960s, when I was a boy. Basically, women HAD to rebel against God and to usurp the positions of men, because . . . men are bad and do bad things to females. Thus, feminism is justified and good.

      ‘If only men could keep it in their pants’ then pore, oppressed women would not have been FORCED to embrace feminism and turn the West into totalitarian, gynocentric nations.

      What you wrote turned out to be VERY attractive to women, and likewise attractive to the manginas who have funded, disseminated, supported, and enforced Total Feminism in many nations over the past half-century. It’s what they want — and need — to hear. It’s the collective OK sign to wage more War on Men.

      To this world, any excuse for imposing Feminism is a good excuse, and the oldest and most popular rationalization is that ‘men made women do it’ and thus yet again, females escape consequences and the baddie is men.

      Same game, new millennium.

      1. The kind of women who raise the kind of son who end up skivving off… They create bitter, fearful daughters, and weak sons who repeat the cycle. Hard to say how it works out, but I got the impression that clever, lazy, gamma wastrels like Bronson Alcott, who generated a very, very popular daughter who promoted Christ-free Christianity and women’s independence to work were much rarer 100 years ago. No-account people of both sexes were shamed, and family and church networks for the worthy poor mostly worked.

        Feminism had a hard time gaining any traction, then. Even granting women the vote (thanks for nothing, guys) only got the ball rolling. It was mainly women (married granted) who stopped ERA in its tracks.

        The original, Reagan-era no-fault divorce was driven by men like Mr. Reagan, and others who wanted to ditch their wives and do better. It’s hard to prove fault if she’s a childish, spend-thrift loon or he’s a good-for-nothing emotionally-manipulative wastrel. Not like abuse or philandering, granted. And I’ll bet there were plenty of both sexes stuck with such partners under the hard rules. New rules are easier! And the bargain: She gets old and chubby bearing your kids, but she’s exclusive to you and yours got broken. Then of course, the women came crying that it wasn’t fair (it wasn’t) but instead of getting the men to shape back up, people chose to lower the standards for women, too.

        The no-fault generation drove daddy-issues, Gen-X-era Hollywood, and created scads of practical women who insisted they needed careers “just in case” and boys who were brow-beaten by narcissist Becky Sharpe mammas into weakness. All the stories featured bad daddies, and weak men, and Stronk Wahmen because “Mother is the word for god on the lips and in the hearts of little children”.

        So now, why not live alone with cats, and friends, and a useful job, instead of with a soggy guy who isn’t good for much of anything? Who can’t keep your kids safe, or you? Sure it’s depressing, but it’s still better than being tied to the end product of a system-wide war on boys. As long as they’re not also sleeping around and having kids out of wedlock…

        And there’s the sexual revolution at the same time, also driven by men. Larry Flynt? The wossname Playboy guy? Women got in on the game because it’s not faaaaaaaaaaaaaair that the men get away with sexy-fun-times…

        And here we are in clown world that encourages anything goes so hard and so bad, that half the kids are terrified of growing up and embrace bespoke sexualities to avoid having to have anything to do with it. The other half are tossing themselves into the scrum with nary a thought about what kind of family they’ll be able to make (if any). So now, not only are women not wanting a man-child (because who would? At least children eventually grow up and can be a help in your old age), but they can at least for a night, pick up some guy who at least SEEMS like man for a night. And dear God, as long as they aren’t having kids in this set-up…

  14. “Better to live in a desert than with a quarrelsome and nagging wife.”
    –Proverbs 21:19

    “She’s just walking around like a chicken, and no one says ‘stop clucking’ ”
    –Patrice O’Neil

    “They want the privileges of a woman, the authority of a man, and the accountability of a child”
    –anyone who has spent a significant amount of time around women

    “When Men are dealing with problems, Society asks them to change. When Women are dealing with problems, we ask Society to change.”

  15. Lost reserve currency status after about 105 years: Portugal, Spain, The Netherlands, France, Britain.
    In which of these places could women vote: last little bit of Britain.
    It’s not a problem with women, it’s a problem with men submitting to women.

      1. ‘It’s not a problem with women, it’s a problem with men submitting to women.’

        NO. This is the Tradcon Shuffle of the past 50 years.

        The problem is with BOTH male and female, as BOTH were punished by God. You position is the feminist position.

        The problem is not ‘the man’s fault’. That’s just a repeat of feminism. Scripture is plain on this —

        ‘Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

        ‘But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

        For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

        And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.’ (1 Tim. 2:11-14)

        Scripture says the ‘woman was in the transgression’ while you say ‘It’s not a problem with women, it’s a problem with men’. Your position the enemy’s position. And John, you should know better by now.

        What are you folks gonna do when I’m gone? They will be on you in an instant.

        2. I’m not championing the feminist political position, because I want to hold women as accountable for their behavior as men. Ever since the revolver handgun became practical with cartridges, the idea that it’s practical to oppress women as second class citizens is militarily impossible to implement. I don’t care if both human sexes’ instincts have evolved in an environment where the man is mostly physically dominant (when he’s awake). That’s not today’s reality. You cannot make it reality again. It’s no longer available. Reality is universal literacy and social media and a pocket supercomputer where if you press some buttons you can talk to several billion people with simultaneous translation.

          Early Christians wrote some books, which books you are taking in a circular argument as evidence that early Christians are correct. Why don’t you believe Hitler’s or Marx’s book, too?

  16. Bring back the rule of thumb.
    Repeal the 19th Amendment.
    A man owes absolutely nothing to a woman who is not (or no longer) his wife. Not even through his taxes.
    No Christian church has a woman in any leadership position.

  17. Nice header meme.

    I actually put them in the comedy section.

    Leftard political volumes go in fiction.

    Every day, going on 30 years now.
    I Never get caught.

    ROWYBS
    Hope you enjoyed the break.

    1. I love it! Some have “accidently” fallen behind the shelf. Oopsie!

      Great time off, feel very recharged.

  18. On average women don’t think, they emote. And no society can succeed when it’s run on feelings instead of facts. Allowing women to make important long term decisions will turn out bad far more often than it will lead to success. Biology can be ignored but it won’t be denied. Women evolved to be mothers, not executives.

Comments are closed.