If you wanted to control a society, you'd want to discourage masculinity. It might just be the difference in grey matter vs white matter, but a more feminized, submissive population is more controllable.
And if you don't think there are groups willing and able to control mass populations this way, then you're in for a few surprises.
Like Nazis or North Korea? I don't think submissive = feminine in many cases. It seems like the most controlled peoples overall still live(d) in a patriarchy. A very strongly skewed patriarchy.
So, an unsustainable nation? South Korea has the lowest fertility rate vs necessary growth. It's basically THE most in crisis nation along with Japan showing how an aging population vs a low birthrate affects an economy. What is your point?
My point is that South Korea is an example of what western civilizations are trending towards. It's also the closest thing to a matriarchy we have right now. They're rioting for a lot of reasons besides not being able to play MMOs past midnight.
You make it sound like there's concious control here. This isn't a matter of rights. It has more to do with the reason 50 Shades of Grey became a bestseller among women.
You obviously don't know the difference between fantasy and reality: in fact in my experience strong assertive independent women are just as likely (maybe more so) to indulge in submissive fantasies and acts while being nothing resembling submission in the rest of their lives.
50 Shades of Grey, apart from being so badly written and cliche ridden it's laughable, does provide fantasy material for women who can cope with reading something verging on illiteracy, ditto the movie, which is so badly acted it's funny.
And in my experience there are strong women, but there are no truly assertive and independent women. It's a miserable farce, a feminist meme. It disregards what femininity even means.
Women aren't going to lead a revolution against the government, they're going to support welfare and dependency programs. They aren't going to take up arms for a cause greater than defending their family. If I'm some globalist evil world order group seeking control, I want more women in positions of power. I'd want the sex with the natural tendency to submit and survive than the one inclined to dominate and take risks.
You know nothing about history: women may not be as prone to "take up arms" as men, but there are other ways of changing the world for the better and women have always been involved in doing that, both for themselves, their families and society in general.
If you haven't come across truly assertive and independent women, you've been looking in the wrong places or more likely, your misogyny and wishful thinking is blinding you.
Do you remember what the point of this post is? I was making the argument that women, by their nature, are more easily controllable than men are by groups wanting power over mass populations. That's the reasoning why those groups would prefer a feminized western society.
I'm not arguing if men or women have made the world better or changed it. I'm asking you to consider the feminine traits of being risk-averse and being more submissive to authority. Not to mention the obvious: if you want to control a population's growth, of course women are what you want to focus on—guys aren't giving birth.
Why is western society so feminized ?
← View full post
If you wanted to control a society, you'd want to discourage masculinity. It might just be the difference in grey matter vs white matter, but a more feminized, submissive population is more controllable.
And if you don't think there are groups willing and able to control mass populations this way, then you're in for a few surprises.
--
wigz
6 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
-
Ellenna
6 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Like Nazis or North Korea? I don't think submissive = feminine in many cases. It seems like the most controlled peoples overall still live(d) in a patriarchy. A very strongly skewed patriarchy.
--
felixy
6 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-1
-1
Close. Consider South Korea and President Park. It's a different kind of control.
--
wigz
6 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
So, an unsustainable nation? South Korea has the lowest fertility rate vs necessary growth. It's basically THE most in crisis nation along with Japan showing how an aging population vs a low birthrate affects an economy. What is your point?
--
felixy
6 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
My point is that South Korea is an example of what western civilizations are trending towards. It's also the closest thing to a matriarchy we have right now. They're rioting for a lot of reasons besides not being able to play MMOs past midnight.
--
wigz
6 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
Of course that's your simplistic response.
Ha Ha, you think women are submissive and controllable? I have news for you, moron, not any more we're not!
--
felixy
6 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-1
-1
You make it sound like there's concious control here. This isn't a matter of rights. It has more to do with the reason 50 Shades of Grey became a bestseller among women.
--
Ellenna
6 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
You obviously don't know the difference between fantasy and reality: in fact in my experience strong assertive independent women are just as likely (maybe more so) to indulge in submissive fantasies and acts while being nothing resembling submission in the rest of their lives.
50 Shades of Grey, apart from being so badly written and cliche ridden it's laughable, does provide fantasy material for women who can cope with reading something verging on illiteracy, ditto the movie, which is so badly acted it's funny.
--
felixy
6 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-1
-1
And in my experience there are strong women, but there are no truly assertive and independent women. It's a miserable farce, a feminist meme. It disregards what femininity even means.
Women aren't going to lead a revolution against the government, they're going to support welfare and dependency programs. They aren't going to take up arms for a cause greater than defending their family. If I'm some globalist evil world order group seeking control, I want more women in positions of power. I'd want the sex with the natural tendency to submit and survive than the one inclined to dominate and take risks.
--
Ellenna
6 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
You know nothing about history: women may not be as prone to "take up arms" as men, but there are other ways of changing the world for the better and women have always been involved in doing that, both for themselves, their families and society in general.
If you haven't come across truly assertive and independent women, you've been looking in the wrong places or more likely, your misogyny and wishful thinking is blinding you.
--
felixy
6 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-1
-1
See More Comments =>
Do you remember what the point of this post is? I was making the argument that women, by their nature, are more easily controllable than men are by groups wanting power over mass populations. That's the reasoning why those groups would prefer a feminized western society.
I'm not arguing if men or women have made the world better or changed it. I'm asking you to consider the feminine traits of being risk-averse and being more submissive to authority. Not to mention the obvious: if you want to control a population's growth, of course women are what you want to focus on—guys aren't giving birth.