Female Power Vs Male Power

Women use emotional manipulation to compensate for their physical weakness.

But only physical strength — the power source of men — is regulated and punished by society. Women are left free to exercise their sex-based power. Worse, women are celebrated for being manipulative.

This is a structural flaw in all post-modren societies.

There is overlap of course (some women resort to physical violence and some men are silver-tongued subversives), but on the whole women are more disposed to emotional manipulation as a tactic to get what they want, and they are better at it than are men. (The men who are equally manipulative tend to make excellent cads…every woman is a varying degree of solipsist who falls for a man who mirrors her.)

Hell Is Like Newark appeals to ancient authority,

Such has been the case detailed in Western literature for the 1000+ years. i.e. The Romans would talk about how the women were “the real power behind Rome” via the manipulation of the men (husbands, sons, etc.) in their lives.

Yes. Stereotypes about the sexes (and races) don’t materialize out of thin air. They become shared prejudices based on shared observations over many generations (in the case of the nature of woman, over millennia).

A more precise term for what women excel at and exploit in the quest for power is “manufactured drama”. Men don’t manufacture drama (life is hard enough for men without the added unnecessary strife) and are generally more stoic than women. Fake Drama is woman’s access to power; it’s how she keeps men off-kilter and useful as cat’s-paws against her perceived enemies, and how she dissuades her own man from abandoning her for a trade-up.

Wise societies on the upswing of their civilizational arc understand that both men’s and women’s natural power-grabbing proclivities must be regulated, checked, and sometimes punished if taken to pathological extremes (see: Ballsy-Fraud, Ramirez, Swetnick). A man who resorts too often to violence or physical intimidation is an unstable influence; likewise, a woman who resorts too often to innuendo and fabrication is also an unstable influence on an orderly society.

What has happened in the West, particularly in America — and what happens to most civilizations after they have peaked in patriarchal creativity and moral confidence — is that we have discarded constraints on female will to power while continuing (and arguably strengthening) constraints on male will to power.

PoundMeToo is the pinnacle of this twisted achievement. All women are to be believed, whatever their credibility, psychology, or history, in any allegation, however dubious, they may decide to level against a man. And no man is to be believed, whatever his reputation, sincerity, or accomplishments, in his defense against such wild slander.

Which is why I say go long on sexbots, because American men will soon want nothing to do with American women. (Feminists subconsciously grasp the existential threat of sexbots, hence their urgency to ban sexbot brothels wherever they crop up.)

Men are shamed, women are exalted. (America)

Where women are shamed and men are exalted, you find the arab moslem countries.

What we Westerners need is a return to the wisdom of our ancestors; we need to bring balance back to our nations, and recognize before it’s too late that unrestrained women are as dire a threat to the nation as are unrestrained men. We bring balance back to the sexual force by shaming conniving women and allowing aggressive men some room to steer society.

Fewer false rape accusations, more Beach Week parties with Biff Kavanaughs.

We have the worst possible system in place now: women given free rein to indulge their cruel psychotic whims with the power of the State to shield them from punishment, and (White) men mightily oppressed by every lever of establishment power from baring even an iota of masculine verve.

It’s why I coined this system a “gynarcho-tyranny”.

Only Trump and a few pseudonymous dissidents have broken out of this matronix to deliver the Dude Word to the masses.

With any checks on female depravity removed, we are left at the mercy of, and victim to the spectacle of, crazy catladies, conformist soccermoms, and hysterical slores inviting in enemy hordes and crushing dissent from their own men, destroying their livelihoods and driving an intensifying trend toward social disharmony. This is why we have descended from a Battle Of The Sexes to a Breach Of The Sexes. The rancor is a product of straitjacketed White men losing control of their riotous White women.

We need to rethink our unthinking devotion to the Fundamental Premise. A renewed appreciation of benevolent sexism is part of the solution.

A big obstacle to relocating our lost power-differentiated sexual market balance is the nature of how sex-based power is manifest. Physical violence is palpable, readily perceived. Emotional violence is subtle, amorphous, and plausibly deniable. This distinction is crucial for understanding why modren societies, with their imprinted sensitivity to instant harm (the evil twin of instant gratification), find it difficult to recognize female power when it is being abused. This failure of recognition is ultimately exculpatory of the worst sorts of psychocunts.

It is also indicative of a dumber society (which, naturally, benefits women — for now), because dumber citizens acclimated to clickbait news in which the senses are assaulted by visual stimuli are less able to discern the inconspicuous abuses of soft power that women prefer.

Another reader supplies a coda to this tragic tale of female empowerment coupled with male disempowerment,

Democracy protects the weak by damaging the strong.

And when the weak become the strong?

It gets ugly.

The world knows no cruelty like the cruelty of the snarky, weak and degenerate with the power of retribution.