Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 3.5
The Interlude
Part 4
So we’ve discussed the transitions from despotism and polygamy to democracy and monogamy, from a system with no checks and balances on alphadom to one that has institutionalized alpha proxies dedicated to policing alphadom, all of which came about thanks to the increased voice of the lower-status male.
But what about modern feminism? Where does that come into play?
To understand feminism how feminism came about, you have to understand two things: first, the difference between how females deal with high-status male versus how they deal with low-status males, and second, who feminism actually benefits.
Women are much better on average at nonviolent manipulation of men than vice versa. Although the word manipulation has negative connotations, I’m using the word in the least judgmental way possible. Nonviolent manipulation means to mold, control or influence through powers of persuasion without the threat of physical violence. Women had to developed this skill through eons of evolution because guys throughout history could kick their asses, kill them and rape them at will if they wanted. Nonviolent manipulation is a skill they needed to develop to compensate for other weaknesses.
Women developed survival strategies throughout history like manipulating men and testing men for strength in order to choose providers of either resources or good genes. Women manipulate and test high-status men differently than they do low-status men, though. For example, there have been times when I’ve met women and had them eating out of my hand. These same women would have some low-status guy without game in their life, often a boyfriend even, who they would treat like crap. Sometimes they’d call the guy right in front of me to punk him while I was in the background. Or we’d be out and some low-status guy would approach, and she’d treat him like crap then make him buy her a drink, which she’d promptly give to me.
This same exact chick who was flippant, emasculating and disrespectful when dealing with a low-status guy could turn around and become demure, ego-boosting and respectful when being romanced by me, who she perceived as high-status. This didn’t mean she wasn’t actively manipulating and testing me for strength too, but that she did it more subtly and in a passive way that satisfied my ego.
When dealing with a low-status weaker guy, a woman is going to try to openly compete to be the “head” of the relationship. Her testing and power plays will come in the form of open disrespect. Her manipulation will be blatant and emasculating. Much of this comes from perceived necessity though, because she instinctively distrusts the low-status man to provide and lead. Because he has more to prove, she’s going to test and manipulate twice as hard. When dealing with a high-status stronger man however, the woman allows him to be the head and believe himself to be in charge, but she fight to become the “neck” that turns the head toward where she wants it to focus.
All of this applies on a macro-level also. Think of the evolution of society that I described throughout this series. In more primal, traditional societies where high-status men monopolized most of the mating options and made life miserable for low-status men, women as a whole predominately manipulated by acting demure, ego-boosting and respectful of men. However, because of the collective rise of monogamy and the creation of the Leviathan I described in the last installment, western women today are forced on average to deal much more with lower-status men, and therefore as a group modern women manipulate by being more flippant, emasculating and disrespectful. Even today in societies that are democratic and monogamous, if there is not a good system of alpha proxies and renegade alpha suppression the women will still choose to manipulate in a more passive, traditional conservative way than an active, progressive liberal way.
So is it ultimately better for a woman to be active and progressive (the head) or passive and traditional (the neck)? In many ways the latter’s a better strategy because it allows the man believes himself to be in charge, therefore he doesn’t bother fighting back or changing anything because the poor chump thinks he’s winning. In addition, he bears the full responsibility for all the finances and for all decisions and takes full blame if they don’t work out. This system gives women a lot of power with much less responsibility. To be openly recognized as the head or equal partner of the relationship or household means having responsibilities and accountability, two things women utterly hate.
That’s right, women hate accountability and bearing the brunt of responsibility. Women like to be recognized as being capable of doing anything a man can. They like to be recognized as having the ability to be just as skilled as a man and worthy of the same rights and perks as a man. What they don’t like though is being required to share the same responsibilities and duties as a man, except when it’s convenient (which is why they want to join the military but don’t like the idea of, you know, going all commando on the front lines of combat).
For example, ladies out there tell the truth on this one: do you or do you not hate when a man, in response to the question “What do you want to do?” responds with “I don’t know, what do you want to do?” Women, even if they are openly indecisive and wishy-washy about a topic, hate when the men they are dealing with act indecisive and wishy-washy about the very same topic within the very same conversation.
Why do they have a right to be indecisive on a topic but judge a man harshly for being indecisive about the exact same topic during the same conversation? It’s because despite modern feminist dogma, they still instinctively resent men who put them in a position where they have to take responsibility and ultimate accountability for decisionmaking. They want to be recognized as capable of making decisions for themselves and want to reserve the right to make decisions for themselves, but they don’t want the actual obligation of making decisions if they can avoid it. If they can avoid the responsibility and accountability of such decisionmaking, they’ll always take it. This is why women find leadership qualities to be such a turn-on in men and why watching a group of women try to agree on any decision can take so long that it’s maddening.
So if women don’t really like the responsibility and accountability that comes with being in charge and making decisions, why is modern feminism such a strong force in the developed West?
The key to understanding the answer is to reevaluate how you think of power. A popular tenet of modern feminism is that women were historically deprived of power before they fought for their rights through feminism. This isn’t true. Women have always had power. Arguably they’ve even secretly had more power than men. It wasn’t power women lacked before feminism, it was authority. Men are very simplistic and linear and often conflate power with authority. Although authority is a form of power, not all power is necessarily a form of authority, as Chinweizu points out in Anatomy of Female Power:
In any case, even if no “strictly matriarchal society” ever existed, that would not imply that female power did not exist. Authority is only one of the many types of power; and the wielding of authority is not necessary for the exercise of many types of power. Power without authority is neither unknown nor rare, as is recognized when it is said that someone is “the power behind the throne”…
…If the essence of power is the ability to get what one wants, then women are far from powerless. Women do get, and always did get, what they want – be it riches, or thrones, or the head of John the Baptist, or routine exemption from hardships and risks which their men folk are obliged to endure. That women operate by methods which often differ from those available to men does not in any way mean that women are bereft of power.
If women are not powerless, are they, perhaps, less powerful than men? Some feminists find it in their interest to have the world believe this. And for proof they point to the public structures of political, economic and cultural power, and show that these are almost exclusively occupied by men. But does that prove what they aim to prove? Not at all! All it shows is that in the public structures, which form the domain of male power, women are not well represented. If this under-representation is to prove that women are less powerful than men, it would need to be also true that those public structures exhaust the modes and centers of power in society. Alas, for feminist claims, they do not; for there indeed are other modes and centres of power which women monopolize. Such are the subjects of this inquiry.
In those centres, women control scarce resources, commodities and opportunities; and they distribute them. They exercise power through education, propaganda, directives, suggestions, rewards and punishments. They wield instruments of persuasion and coercion.
As this inquiry shall show, matriarchs (who wield female power) and matriarchy (an organized structure or institution for the exercise of female power) do exist, indeed have always existed. The power they wield is neither illusory nor a joke. Furthermore, in human society, it is not male power but female power which is supreme. Or rather, to change the imagery, however great male power may be, it is to female power what that one-seventh of an iceberg which is visible above water is to the six-sevenths which lies below the water line. .
As we shall see, the male modes of power are actually tributary to the female modes, in as much as the fruits of male power are poured at the feet of women through the workings of female power. That men seek wealth, power, status and fame for the love of women is widely attested to by knowledgeable commentators. According to Esther Vilar: “Man’s work is only done with woman in view”…
From his own experience, Aristotle Onassis, an ambitious and very successful businessman of this 20th century, confirms this when he declared: “If women didn’t exist all the money in the world would have no meaning” …
Moreover, male preoccupation with wealth, power, fame and status in order to win the love of women is quite natural, being rooted in the animal origins of humanity…
If the natural goal of male power is to pay tribute to women, then male power is naturally tributary to female power. If, however powerful a man may be, his power is used to serve the women in his life, that would make dubious the notion that men are masters over women. Because every man has as boss his wife, or his mother, or some other woman in his life, men may rule the world, but women rule the men who rule the world. Thus, contrary to appearances, woman is boss, the overall boss, of the world.
Chinweizu then goes further into breaking down the three phases and five pillars of female power, emphasis added by me:
Female power exists; it hangs over every man like a ubiquitous shadow. Indeed, the life cycle of man, from cradle to grave, may be divided into three phases, each of which is defined by the form of female power which dominates him: mother power, bridepower, or wifepower.
From birth to puberty, he is ruled by motherpower, as exercised over him by his one and only “mummy dearest”. Then he passes into the territory of bridepower, as exercised over him by his bride-to-be, that cuddlesome and tender wench he feels he cannot live without. This phase lasts from puberty to that wedding day when the last of his potential brides finally makes herself his wife. He then passes into the domain of -wifepower, as exercised over him by his own resident matriarch, alias his darling wife. This phase lasts till he is either divorced, widowed or dead.
In each phase, female power is established over him through his peculiar weakness in that stage of his life. Motherpower is established over him while he is a helpless infant. Bridepower holds sway over him through his great need for a womb in which to procreate; if he didn’t feel this need, he wouldn’t put himself into the power of any owner of a womb. Wifepower is established over him through his craving to appear as lord and master of some woman’s nest; should he dispense with this vanity, not even the co-producer of his child could hold him in her nest and rule him.
There are five conditions which enable women to get what they want from men: women’s control of the womb; women’s control of the kitchen; women’s control of the cradle; the psychological immaturity of man relative to woman; and man’s tendency to be deranged by his own excited penis. These conditions are the five pillars of female power; they are decisive for its dominance over male power. Though each is recognized in popular jokes and sayings, their collective significance is rarely noted.
If traditional male power is can be summed up as authority and all it’s forms (political, financial, physical, etc.), traditional female power – the three forms and five pillars Chinweizu describes above? – can be summed up by the term pussy power. Pussy power trumps everything. Properly utilized, pussy power is the most powerful weapon on the planet. Even major uberalphas like Julius Caesar and Marc Antony, when all else failed to bring them down, fell to it when wielded by a master practitioner like Cleopatra. Iggy Pop even made a song in tribute to Pussy Power:
powered by Hipcast.com
Before modern feminism, low-status women were women who fell into two categories.
- women who for some reason or another couldn’t utilize the traditional weapons of female power. They were deficient in either mother power, bridepower and/or wifepower because they can’t effectively use the the five pillars of female power. Examples are ugly women, fat women, socially immature awkward women, older women who were once attractive but were now past their prime beauty and reproductive years, old maids, widows, divorcees, etc.
- women who could but didn’t want to rely on the traditional weapons of female power. This included lesbians and other types of women who wanted to be men or at least be free to behave like them and women who resented men and were not willing to settle for the traditional female game of being holding the power secretly but letting men believe they were the ones actually holding the power. They weren’t satisfied with the power that came from being the neck, they wanted the recognition and authority that came with being the head. They didn’t want to carry on the charade of being subservient and inferior to men.
Thus modern feminism was not the quest for oppressed, powerless women as a whole to gain equality. Modern feminism was actually the quest of a specific subset of low-status women to gain access to authority – the traditional mode of male power – because they couldn’t or by choice wouldn’t rely solely on traditional modes of female power – pussy power. The low-status women who were were unattractive, unmarried and/or not mothers wanted access to the male form of power – authority – to compensate for lacking pussy power. These are the types of feminists who bitch about women being objectified in the media, because they are too ugly or old to profit from showcasing themselves sexually. (You rarely see hot, young women bitch about objectification for example unless they’ve been indoctrinated by one of these old or ugly feminists at some point, usually at university. They’re too busy using their looks to get what they want).
The women who were low-status by choice like open lesbians and women who disdained marriage also saw the benefit in gaining access to authority because they found using pussy power against men personally distasteful. Together these two types of women eventually recruited a third type of woman, the one who gave them the most leverage, the high-status women who did have access to traditional modes of female power – pussy power – but were so bored and/or greedy they decided to get access to authority – the traditionally male form of power – as well.
Chinweizu also builds on this:
To help us assess feminism, we ought to note that, in their attitudes to men, there are three basic types of women: the matriarchists, the tomboys and the termagants. A matriarchist is a woman who believes that a man’s natural or god-ordained role in life is to serve some matriarch or married mother; and that the best way to get full service out of him is to make him think that he is his matriarch’s boss. A tomboy is a woman who would rather be a man. A termagant is a woman, whether tomboy or quasi-matriarchist, who insists on showing her man that she, not he, is boss; she therefore takes sadistic pleasure in harassing and bossing men.
Most women, down through history, have been matriarchist. Tomboys there have always been, but most, at puberty, reconciled themselves to the matriarchist social arrangements which suited the overwhelming majority of women. Termagants, the man-hating, temperamental misfits in the matriarchist paradise, there have always been. Incensed by the facade of patriarchy, they would vent on the hapless men around them their resentment of the matriarchist requirement that women make believe that they are ruled by men.
Feminism is a movement of bored matriarchists, frustrated tomboys and natural termagants; each of these types has its reasons for being discontented in the matriarchist paradise that is woman’s traditional world. Indeed, the career of post WWII feminism may be summarized as follows:
Bored matriarchists (like Betty Friedan) and frustrated tomboys (like Simone de Beauvoir) kicked it off;
Termagants (like Andrea Dworkin) made a public nuisance of it;
Satisfied matriarchists (like Phyllis Schlafly) oppose it;
Non-militant tomboys (the female yuppies) have quietly profited from it.
Friedanite feminism began by giving public voice to the craving by bored, wealthy, suburban American housewives for “something more than my husband and my children and my home.” Much of feminism has been inspired by this desire for something better than the matriarchist paradise; however, feminists find it politically expedient to present their aggrandizing demands in the language of liberation from oppression. But it is hard, without standing the word “oppression” on its head, to fathom how their boredom, an affliction of the leisured and the idle rich, can be taken as a product of oppression. It takes Orwellian doublespeak to say that such a wife is oppressed by the husband whose income makes possible her leisured life. And if the idle rich are oppressed, then what are slaves, peons, and the like?
What Friedanite feminism proves is that what to most women is paradise, to some women is hell; that any paradise can bore some to rebellion…
Anyway, however dubious the “oppressed” status of Friendanite feminists was, once their banner was unfurled, tomboys and termagants were powerfully drawn to it. Under the banner of feminism, the militant tomboy, who would rather be a man, vents her frustration on men instead of appealing to god or the surgeon for a sex change. Under thebanner of feminism, the non-militant tomboy goes on to become a yuppie, a business or political entrepreneur, glad for a social climate in which, when she plays male roles, she encounters less resistance than previous generations of tomboys did. She goes into previously all-male fields, and still uses to full advantage all the skills and weapons of female power.
The termagant (the shrew, scold and harridan of old) is a misandrous sadist whose greatest pleasures come from man-baiting and man-bashing. She resents the matriarchist code which would have her
pretend that she is not boss to her man. Under the banner of feminism she can fully blossom. The termagant now carries on her man-harassing and man-bossing without restraint, battering a man’s ears with blows from her tongue without fear of retaliation by blows from his fist. The termagant claims for herself a tyrant’s absolute freedom of conduct and would punish any reaction, however natural, she provokes from men.
She is the type of woman who would wear a miniskirt without panties, a see-through blouse Without bras, and swing her legs and wiggle her arse as she parades up and down the street, and yet insist that no man should get excited by her provocative sexual display. Any man who whistles at the sight is berated for male chauvinism. She would put out all male eyes with white-hot iron spits so they would not subject the naked female to “the male gaze”. She is so outraged by male energy and exhuberance that she would have all males between 15 and 35 put in prison, Just to spare women their attentions. If she flirts and teases and leads an adolescent boy on, well beyond the limits of his self-control and he rapes her, she would demand that he be hanged. The only males she would have in the world are lobotomized robots and enervated poodles, all at her beck and call. Under the guise of “radical feminism”, some termagants, in their utter misandry, have retreated into lesbian ghettos, and from there attack, as traitors to womankind, those other women who are heterosexual and who do not totally refrain from social and sexual intercourse with men. Under the banner of feminism, all this is treated as legitimate human behaviour.
The matriarchist – as the nest-queen who happily trams, rules and enjoys the income of the male head of her house – is largely unpersuaded by feminist demands for an equality which would end her privileges. As the prime beneficiaries. of the system which feminists would dismantle, the quiet army of satisfied matriarchists is the great immovable rock upon which the tidal wave of feminism spends its fury.
Though feminism parades itself as a revolt agamst the domination of women by men, it is in fact a revolt by some tomboys agamst some of women’s privileges within the matriarchist paradise, and a revolt by termagants against the matriarchist restraints on their freedom to tyrannize males. However, despite basing their campaign on the principle of gender equality, only a few feminists, a rare few who recognize a need for consistency and fairness, go so far as to accept that the equality they demand must apply also in the trenches, battlefields, mines and other high risk and strenuous areas of life. For the rest, their egalitarian clamour is simply a ruse, and they scheme to head men off from insisting on its full scale implementation.
Most men did not see feminist egalitarianism as the ruse that it was. Of the few who did a mere handful glimpsed that feminism was not a revolt against oppression by men, but a clamour for additional privileges and opportunities for women. Such men began that men’s liberation movement which drew the ire of feminists like Carol Hanisch. However, lacking an analysis of female power, the men’s liberation movement did not get very far. Most men, being machos, were thoroughly indoctrinated in the view that men rule women, that human societies are strictly patriarchal: they did not, therefore, take seriously the idea that men needed liberating. At best, they saw men s liberation as a practical joke to annoy feminists.
Now here’s the irony of all this.
Many lower status men, or beta males as some like to call them, complain about modern feminism, but they were the ones who made this possible. In societies of despotic, uberalphas, would women take such a feminist stand? In polygamous societies with no strong middle-class and no alpha proxies to suppress renegade alpha males, would women take such a feminist stand? No. In those societies women choose passive and discrete manipulation, prefer to be the neck rather than the head and rely mostly on pussy power (which can be broken down further into mother power, bride power and wife power). Only in a society where lower-status men and beta males have a strong voice would women take such feminist stand, because women know such men are often needy, eager to provide and easy to dominate and openly and actively manipulate. Only in societies of empowered beta males can women as a whole make a play at being the head as well as the neck and in gaining authority power in addition to pussy power.
Lower-status or beta males, being clueless about female psychology, just gave and gave to women until it backfired on them. Before beta males reading this start pulling out their selfless martyr hat, this wasn’t out of valor or noble altruism but because of selfishness. They thought it would get them laid more. But once women got more and more male forms of power, like authority in the forms of the political vote, they then used their political voice to alter the Leviathan accordingly so that they could make all men increasingly irrelevant. No longer was the Leviathan just a force for renegade alpha suppression and empowerment of lower-status men. Once women could vote the Leviathan was also a tool for female empowerment and freedom from dependence on men.
John Lott, Jr. did an op-ed in the Washington Times a few years ago describing how women’s suffrage and increasing female voter rates from the 20s through the 60s caused the size of federal government to grow as well. Now the Leviathan works not just to suppress renegade alphas but also to empower women with authority – the male form of power – in addition to the pussy power they already had access to. Entitlements from the Great Society onward primarily benefit women and work to make men of all classes less necessary. The female vote altered the Leviathan to make sure that women retain the benefits of the pussy power, gain the benefits of traditional male power to boot, yet remain shielded from much of the responsibilities that come along with traditional male power at the same time. It’s the best of all worlds, a masterstroke by women if you will.
And you know what? I can’t blame them. If men are clueless enough to be so manipulated, women have to be fools not to go for it. I tip my hat and pop my collar to them. But for all these beta males who try to paint the modern world as some conspiracy by alpha males and women to keep them down, they have to realize much of this is their own plans backfiring. Much of the emasculation of men started with the creation of a society dominated by alpha proxies that low-status men created to protect their interests against uberalphas. And the rise of modern feminism can largely be attributed to the inability of these newly empowered needy and supplicating low-status men to understand female nature and resist their demands.
Next comes the final installment: the practical benefit of this entire series.
