The Land without Feminism

Post Reply New Topic

I was watching the debate I posted last night, particularly hearing some of what Michelle Goldberg was saying, and what seems obvious to me is no one knows what the right point of equilibrium looks like. Men have their own experience, women have their own, and there's so much of human experience not open for discussion that it's incredibly difficult to measure the fallout either of just how abusive even our current cultural alphas still be vs. what kind of price gets paid as the bladed football of change gets kicked around and sometimes hits and mangles its target and at other times hits and mangles bystanders.

I think the one thing I would add, someone brought up traditional male roles still quite strongly cemented in, there are a few prongs I worry about that question along a) although it's mounds of anecdote, and anecdote is just that, I hear all too often (and yes - have seen it too) that the moment a guy shows weakness it's the end of either the relationship or the girl he's with feeling remotely good about being with him and b) currently we have the muscle of military and law enforcement still mainly as men, and even if women join you'd be still looking at a cultivated honor culture because in those fields it's somewhat required. Are we seeing signs that women are able to move past weakness = game over, and as far as cultivating some of the more martial roles in society how do we envision cultivating the people who have a calling for those fields of activity?

The signs that women are past caring about taboo subjects that mirror and zoom in on equality, regal or otherwise, is a vision worth saving for when something of substance finally does show up in the land of NOT make believe, but in which we have to endure, live and breathe. There is NO sign of weakness in pioneering strengths of women, nor has there ever been. Take Florence Nightingale, or Ellen Macarthur or anybody long enough in the tooth to remind themselves of a Victorian era that passed the vote on the woman's right to it.
There are no ifs or buts singled out for any party, based on either a fitness test or an I.Q performance exercise to prove what ranking fits in for what cause and why. If you base one assumption on fact, then the other form for appeal or potential might antagonise and anger a few age old souls endangering progress but on the other hand, if you accept the rank of the person, either via experience or worthy of righteousness, then you could blame someone if a manual under a certain authority is not up to the code of conduct it represents.
To cut a long story short, by not sticking to the conventional ways and movement of the times, you've already torn up the manuscript for future generations or degenerates, therefore, 'A moral compass is always right.'