A Rational Defense of Patriarchy

[EvilWhiteMale]

Women are not biologically predisposed to seek out positions of power even when that opportunity is extended to them. Women who have succeeded in power throughout history have done so by mimicking male behaviour and mannerisms.

We know this for a variety of reasons — the most obvious being that no reasonable person has ever praised Margaret Thatcher or Indira Ghandi for their feminine qualities. And even despite doing everything they possibly can to brown-nose feminist organisations, companies are still failing to enact the left’s egalitarian demands by hiring women disproportionally into managerial positions. It turns out the average woman just doesn’t want that kind of responsibility. Women are far more likely to work part-time than men of their own volition and they prioritise work-life balance more than men, again, of their own volition.

Women make up 50% of the world’s population and in Western liberal democracy a predominantly male leadership cannot sustain itself unless women consent to it by voting for it. And if patriarchy is the natural consequence of the free and autonomous choices of women, then my argument is this — it is more in line with women’s interests to embrace patriarchy than to struggle against it in vain. Especially when to struggle against it is to enact tyrannical policies that deprive decent men of jobs they deserve while crowbarring women into jobs that don’t serve their inherent interests.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Is the slow incremental emasculation of men part of a plan or just a natural progression in society?

 

[EvilWhiteMale]

Your guess is as good as mine bro.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Your guess is as good as mine bro.

Aww hell... I want answers...

 

[CounterView]

I haven't watched the video mentioned in the OP but I think patriarchy never existed, it's just a conspiracy theory invented by the feminists to promote their hatred of men.

I disagree with you stereotyping certain behaviors as innately masculine and certain others as innately feminine. Apart from some biological functions which unique to men and women, none of the other behaviors can be seen as male or female.

And women are slothful because of which we see that disparity in managerial roles, etc.

 

[Norman]

Women are not biologically predisposed to seek out positions of power even when that opportunity is extended to them. Women who have succeeded in power throughout history have done so by mimicking male behaviour and mannerisms.

We know this for a variety of reasons — the most obvious being that no reasonable person has ever praised Margaret Thatcher or Indira Ghandi for their feminine qualities. And even despite doing everything they possibly can to brown-nose feminist organisations, companies are still failing to enact the left’s egalitarian demands by hiring women disproportionally into managerial positions. It turns out the average woman just doesn’t want that kind of responsibility. Women are far more likely to work part-time than men of their own volition and they prioritise work-life balance more than men, again, of their own volition.

Women make up 50% of the world’s population and in Western liberal democracy a predominantly male leadership cannot sustain itself unless women consent to it by voting for it. And if patriarchy is the natural consequence of the free and autonomous choices of women, then my argument is this — it is more in line with women’s interests to embrace patriarchy than to struggle against it in vain. Especially when to struggle against it is to enact tyrannical policies that deprive decent men of jobs they deserve while crowbarring women into jobs that don’t serve their inherent interests.

Rational?

It's rational for feminists to do what they are doing. They are a bunch of ugly losers. Emasculating men and making women toxic brings everyone down to their level. Further they don't care if the merotocratic West fails, they have no merit. Import all the 3rd world people in the world...

The only question is why do we, being stronger, faster and more intelligent, let them get away with it?

 

[CounterView]

Is the slow incremental emasculation of men part of a plan or just a natural progression in society?

I think men are becoming sexually submissive and it is part of a plan by feminists and their shitty male slaves. I have no clue what you meant by "incremental emasculation" though.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nah, it means you jokers can't stand up to confident females.

 

[Billy000]

Women are not biologically predisposed to seek out positions of power even when that opportunity is extended to them. Women who have succeeded in power throughout history have done so by mimicking male behaviour and mannerisms.

We know this for a variety of reasons — the most obvious being that no reasonable person has ever praised Margaret Thatcher or Indira Ghandi for their feminine qualities. And even despite doing everything they possibly can to brown-nose feminist organisations, companies are still failing to enact the left’s egalitarian demands by hiring women disproportionally into managerial positions. It turns out the average woman just doesn’t want that kind of responsibility. Women are far more likely to work part-time than men of their own volition and they prioritise work-life balance more than men, again, of their own volition.

Women make up 50% of the world’s population and in Western liberal democracy a predominantly male leadership cannot sustain itself unless women consent to it by voting for it. And if patriarchy is the natural consequence of the free and autonomous choices of women, then my argument is this — it is more in line with women’s interests to embrace patriarchy than to struggle against it in vain. Especially when to struggle against it is to enact tyrannical policies that deprive decent men of jobs they deserve while crowbarring women into jobs that don’t serve their inherent interests.

What a bunch of horseshit. Mimicking men? That’s so stupid. If women in power are inherently incompetent, then why would simply mimicking make them competent? There is always a lot of benefit of having women in power. They are more likely to be diplomatic and open-minded. Sacks of shit like Trump are too much of pussies to ever admit they are wrong therefore the institutions they lead suffer.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Don't get me wrong... I like women, in fact they are number one on the list... It just seems to me that in the last 40 years that the sissification of you men is high on society's list... I had to fight my wife and MIL for my son's manhood... It was to the point where I knew it was best that we leave Hawaii and finish raising our children in a more rural environment... It was still a battle but having 3 barns and 17 acres to roam around on was better than riding a bike on a sidewalk with a freaking looking stupid helmet... Today he is a man's man with 2 kids and a successful Businessman...

 

[sparky]

Yup

there's plenty of strong women out there, i've had the pleasure of knowing many

and no, they don't need no lesbo dyke organizations to help 'em out

~S~

 

[Ridgerunner]

I have no clue what you meant by "incremental emasculation" though.

Slowly de-nutting of the male species...

 

[AVG-JOE]

Women are not biologically predisposed to seek out positions of power even when that opportunity is extended to them. Women who have succeeded in power throughout history have done so by mimicking male behaviour and mannerisms.

We know this for a variety of reasons — the most obvious being that no reasonable person has ever praised Margaret Thatcher or Indira Ghandi for their feminine qualities. And even despite doing everything they possibly can to brown-nose feminist organisations, companies are still failing to enact the left’s egalitarian demands by hiring women disproportionally into managerial positions. It turns out the average woman just doesn’t want that kind of responsibility. Women are far more likely to work part-time than men of their own volition and they prioritise work-life balance more than men, again, of their own volition.

Women make up 50% of the world’s population and in Western liberal democracy a predominantly male leadership cannot sustain itself unless women consent to it by voting for it. And if patriarchy is the natural consequence of the free and autonomous choices of women, then my argument is this — it is more in line with women’s interests to embrace patriarchy than to struggle against it in vain. Especially when to struggle against it is to enact tyrannical policies that deprive decent men of jobs they deserve while crowbarring women into jobs that don’t serve their inherent interests.

Thing one: Posting this the way you originally had it, with the text appearing as a commentary by you, it is a violation of copyright laws.

Thing two: Starting a thread with no original content is a no-no.... but a conversation ensues so this one will stand.

Carry on. ​

 

[TemplarKormac]

Uh...


what?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Thank you for looking at it and letting it continue.

This convo, like the one about Roseanne, needs to continue.

We are not going back to the bad old days.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Women are not biologically predisposed to seek out positions of power even when that opportunity is extended to them. Women who have succeeded in power throughout history have done so by mimicking male behaviour and mannerisms.

We know this for a variety of reasons — the most obvious being that no reasonable person has ever praised Margaret Thatcher or Indira Ghandi for their feminine qualities. And even despite doing everything they possibly can to brown-nose feminist organisations, companies are still failing to enact the left’s egalitarian demands by hiring women disproportionally into managerial positions. It turns out the average woman just doesn’t want that kind of responsibility. Women are far more likely to work part-time than men of their own volition and they prioritise work-life balance more than men, again, of their own volition.

Women make up 50% of the world’s population and in Western liberal democracy a predominantly male leadership cannot sustain itself unless women consent to it by voting for it. And if patriarchy is the natural consequence of the free and autonomous choices of women, then my argument is this — it is more in line with women’s interests to embrace patriarchy than to struggle against it in vain. Especially when to struggle against it is to enact tyrannical policies that deprive decent men of jobs they deserve while crowbarring women into jobs that don’t serve their inherent interests.

Women are crazy.

The defense rests.




(Luv ya, Jillian)

 

[Timmy]

What kind of puss is freaked out over working with women?!

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Is the slow incremental emasculation of men part of a plan or just a natural progression in society?

How the Heiristocracy Doubled Its Power

Of course it's not natural. Fatcats love mice; Femininnies are ignorant followers of rich girls who feel they are Born to Rule, just like their spoiled entitled brothers always have.