First, let me describe the problem: The problem is that some people have a preference for how women should look and act. This is defined as "attraction". Certain looks and behaviors are found to be attractive to others. In particular, women have undergone dramatic change in the last 100 years regarding their look and behavior. These changes are being caused by pressures in society. You have both the nature of the structure of society putting pressure on women and you have specific interest groups also putting pressure on women to shape their look and behavior.
What are the major specific interest groups? Ultimately, you have 3 major interest groups at work. You have men, women and the government. I define government here as not just the elected officials but also the men and women in positions of power to exert some type of governance on the society at large. A CEO of a major bank could be a part of this "government" if he is using his influence to affect changes which most major corporations do. One may refer instead to it as the systems of power and control over society. While some people might argue there are other groups based on ideology such as religion, these ideologies ultimately are a product of the self-interest of these 3 main groups.
What is the nature of society that is putting pressure on shaping women? We have seen some major changes in the structure of society over the last few centuries.. The three major shifts which has cause new pressures on shaping women are the following: 1. The shift from agriculture rural based society to industrial urban based society. 2. The shift from easy access to the most powerful weapons for enforcing obedience in societies to extremely complex weapons that are not easy to access. 3. The ability to disseminate information quickly compared to slowly.
Now let me keep it short in explaining the interaction between all of aforementioned pressures:
Government is now able to exert more authority on society to maintain control. This means in the scheme of things. Men and women actually have much less power to exert their interest in shaping women. Governments are now one of the biggest pressures on women.
Governments are now not constrained by distance to exert its authority. It used to be difficult for a government to maintain control on a society simply due to the time it would take to disseminate information. Governments needed to rely on a system that self-perpetuated itself. Hard set rules in stone that one can rely on to be taught to children and respected by the community at large. Governments couldn't just shift the nature of society's values on a whim simply because it was difficult to communicate and enforce these changes. Now government's can reach everyone in their societies and other societies immediately. This means cultural values, religion, morals taught by a chain of parents to child, etc... are no longer important.
What is in essence going on is the nature of the structure of our society now extremely favours authoritarian control by the government and those who have the power to influence society at large. That means what men and women want is mostly actually entirely irrelevant so I will avoid getting into the discussion on what naturally is more beneficial for men in how women look and act as well as what's naturally more beneficial for women in the way women look and act because both are mostly irrelevant.
What benefits the government in how women look and act? Well, what benefits the government is actually what you on this community oppose. The government wants women to be as productive as possible for the system because that benefits the government. The "Patriarchy" is an essence the values/beliefs of a time when the balance was different. Men and women had more control over their own lives and governments relied on culture/religion/morals to maintain control.
In short, a woman who doesn't get an education, who gets pregnant when she is a teenager, who has many kids, marries her husband, supports her husband, home-schools the children and is what one may call the epitome of a traditional woman is not nearly as beneficial to the government as a woman who gets an education, gets a job, works and doesn't have children.
What you now have is a government exuding its influence to pressure society in a manner which enhances its wealth and power. This influence and pressure isn't necessarily done as a giant conspiracy. There are simply many individual actors vying for very specific self-interests but the overall average of impact all these individuals will have when they work for their interests is the larger society moving in the same direction which as a whole enhances the wealth and power of the government.
These pressures from the governments are felt by the men and women in society. The pressures can be things such as taxing people more then paying for public education. Such a pressure reduces everyone's income while also reduces the value-add of home-schooling. Were there no public schools, you would be forced to pay for private school or home-school, thus home-schooling is a value-add equal to the cost of private school which would be a substantial cost. Thus it becomes harder for anyone to live on a single income while reducing the value of home-schooling children. The pressure becomes for both parents to work if they choose to have children. I won't go into detail regarding all the pressures but I wanted to give you one example so you understand what I mean by pressures. Things like the civil rights act are another pressure.
Now governments do not care at all about things like race, LGBTQ+, feminism, patriarchy, etc... at the ideological level. All of these issues are non-issues to the government. All the government cares about is maintaining and growing its wealth and power. The government simply exudes its power in a manner it believes will benefit itself and then reacts to men and women who seem to care about these issues in a manner which the government believes will benefit itself.
There are now essentially two groups of men and two groups of women within our society. There are the men and women who feel the pressures but resist them because the men and women want to instead push their own self-interest which does not align with the government. Then there are the men and women who feel the pressures and obey these pressures. Each individual has some level of obedience and resistance to these pressures which leads to a spectrum. Feminists and the people anti-Patriarchy that affect your video games are the people who obey the pressure from the government. The men and women leading the charge in this realm are doing it specifically because they're trying to "empower" women which is really just a way of saying making women productive to the government. This is why it seems like all major developers and programmers etc... all seem to be aligned in doing the same thing to affect your video games. It's because they're all facing the same government pressures and in the cases of these major video games developers, they are also a part of the government class as I described them earlier.
At the end of the day it isn't about Big Tits, it's about enhancing the wealth and power of the government. if feminists decided Big Tits in video games somehow "empowered" women such that it led to more productive women in society, then you'd have "Big Tits" in video games. Unfortunately, it just so happens that at this stage right now given the conflict of what men desire in women and what women naturally desire themselves in women vs. what the government desires in women, somehow masculinizing women (defeminizing them perhaps) seems to be the better outcome for the government and those who obey the pressures. This can change given the pressures at play and their interaction, which leads me to my next point on how does your community get what they want?
Well, unfortunately you only have a few solutions. Trying to convince people to be different through words will do nothing.
You need to improve weapons technology and availability such that you disrupt the balance of power between government and the average person. Notice how this board has a rule about disseminating weapons technology and even specifically mentions 3D printing? That's not for your safety and the betterment of society. These rules exist to help maintain the power and control government has over the people. There's a reason those rules are laws.
You need to disrupt the government's ability to communicate to people so effectively. This is why government and big tech companies are so tight, it is because the communication of ideologies is another means of control for the government. Disrupting this will disrupts the government's ability to control its people through instant ideologies and force a return to more cultural/moral/religious based means of control.
You need to develop some sort of major technological innovation that makes it in the governments interest to shape women in the manner you want women to be shaped.
You need to orchestrate some sort of major structural change such as a war for example which would shift the way in which the government enhances its wealth and power by shaping women in the manner you want women to be shaped.
Short of affecting change on the government through affecting change on the actual pressures that encourage governments to act a certain way, you will NEVER get the change you want. Even if you got an authoritarian dictator who did everything you wanted them to, the pressures exuded on society would still be the same and it would lead to the same eventual changes over time. When you look at middle-eastern cultures, southeast asian cultures or eastern european cultures, while yes, the culture may be different, currently in the world all these cultures are facing very similar pressures. It is only a matter of speed at which they change and that change due to the pressures is an inevitable one that can be foreseen due to these pressures. For example Afghanistan might be very patriarchal but that's because it's very agricultural based. If you modernize it as western societies are, you will see a rise in feminism there too and they will go through similar social changes as us though perhaps with a different flavour because how the pressures playout will differ given the culture etc... In the end though, you don't get what you want by going back in time because the changes that occurred happened for a reason. It's not a matter of simply a difference in belief that can be changed by different leaders. Beliefs are shaped by the pressures at play. Even if you get a leader in who decides to give more power to the people such that you get a better outcome, this is only a temporary resistance because the pressures at play will allow the government to enhance its power which it will again do over time. You must change the pressures if you want to get the outcome you want.
On another note, I do find one thing ironic. If you managed to change the pressures of the system, I believe it would actually lead to a situation where neither men or women wanted Big Tits in video games anyway. Most of you here actually wouldn't be here. You're here because you got caught up at a specific point in time during the struggle for the changes of the impacts of the pressures of government on traditional society. This shaped your values/beliefs and attraction to women in a certain manner and you've mostly just been left behind now by the continued changes due to the pressures. However, at the very least, if you changed the balance of power, you would at least be able to affect change in the manner in which you want you want without constantly feeling like you're resisting a losing battle. You wouldn't feel like the whole system is against you because it wouldn't be anymore.
Didn't realize adding in that last part was going to be so upsetting. I didn't mean it to come off as if this community does blame only Jews or Communists but I meant it more in a refreshing manner like "okay this guy is going to tell us what the problem is... okay at least he's not going to blame Jews or Commies because I've heard that theory 1000x before so maybe this is a new perspective".
I could careless if you blame the Jews. I post on ConsumeProduct all the time and have friends irl who're self described Nazis that blame Jews for everything. I see the truth in it. I also post on TDW when I'm not banned all the time where everything is the fault of Communists and again, I see the truth in it. I'm not judging that but I meant what I said as here's a new idea that doesn't reduce the problem to something as simple as commies or Jews. Personally, I don't believe killing all Jews or killing all Commies would solve the conundrum we're in.
I did mention solutions at the end but they are hardly tangible for the most part. Come up with new innovations or environmental pressures that will massively shift the existing pressures in society basically. Easier said than done. For the most part there is no solution. I'm not dooming, I am being realistic. There are solutions but they are very difficult solutions to accomplish and as they should be. You essentially need to change the behavior of hundreds of millions of people. If an individual could actually impact such change easily then we'd be living in a much different reality than this one.
To understand what to do about it, you do need to understand what is going on. If your understanding of what is going on is wrong then your solution with how to change things will be wrong.
Edit - Also, the cathedral sounds similar to how I've defined government if I understand it correctly. Essentially, it's the people with enough power in society to shape society in a manner which benefits them. The form of this "cathedral" changes shape over time and its power and influence changes with time to. Today, this cathedral has immense power which was not always the case. Given its power, it influences society immensely in a manner that furthers the Cathedrals wealth and power.
In short, if you want to change things you need to either remove the power of the Cathedral OR change the nature of how the Cathedral enhances its wealth and power such that enhancing the wealth and power of the Cathedral aligns with your interests.
That's a bloviated way of saying we need power to do things that require power and we are currently the explicit enemies of power. No shit. You need to catch up.
The Cathedral is a key element of neoreactionary power analysis. It is simply the decentralized collusion of academia and media/tech to dictate and enforce policy respectively.
If you want a marxist accelerationist take, check out Nick Land and his Dark Enlightenment. He is literally Deleuze on heroin and has a lot of useful concepts such as IQ Shredder.
Hoppe is how libertarian anarchists become monarchists.
Here's a great taste of Hoppe:
Yes but there was also one other key insight. We don't need power if we happen to be on the same side as power. Too many people are focused on trying to win through a power struggle but the other way to win isn't about a change of power at all, it's about making it so existing power is aligned with your benefit.
Great share from you, thanks. I've heard of all of these names before but never read too much into them besides some summaries. I'll have to check some of the more in-depth stuff you linked when I get the time.
What do you mean exactly by Hoppe is how Libertarian Anarchists into Monarchists? What you shared doesn't necessarily align with what you said.
These days I actually think government structure such as monarchy vs. democracy is almost entirely worthless in the end. I lean monarchy myself or limited voting republic (not universal suffrage) but I actually think both are minor in the grand scheme of things and society's outcome is determined by other forces at play. Corruption seeps into any government system and the forces which cause those with power to act in certain ways play out in similar outcomes regardless of how the government is structured.
The current system isn't salvagable. Anything short of radical regime change will fail. Making existing power bend to your benefit is almost the definition of sovereign power. You're distinction is tautological nonsense on par with Jayden Smith.
Then you're missing the point I was making. Skip to bottom paragraph if you don't like how much I write.
Let's say tomorrow Thomas Jefferson came back from the dead to save America. He leads a revolution and wins then reasserts the principals of liberty. A complete "regime" change so to speak. Or maybe he declares himself as the monarch of the USA because he decides democracy is what failed.
Even still, you haven't actually solved your problem. All you've done is delayed the inevitable. The forces I listed at play will simply seep back into the new government leading to all the same outcomes we have now in the end. You'll need to keep having Thomas Jeffersons over and over again. One could argue the founding fathers knew this which is why they put the second amendment in but where the founding fathers failed was that they didn't account for the change in weapons technology.
During the American revolution, the weapons of civilians were not very much different than the weapons government had. There were also transportation issues and other factors but ultimately, it was a period of time when freedom could be sought after because the "Cathedral" of the time had limited means to enforce its will on others.
Today, there really is too much of an imbalance of power. Not just on guns, tanks and jets but also satellites, social media control, news control, communication systems, hackers, etc... Your average person has very little power to resist government imposing its will on them.
Changing regimes doesn't change the balance of power and in the end, you'll get a system that again approaches what we have now over time.
But why don't we get a regime change? Why hasn't there been one? Trump isn't it. He's just a liberal stuck in the 90s. What he does is easily countered by the Cathedral because Trump won't actually do anything that will shift the pressures in society. We don't get a regime change because the components necessary for one aren't there.
That leads me back to my point. What I'm saying isn't a tautological point. I am saying Sovereign States are themselves influenced by pressures such as technology and available resources, etc... I am saying if you change the pressures on the sovereign States such that the State aligns with your interests, then you're fine. This doesn't have to be through power. Another example would be say Space Travel became very common. People began colonizing other planets but the problem of slow travel of information wasn't solved so a crew colonizing a planet might take 6 months for information to reach the planet or maybe even longer like years then governments and the Cathedral would be forced to go back to systems of control such as religion and have a set objective coded moral value system because this would be the only way to maintain control on parts of the "empire" that were so far away. Furthermore, if it took 2 years to travel to a planet, you likely wouldn't get lots of immigrants, especially given how slow information traveled, people wouldn't be so eager to go to such an unknown place. This would force governments to encourage child births among "domestic" people thus the system of control (religion or objective moral value system) would need to also encourage this. This would then lead to cultural changes more akin to likely what you're looking for etc...
That is just one idea I thought of. I am sure there are many more. Technology disruptions to the current pressures at play are a very real avenue to affect change on the system without needing to worry about any power struggle.
I'm just not sure what you're really doing then, as you're claiming that we need to understand what is going on, and presumably you're here to educate us on just that, yet we already basically agree.
So, welcome, I guess.