I'm getting in early so I can win 'Transphobe of the year 2023'
Joking aside, we've seen in the past decades, although I'd argue a century at least, how women's roles have changed in WESTERN society. The result, increased depression and stress rates, lower birth rates, more people maiming themselves to 'turn into a woman' and truly evil amounts of abortions each year.
And part of the problem is shifting the concept of femininity, if you ask the feminists you seem to get a response of being a man-whore (acting with behaviours associated with men along with free to sleep around with no attachments), the left say it can be applied to anyone that identifies as female (which is why they try to shift goal posts to include men with femininity) and the right at least focuses on being a competent mother first.
We can all see how this has translated in our media, we went from supporting wives and girlfriends caring for the kids while helping their man overcoming their enemies to women being invincible warriors and all men are dumb so why be tied down to one.
I think a lot of this push to change what femininity means comes from a fundamental aspect of it, it has an element of submission to it. Not in a full 'Handmaid's tale' that feminists like to jerk off to, but there seems to an element of willingly placing yourself behind a man and supporting him in life, something that is consitently mocked and belittled in western media and social media now.
It's one aspect of why western media is dying because of what they portray isn't femininity but men in female skinsuits. I'll stop it here so it doesn't become an essay but I do think the rejection of femininity is one aspect of our current societal collapse.
Femininity is a soft strength, a nurturing and caring endurance. The strength of a woman that they are seeking is not her ability to be a brash asshole that beats the living fuck out of everyone and everything, but to endure all that life throws at her and remain herself. When she fights, it is for cause and only ever to protect.
The same can be said of a man, the strength he exhibits is to impress and protect, to be gentle despite his ability to destroy. When he fights, it is to protect that what he has and wants.
To do any less is childish and should be taught out of them.
Knowledge and care temper their different roles and allows them to bend without breaking their parts.
Yes, many of the issues caused by lack of male role models is that many boys where not taught how to place restraints on their strength unless it was a last resort or a fair competition.
Though while that's clear, I'm now trying to come up with female role models they can copy and, well, it might be worse at least in western media
This brings to mind the concept of "Aegis"; war but only in defense of one's home and family.
In ancient Greece, there were two gods of war; Ares and Athena, male and female. While Ares embodies war and aggression, Athena embodies Aegis.
(I don't have a full summary of the term, but it might be worth looking into as a dichotomy between masculine and femenine).
"Femininity", like "woman", is a concept inherently understood by every human being on a level that transcends language. Communists are fundamentally liars and civilization is aligned so there's no effective punishment for lying anymore.
We used to spank lying children.
Nipped it in the bud.
No punishment for lying, begets more liars.
Much of what's wrong in society would be solved if the healthy fear of a physical response returned. There's no countervailing fear of retaliation running your mouth these days. The hyenas nip more and more at the lion, sure he won't respond.
Hard to have fear of physical response for children when your only parents are an out of shape single mom (who cries when someone yells in her vicinity) and her creepy boyfriend whose physical response is molesting you.
And as the ghetto has shown, random fights as adults doesn't fix any of these people.
Also why baseball got cucked the instant they introduced the designated hitter.
Pitchers no longer fear reprisal.
Also: "Sure he won't respond," because the instant he does, they go "Boy, grow some thicker skin."
Serenity now!...Insanity later.
Femininity could be summed up in two words: quiet grace. This has been so thoroughly killed in women through conditioning that it is very rare to find anywhere anymore. Grace is the feminine equivalent of stoicism, the ability to guide through gentle means, to endure tribulation with resilience, and to show strength through that resilience.
To be honest, no one in society knows what masculinity is, nor femininity, nor love.
Masculinity is the core series of behaviors that allow a man to become a good father, husband, son, and pillar of his community through his agency.
Femininity is the core series of behaviors that allow a woman to become a good mother, wife, daughter, and pillar of her community through her inspiration (anima/animus).
Masculinity is defined primarily by stoicism, discipline, and courage. Men are defined by their agency, and these attributes support that agency. Stoicism gives them the ability to endure shocks so that they will not be easily rattled while protecting or providing for their family and community. Discipline gives them the rewards of a long-time preference (or 'vision') so they can achieve their goals. Courage provides them with both the glory of a risky success, and lessons of failure, both of which can be applied to the previous lessons of stoicism and discipline so that they can succeed with their agency again later.
Femininity is defined by inspiration, care, and cohesion. Women are defined not by agency but their animus, or what others will do for them as a result of their actions, and these attributes support that. Inspiration is what a woman does to cause, provoke, or incite men's agency to provide and protect for them. To be clear, this does not mean to push or pull men to act, but to simply act in such a way that inspires men to act of their own will, to fulfill a woman's will. This allows them to be protected and provided for in a world that could easily harm or destroy them, while fulfilling their partner's desire for a reward incentive for that agency. The reward of that agency is care. A woman shall care for her man in order to repair and recover him in his exhaustion of his agency. She must repair his stoicism, and his courage when damaged, and help to inspire him to maintain his discipline. She not only rewards his agency, she helps maintain it, and helps keep it on a righteous path. And all of this is for the creation and maintenance of social cohesion. A woman builds communities by navigating and creating social structures and interchanges. She quite literally builds him a family, and is a cornerstone element of building a "Home" rather than a household. A woman is the literal glue that creates cohesion among a social group, otherwise it would be left to a man to force that cohesion by charisma or discipline.
A feminine action should be apparent on observation. Feminine actions and presentations should exist within that framework of inspiration, care, and cohesion.
Femininity is not merely submissiveness. Submission is only a tactic of inspiration. It is submission to incite agency in men, and normally particular men, that can help build her a community that she couldn't otherwise do by herself. A shit-test is effectively a poor incitement to agency. Where as a good, feminine, woman does not need to incite a man to agency, but has already constructed a series of social cues and incentives that would already have your attention, and illicit the correct response.
Care behaviors are meant to repair and restore a man's agency. A woman knows that the care behaviors are not to be perpetual, but are meant to be temporary, such that a man's agency may be used again. A woman will be resentful when her care is used in perpetuity, because it demonstrates that a man's agency is permanently low, which causes her insecurity. If she is already insecure, then low agency makes the situation more serious, and she would become effectively intolerant. But, a man who's agency returns to him, and he uses that agency to provide for her again, proves that he's a worthwhile investment and her actions are rewarded with success, conditioning that behavior in her. Think of it like food and cooking. Only a man's agency can be used to acquire food, but then he must rest, and she must cook the food to give him a "glorious" meal that serves as his reward mechanism, and inspires him to leave again and return with more food. Her's is an animating behavior in him, and his reward is her behavior for his agency. This care extends all the way to aesthetics, as aesthetics has a direct and material impact on the mind. Something being clean works to calm the mind because when something is disordered, your brain trains itself to look at this disorder and remind yourself that you have to do something. So when a man comes home to find a clean house, rather than a messy house, he is literally psychologically triggered to be more calm and relaxed because there is less to order.
Social Cohesion is a bit of a more advanced concept where the woman is constructing a social circle. Now, men can certainly make friends and have social circles, but they tend to be more like packs. You got your specific ride-or-die allies that you co-operate with on tasks. However, women form broad social circles that can work as excellent social filtering mechanisms for problem solving and pair bonding. Attempting to maintain and develop wide social circles can both improve a man's (and thusly a woman's) social status. The infinitely many exchanges of women interacting and summoning men's agency to solve problems in a wide social circle is the very essence of a community building. This is how the man can become the pillar of his community: a woman can basically inject him into one, and build a social network around his agency. A family unit is a less broad, but very important social system that isn't as abstract. She is, by definition, at the center of that social system, and her status and authority radiate out from her motherhood. She maintains the social connections between all of the children, and can also help foster and support the social dynamics between the children's children, both from each branch in the family tree at the same age, or from one generation to the previous. (That is to say: your grandmother can help develop your relationship with your daughter, as well as develop your daughter's relationship with her cousin).
"But Gizortnik, what fucking women do you know that do this???"
Um... Well... they exist in historical sources?
Look: the Sexual Revolution and it's consequences have been a disaster for Western Civilization. Before the boomers, this shit was intuitive. Unfortunately, because it was intuitive, it wasn't formalized in a way that made it easily transmissible to other generations that might have been corrupted by
contraceptionsomething. Meaning that what was intuitive became a kind of generational tribal knowledge that never got passed on. Your great-grandparents knew about this, but wouldn't have been able to articulate it, because why would it even need to be said when it was so obvious? Who, but us, would even ask "what is feminine"? Every generation before us would have said: "Do you not have eyes from which to see? Or hears of which to hear?" They wouldn't have guessed that the very concept of masculine and feminine would have been so violently raped that we'd have to ask.That being said, yes, no modern young women in the west know how to be feminine. It's an entirely foreign concept to them. The biology that creates it still exists, but they've been institutionalized to reject biology and embrace Leftism, since biology is repressive to The General Will. Men can't be excused from this either: men don't know how to be masculine. They too have been institutionalized.
It's all there though. It's under the surface. It's covered up and beaten, but it's still there and alive, it just isn't well. The institutional maintenance of ideology is what's keeping it down.
So because it was all intuitive not like a written down guide, when there was a push to change the roles and the removal of role models to copy from, it fucked both men and women over.
While I think your response is part of the answer, I'd add that I think technological advantage the west had did also enable this. Not saying technology is bad but like everything, you lean on something to hard, it becomes a crutch and technology has enabled an environment where these changes aren't met with immediate repercussions.
Technology is best understood as "Capitalization", or turning your own short term productivity into an asset that increases your long-term productivity.
In effect, the West's use of institutionalization and the reliance on tradition without a formalized knowledge is what allows this to happen. Cultural institutions like religion are a technology. They disseminate a behavior over time so that you don't need to re-learn why you did something. But if you don't know why you're doing a thing, and no one else does either, because the thing was not turned into a formal knowledge, then it becomes easy to attack and alter.
Now, some specific technologies did contribute to this, but I would put most of those down to the Sexual Revolution. They are less of a factor than Leftism's attack on institutions that were not well grounded in a formal knowledge framework.
Femininity: Exhibiting positive traits related to female-ness.
Physical femininity is obvious. Primary and secondary female sexual characteristics, alongside long-held social mores such as longer scalp hair and less limb hair.
Mental femininity is trickier: It is rooted in the growth of new life. Keeping your body prepped for birthing, keeping your local environment clean and safe for youths/infants, supporting those who contribute genetic code for your maternal situation, and making active efforts to ensure they support you, too.
So a "feminine" woman would be an hourglass-figured, long haired female human who is physically fit but not overly so, that likes (or at least actively does) home economics, who wants a lifetime partner that she would support in their everyday life. A certain level of humility is also a lesser element.
Meanwhile, an "unfeminine" woman (not a "masculine" one, they're not opposites) would be a blob-shaped hairy-bodied but short-haired, human who is so out of shape she's missing periods, that lives in squalor, sleeps around out of boredom, and expects people to give her stuff with no reciprocal action.
The physical femininity isn't a sticking point: Tomboys, washboard musclegirls, and even fat girls, if they're genuinely nurturing and compassionate and forward-caring as to prospective future young, will still be viewed as "feminine" to a degree.
The only thing that you need to know is that they think a gynocracy is better than a patriarchy, but thus far we've seen that the 'gynocratic examples' that they've given us are several times worse than patriarchal structures. They're corrupt, incompetent, unreliable, violent, venal, racist, deceitful, underhanded,untrustworthy, malevolent and enshrine bigotry.
Worse even, is that they're trying to justify rule by women by dragging in diversity, inclusion and equity (DIE) as a be-all and end-all cause. Whenever a woman takes charge of an organization, there is always the concomitant 'diversity' spiel, which means white men get demonized, slighted and marginalized in favor of a whole host of glamorized 'minority' groups. "Are you a minority t-o-o-o-o-o-o?"
It's all so predictable and repulsive.
Long ago when I was still in university and blind to the culture wars, my anthropology professor taught a few lectures on Europe's transition from the Stone to Bronze Ages, and how the patriarchal bronze-wielding Indo-Europeans burst from what's now the Russo-Ukrainian steppe atop their horses & chariots to conquer the peaceful matriarchal Pre-Indo-European peoples of Neolithic Europe. The Indo-Europeans even worshiped Dyeus Phther, the prototypical male 'sky father' deity who they acknowledged as the greatest of the gods and certainly the dominant partner in his union with Dheghom the earth-mother, while the Pre-Indo-Europeans were basically described as harmless simps responsible for making all those 'Venus of X' Neolithic sculptures depicting thicc goddesses whose names have been lost to time (well, I'm sure she didn't intend for her lectures to be interpreted in that way at the time).
I assume the Indo-Europeans were supposed to be the bad guys in her retelling, but the society of the pre-Indo-Europeans never managed to evolve beyond the village level. They were sedentary Stone Age farmers, their lives couldn't have been that great and they probably hadn't even domesticated cattle yet (that started with aurochs over in Anatolia), nor horses for sure (domesticated by the Indo-Europeans). Northern Europeans being on average at least slightly taller than Southern Europeans was attributed to the latter having a greater admixture of Indo-European genes, since their mixed diet incorporating larger quantities of meat & milk from pastoral animals was more nutritious and better-balanced than the mostly cereal diet (with a few game animals occasionally tossed in) consumed by the pre-Indo-Euro farmers.
Tl;dr matriarchal societies have been tried before and they almost never got past the Stone Age, nor did their organization evolve beyond 'small villages led by headwomen and shamans', hence why they were so easily overrun by competitors - the only exception I can think of were possibly the Minoans, who in any case still ended up getting overwhelmed and conquered by a more militaristic patriarchal civilization (the Mycenaean Greeks) anyway. Male leadership and energy seems to be a prerequisite for high civilization and post-subsistence standards of living.
Don't be a whore.
Protect your children.
Be loyal to your man.
I mean, you might have luck with these new 'commandments' since it's only 3
We seem to have struggled with 10 for a number of centuries lol
No fear. It always fails at '1'. 2 & 3 were for double jeopardy.
Since Imp won't make this point anywhere near as coherently, or perhaps he hasn't realised it:
According to feminism, which is the prevailing kook ideology in most western business and politics, femininity is an artificial trap to keep women under the thumb of men in society. As such, every major mainstream influence has conspired over the last several decades to kill the essence of femininity, and they do this most effectively by attacking masculinity, its counter-pole in the essence of humanity. Humans don't need to be told what femininity and masculinity are, they perceive and appreciate them innately. The confusion has only arisen because an anti-human ideology has been bloated and railroaded through society to poison every aspect of male-female interaction.
A miserable pile of secrets /s
I'm trying to think of feminine traits that are not also maternal traits, and I'm not succeeding. Are they synonymous? It seems like a strong starting point, at least.
It is an essential component, one that nature binds to our souls like for men the need for something to hunt and protect, it's just how it's translated in actions changes due to environment.
As you can tell though, when you deny or openly refuse these instincts, current clown world.
Big Trans has temporarily destroyed both feminism & femininity.
Women allowed their sectors to be taken over by mentally ill men in dresses.
They put up almost zero resistance, and now they get what they wanted.
Equality.
Women (and men) must go back to the drawing board, and re-decide what it means to be (true) women & men.
I don't know how to word this without making women look like victims, which they don't fucking deserve at all.
But the reason their position has changed is because their old one is untenable. Men expect their wives to work, they aren't placated with meaningless domestic labor. So women decided if they had to work, had to sacrifice their comfortable lives of doing fuck all and cheating while their husband was at work, that they would make every decision out of spite for men.
People make jokes about women being dishwashers but the housewife role died with the invention of reliable white goods.
Being a victim is not a merit badge. Playing the victim is degrading and appalling.
Which of the white goods will raise a kid?
Yes but people feel a certain degree of sympathy for those who actually are victims.
The savings on not having the extra mouth to feed, clothe and just generally leech off you would enable you to hire a nanny. Problem with that is that you're still giving a woman wealth and letting her in your house, but that's what the elite do.
So their fall came thanks to automation? As that has affected men's role too since a lot of the careers that required men, even war, is being automated.
It goes into the deeper question of what is humanity's role as more tasks are handled by machines.
Not really. Their fall came from being lazy, greedy (and several other adjectives I can't say or DoM will ban me again) trash who counted on a monopoly of the pointless tasks they do keeping them from being replaced or thrown out.
So when the only thing they brought to the table was usurped by machines with a one-time fee, that don't complain and don't leave you, they were completely blindsided and started playing every dirty trick in the book to try and hold onto their wealth, until eventually they created the system that props them up today, built off mass brainwashing and dehumanization.
TL;DR : Hubris and a massive superiority complex.
We had that from 1950 onwards but women didn't truly go sour until the 80's, and marriage rates didn't become historically low until the 2000's.
Maybe it just takes 25 years for society process a change, since that's about how long it takes to be come a fully realized adult member of society, and what we're looking at is 25 years for women to adapt to having nothing to do around the house all day, and another 25 years for men to then adapt to women being unworthy of marriage.
Can't wait for 25 years from now then, when men realize we are under attack from women.
Well, we are already nearing 25 years from 2000 when when men first started checking out of getting married, so the next big shift might come into view real soon.
Please...I'll die happy if I get to see their downfall.
We all will die because their downfall in your book is literal extinction because no one has children anymore because that's tradcuckery and involves women.
Let's start with them getting everything they put us through.
As always, its only about petty revenge with you. The entire future and consequences for men afterwards don't even enter the equation.
So a hierarchy then, first god, then men, then women so women would support men in their pursuit to serve a higher power while they would be above children in order to support them?
Yes and in turn men are supposed to lead those women and children in the pursuit of God. Society has failed all around
As I've quoted many times, when Nietzche said "God is dead" it was a warning not a sign of progress.
Reading that full section proves The fact he sees it as a problem
Yes but hierarchy of power alone leads to rebellion. Hierarchy is seen like oppression to the proud.
There is a saying that goes "a woman should obey her husband, and a man should listen to his wife." Love is what makes submission possible. The natural hierarchy of the family mustn't be mentioned without the love that unites it.