This is your textbook example of a ditzy tradcon THOT disseminating the tradcon stance, which rightly takes to task the lunatic gender-chaos left and their goal of a government-dependent dystopia, but essentially bases the argument on the needs of women and the disposability of men – textbook gynocentricism. The cherry on top is how she accuses the left of coginitive dissonance at many points, yet displays her own cognitive dissonance when she says that women shouldn’t be excluded from positions of power, then referring to herself as a “strong woman”…
Here’s what she says at 13:58…I transcribed it for you, if you can’t stand her voice – you’re welcome.
Passive masculinity is a disaster on multiple levels, and that is because men are not supposed to be passive – they are, by nature, meant to provide, to protect and to lead. Now, that does not mean that all men have to macho body builders who only like hunting and fishing and that does not mean that women are excluded from positions of power. You all are strong women with voices, I am a strong woman with a voice – I obviously believe that courageous women are necessary to a flourishing and equal society, but it does mean that men have a natural tendency toward protection and leadership that should be encouraged and trained, not denied and shamed.
Well, actually, excluding women from positions of power is exactly what it means, Mrs. Tradcon (I think we can assume she’s a Mrs.). You can’t be a “strong woman”, in a position of power – even as a voter, frankly – and bitch about men not “leading” you, because you’re not actually letting them lead you. I hate to say it, but feminists have got you on this one – you would not be where you’re at without feminism, just like they wouldn’t be where they’re at without patriarchy. If patriarchy had never existed in humanity in some form or another since Adam & Eve, the invention of the wheel, or whenever – that is, if humans started out with ideal gender egalitarianism from the beginning – even if the species had survived to this point (which is really doubtful) we probably wouldn’t have even advanced to the level of living in mud huts. We wouldn’t be living like bonobos…we would be bonobos. And the bonobos are dying out, by the way.
Speaking of apes, particularly those with good love dolls standing by their sides, Turd Flinging Monkey is one of the few people willing to say the inconceivable – that the only way to save western civilization is to pull women out of college, the workplace and the voting booth. As abhorrent as that idea is to all but the most red-pilled, what’s the logical argument against it? Let me know if you think of one, because I haven’t been able to yet. Seriously, I want to hear that argument. Even I find that idea unpalatable, emotionally; but I haven’t found a way around it logically, so lay the alternative on me. Now if you want to have a conversation about whether or not a civilization that has to institute such fundamental unfairness should exist, go for it, but don’t fool yourself into believing that the vacuum won’t be filled…and by filled, I mean filled by Islamic hard-patriarchy. As TFM says, the patriarchy will reassert itself one way the another, and this has been proven by the example of Sweden, a country that is going from the feminist egalitarian extreme to the polar opposite extreme – an Islamic shit hole where Sharia law and FGM are the norm – basically overnight. A relatively soft patriarchy sounds a lot better than that, doesn’t it? Well, you’re not going to convince even a self-professed anti-feminist tradcon that it’s one or the other, any easier than you’re going to get her to entertain the idea of a 30-foot-high wall around the country with pig heads spiked along the top edge – that’s the only other way you might keep the Muslim civilization pillagers out.
Of course, I should say that this doesn’t mean that I am going to parrot everything TFM says… First of all, where is he getting the idea that revoking women’s suffrage, employment and educational opportunities is an option in the first place? I’m sure he realizes that his dream is easier said than done, and he has probably talked about it, but I don’t think he says it enough. For the passers by, he makes himself sound so naive, saying that we “just need to strengthen our pimp hand” and reassert a soft-patriarchy…okay, well, that’s like saying that setting foot on the moon is as easy as stepping off the ladder on the side of the orbiter, or that all that needs to happen to Make America Great Again is for enough people to vote for the political outsider – yeah, those feats sound doable, on (respectively) July 20, 1969 right after touchdown, or the day before Election Day 2016 after Hillary cancelled her fireworks, but try telling someone that in 1962 who just heard Kennedy give his speech, or to a Ross Perot voter in 1992 who just watched Bill Clinton get elected. I guess that I prefer discussions to be more practical than academic. Maybe his idea is that you can only drum up the idea rhetorically at this stage, which is probably true (and now you know why the left suddenly has a problem with freedom of speech). That doesn’t make you feel much better when you know that there will be knives out for you for even broaching the idea, and for nothing you’ll ever live to see. If you’re MGTOW, you’re the last person whom history will thank for anything like that (see below).
Let’s do some more analysis…
Passive masculinity is a disaster on multiple levels, and that is because men are not supposed to be passive – they are, by nature, meant to provide, to protect and to lead.1 Now, that does not mean that all men have to macho body builders who only like hunting and fishing2 and that does not mean that women are excluded from positions of power.3 You all are strong women with voices, I am a strong woman with a voice – I obviously believe that courageous women are necessary to a flourishing and equal society4 but it does mean that men have a natural tendency toward protection and leadership that should be encouraged and trained5 not denied and shamed.
- Yes, male utility and disposability, of course – a staple concept in gynocentricism, both left and right. You can be sure that these women would not be having this discussion if it wasn’t centered around the needs of women.
- She doesn’t really mean that, you know. You watch how these tradcons treat males who aren’t the hyper-masculine git-er-done jocks – they’re lumped right in with the worst of the male-feminist soy boys. Once you realize that your favorite conservative heroes were the popular jocks who showed the weak nerdy boys no mercy, you’ll soon realize why tradcons aren’t your friends. Now, don’t take that as and argument for joining the soy boys and Marxists, but just file that under unattractive males being respected by no one (see my posts on what Infowars thinks of incels). As for the women, no one needs to tell us what they think of sub-standard men who have an IQ over 100 and a height under 6-feet…’nuff said on that.
- (See above)
- Ain’t that rich? This is the point when someone should ask her who’s side she’s actually on. She, like other latent feminist tradcon women, wants it both ways.
- Once again, the responsibility is put on men to do the heavy lifting. Whatever the problem is, males have to solve it; when something’s broken, males are where the repairs have to be done. What about the females? What are you going to teach them? Oh, right…teach them to be “strong women” – to be educated and employed, to vote, to be “strong and independent”. Men just need to get better…they need to keep up with how good women have become. Just don’t tell them that all of the “advances of women” are pretty much artificial.
Also to note, she gives some historical examples of male passivity leading to disaster, which tells you all you need to know about where she’s actually coming from. Her example of Aaron Burr’s “constant passivity” leading to the demise of Alexander Hamilton is interesting, when you consider that Burr shot Hamilton dead (she might want to explain that one to those of us who don’t think of gunfire when they think of passivity) but the one that really got me was her blaming 50 years of Communist oppression in Cuba on JFK’s “passive stance” during the Bay of Pigs crisis: Okay, so was Kennedy supposed to get into a NUCLEAR WAR with the Soviet Union? Would that have even done anything toward liberating anyone in Cuba, save the surviving cockroaches? If that doesn’t make sense, just bear in mind what she says at the beginning of the video – that she’s a host on CRTV, which is kind of like the Blaze, except that it’s operated by the neocon chameleon Mark Levin instead of the whacked-out and burned-out huckster we know as Glenn Beck. Now you know why the thought of nuclear war gives this girl gina-tingles.
You know, not that it’s even worth contemplating a solution to this dilemma of latent feminist tradcon anti-feminists wanting to have their cake and eat it too, but if someone pressed me on what a status quo that I’d be comfortable with would look like, I guess I’d say that it would be best if women had all the same rights as men, but had the good sense to not exercise those rights, i.e. staying home and raising the kids, not getting useless degrees, and not voting, as they are natural socialists…but then, if they had that kind of sense, this world would be a very different place. This is one of the best things about MGTOW – the realization that you don’t really have a dog in the hunt anyway.