Using Women to Destroy Men via Leftist Feminism and Liberalism

[John G]

Gateway Pundit posted an article about US marriages lasting longer. Not overly optimistic, but a trend in direction towards more stability.

Number One Sign That America Is Becoming Great Again: Marriage Stability Soars in Latest Analysis​

As it turns out, marriages so far this decade show the most stability out of any other decade in modern history except for the 1950s, according to data from the Survey of Income and Program Participation.

Just 15% of marriages started between 2010 and 2012 ended in divorce within their first 10 years.

“If later-year divorce rates look more like the 1960s, then we should see about 40% of these marriages end in divorce,” the Institute for Family Studies said. “But if marriages trend toward further stability, then we see under 40% of first marriages ending in divorce.” That’s still far too high. But it’s better than the recent incredibly dismal conditions surrounding marriage and divorce.

There are a few reasons as to why this is the case.

“Newer marriages have already shown higher stability, and this may be because newer marriages are more selective,” the Institute for Family Studies said. “In the 1980s, 80% of adults married by the age of 30. Between 2000 and 2012, just 64% of adults had married by then. The composition of the married population has changed.” In other words, a smaller share of people are getting married, and when they do get married, they are usually tying the knot at an older age........

Not overly optimistic sounds like a good description but I guess that's slightly better than pessimistic. I've seen a graph recently on Facebook via Marjorie Taylor Greene and others:

The 1950s ideal of sorts of being young with a family and a white picket fenced home kind of vanished.

 

[Tristan]

I find this text on 16th-century gynocentrism interesting.

Lucrezia Marinella: gynocentrism in 1600

Lucrezia Marinella (c.1571-1653) was a Venetian author and early advocate of gynocentric feminism. She describes gender relations in Europe as based on males acting as "servants," "subjects," "beasts of burden," or "butlers" toward women who are universally viewed as men's superiors. The followin

gynocentrism.com

Lucrezia Marinella (c.1571-1653) was a Venetian author and early advocate of gynocentric feminism. She describes gender relations in Europe as based on males acting as “servants,” “subjects,” “beasts of burden,” or “butlers” toward women who are universally viewed as men’s superiors.

The following excerpts are from her book The Nobility and Excellence of Women and the Defects and Vices of Men:

THE REASONS FOR MEN’S NOBLE TREATMENT OF WOMEN AND THE THINGS THEY SAY ABOUT WOMEN

“Even though men upbraid and defame the female sex each day in garrulous and biting language, and search in every possible way to obscure the noble actions of women, they are forced in spite of themselves, by consciences that are governed by truth, to honor worthy women and praise them to the skies. They do this in words and in writings that demonstrate women’s superiority beyond any doubt. We see constantly and in every place and occasion that women are honored by men. That is why men bow to them and make way for them when walking, why they raise their hats to them and wait on them at the table like servants, accompany them bareheaded in the streets, and give up their seats to them. These obvious signs of honor are performed toward women not merely by low, plebeian men but also by dukes and kings, who raise their hats whether greeting princesses or ladies of mediocre condition.

 

[Jones]

Listened to this Tucker interview on my commute last week. While it probably doesn't bring much that's new to forum members to the discussion, it's a good concise refresher.

Chris Williamson’s Guide to Being Happy, and Debunking the Feminist Lies Sabotaging You​

0:00 Should You Go to College?
7:06 Chris's Advice to Young Men Looking For Direction
12:58 The Real Wage Gap Between Men and Women
19:37 Why Female Happiness Is in Decline
36:32 Where Did the Phrase "Toxic Masculinity" Come From?
45:28 The Efforts to Subdue Men With Porn, Video Games and Weed (My note: instead of the word 'subdue' they frequently use the word 'sedate' in the interview. I think sedate is probably the more appropriate term)
46:45 How Fatherlessness Is Destroying Society
54:29 Why Is Suicide Skyrocketing?
56:55 How Video Games Are Corrupting Men
1:00:00 Why Are Women So Dissatisfied?
1:05:07 The Love of Money
1:10:24 What Is the Fundamental Role of a Spouse?
1:20:09 Declining Birthrates
1:28:14 The Rise of AI Girlfriends
1:34:45 How the MeToo Movement Changed Dating Forever

 

[Magnolia]

Zerohedge put up an article: Why Young Women Moved Left While Young Men Stayed Sane.

There are some interesting propositions in it, and it assesses the situation without affixing blame.

We've been told that men are "radicalizing to the right" and that this is dangerous. The actual data shows the opposite. Men barely moved. Women moved 20+ points leftward.

The author states, "Most answers [to female radical leftism]....are either tribal ("women are emotional") or surface-level ("social media bad"). Neither traces the actual mechanism." He explains that the mechanism is "capture." Women got captured first due to certain psychological vulnerabilities and because they were more susceptible to consensus pressure. The capture was fast (2007-2020). The capture is global. Capture involves cell phones, social media, algorithms designed for emotional response, monoculture universities, employment in female dominated "service" industries, the collapse of marriages, and propaganda that teaches women that "success" means independence & career (and when women realize -- too late -- that they "fell" for a lie and a con job, they are too devastated to admit it).

He contends that men are captured too, but in a different way.

Men resisted longer because they were less susceptible and less embedded in captured institutions. But as the gap became visible and culturally salient, as "men are the problem" became explicit mainstream messaging, as men started being excluded from society because of lies, as masculinity, or the very thing that makes men men became toxic, men had to start counter-aligning. The passivity is converting into opposition. The withdrawal is becoming active rejection. This doesn't mean men are now "correct" or "free". It might just mean they're being captured by a different machine, one optimized for male grievance instead of female consensus. Andrew Tate didn't emerge from nowhere. Neither did the manosphere. Those are capture systems too, just targeting different psychological vulnerabilities.

He concludes: "The graph is now two lines diverging in opposite directions. Two different machines pulling two different demographics toward two different failure modes." He contends the trend is decidedly unhealthy. He doesn't know how it will end; or if it will.