You cannot understand the state of gender relations in the West without examining the school system, which socializes young children even more than their own families do. AN OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of schoolteachers are female, and as we can see in the following thread, they do not like the natural instincts of boys and think of them as primitive, whereas girls are praised for fitting in quite nicely:
View: https://www.reddit.com/r/Teachers/comments/17cgwcy/tired_of_boys_behavior/
Girls are valued for being quiet and compliant (unless they later become stay at home wives dutifully serving their husbands, of course). Indeed, their natural instincts of submissiveness and subservience are harnessed by the school system to mold them into proper consumer-citizens in our modern capitalist economy, where they will submit to their capitalist bosses (dutifully performing the busywork demanded of them) and submit to other recognized hegemons/hegemonies under liberalism, but not to their fathers and husbands ("the patriarchy").
Boys are viewed as disruptive and annoying for not shutting up and listening like they're supposed to. They are too independent-minded and physically energetic, taking a natural disliking to the monotony our modern capitalist economy has to offer, which is why the rate of males in higher education (docility training and indoctrination) has been massively decreasing over the decades. This seems to correspond to the education system increasingly becoming an industrial conveyer belt of rubber-stamped credentials achieved through the rote memorization of useless trivia (which females generally specialize in -- namely the memorization of trivia about persons), rather than a true place of learning, debate, and exploration (which would appeal more to the energetic, combative, and adventurous nature of boys).
It's EXTREMELY illustrative of my point that these two schoolteachers complain about boys "touching each other" too much. The second one even insinuates that it contradicts the boys' reflexive "homophobia" (
), whereas in reality, it's very clearly a manifestation of the natural drive of boys to play-fight each other. But to a female (or a soy male, who would be the most likely type of male to join a female-oriented profession) this is quite a foreign concept.
This is why it's important that young boys have MASCULINE-MALE role models helping to socialize them. Because play-fighting is a way that young males in all sorts of species learn how to interact with each other, settle disputes, and navigate the social hierarchy better. It is actually the very essence of their social education. And it explains, by the way, why boys have their natural aversion to homosexuality or implications of weakness in other males (before it is socialized out of them): BECAUSE WEAKNESS/FAGGOTRY MAKES YOU INTO A POOR FIGHTER, ERGO A POOR MAN.
In evolutionary terms, men are supposed to fight for dominance, but not just selfishly against each other. Not even primarily so. Evolution is NOT a individual-oriented process, as I have described in my thread about shame. What play-fighting teaches boys to do is not just engage in interpersonal conflicts, but more importantly obtain the ability RESOLVE these conflicts so that they can come together and unite in the event of a common enemy that need to be dealt with (i.e., group conflict or WAR). Playing sports is a sublimation of this: the male drive to go to war. It also explains the "racism" of boys, which is an expression of tribalistic group conflict, albeit a very UNsublimated expression of it in the modern, multiracial West.
Meanwhile all females need to know in terms of war is to just spread their legs to whomever wins it -- whether it's their returning tribesmen or the enemy. I can recall in this regard the story of a young German teenager at the end of WWII, when Germany itself was being invaded, who was enlisted into the army and shocked to hear the nonchalance with which an older German woman spoke of spreading her legs to the Soviet enemy. It was just a matter of course for her! On the other hand, there is the story of Japanese women who hurled themselves and their children off of cliffs rather than face domination (and presumed rape) by American soldiers, but Japan was even more traditional in gender roles than Germany at that time
Anyway, boys end up becoming effeminate due to the influence of the female-dominated school system (and adjunct professionals they interface with such as psychologists, see below) which disrupts their socialization. It's a fact that's often overlooked in commentary about "the death of men." The other day I watched a video on the topic, and the school system wasn't mentioned once.
I would argue that one of the consequences of the effeminization of men and thus society as a whole is the inability for unified political coalitions to form which can effectively challenge a common enemy (in this case, authority) and create positive changes for society. Yes, revolutionary ideology is inherently masculine, and what we see instead of it (or masquerading as it) is increasing weakness and social fragmentation. What better represents this weakness and fragmentation on the left-wing than the newest iteration of "transgressive" faggotry: transsexuality? A fragmentation of personality, in which a disassociated, false self takes hold to protect the weak, true self, reeling from social/romantic rejection and from the pain of reality, through a fantasy defense. Rather than confronting reality and ultimately reconciling with it, in the way that boys are supposed to learn to do through play-fighting, male-to-female trannies fantasy play like girls at teatime, dressing up stuffed animals (and themselves) into skirts.
The field of psychology, yet another female-dominated profession socializing the young (and errant adults), has been integral in promoting the rise of deference to subjectivity (believing what a person says about themselves uncritically), which has led directly to the legitimization of transsexuality, among other things. It's funny because in many contexts, psychologists will only pretend to defer to a patient's subjectivity, showcasing a false veneer of respect for the patient's understanding of themselves and their situation, while actually subtly communicating to them that they are wrong, illogical, and need to think/act differently. And these are in cases where the admittedly irrational beliefs or overbearing emotional drives of the patient would end up having healthier consequences, if allowed to naturally progress and take fruition, than those of a transsexual who will castrate themselves in the end! An example would be a depressed person in therapy sharing the painful reality of their life, and who would in the process end up discovering the solutions to it, instead being told by their therapist to "reframe" every negative thought and subdue every negative emotion until they are too disconnected from reality to help themselves anymore. But crucially, they are thus made more compliant with society and less willing to complain, which is the only purpose of such "therapy."
Meanwhile on the right-wing, the group-based dynamics of evolution and its manifestations in politics are totally eschewed as "collectivism." Instead what's promoted is the most antisocial, selfish, and individualistic bastardization of masculinity, role modelled by hypocrites such as Andrew Tate -- a "Muslim" mongrel who pimps and fornicates, and clearly worships money and status in the world much more than any divinity. To the Tate Brothers, religion is just another form of posturing, or wearing contrasting fancy outfits. Andrew Tate's brother has even admitted it: that he came to identify as Christian not because he believed in God, but because he liked the "values" of the Bible (which he could only superficially describe). How does this make him any different than a tranny choosing to identify as a female because they like the superficial bearing of females? Despite the two Tate brothers being so close, or perhaps precisely because of it, they identify as different religions (or shall I say: genders?) to differentiate themselves. The common denominator here is NARCISSISM.
In fairness, I can also see in the Tates' professed religiosity (particularly Andrew's) a desire to supplement the influence of their deceased father, but based upon their descriptions of him, he was extremely narcissistic himself, so the point stands. Indeed, the Abrahamic God and "His" relationship with "His Creation" is the very definition of narcissism.
I am reminded of the story of two young British brothers during the start of WWI, who were horribly bored on their family farm. They were EXCITED when the war kicked off and they could finally go to fight. This encapsulates the male spirit. Capitalist busywork/"grinding" and productivity should NOT be promoted as the meaning of life for men, especially since it's a rigged game and only a small minority of people can become rich by the very rules of social hierarchy and the free market in the first place (most rich people are BORN that way). In the case of those British brothers (not the Tates, JFL), they could only hope to work on a farm or maybe a more exciting urban factory in their lives. Things are not much different now in terms of upward mobility, or they are even relatively worse. But "get excited for monotonous wageslavery and the not just unlikely but INCREASINGLY unlikely promise of being rich" is the main message of modern right-wing influencers.
Due to the school system, it is notable that "homework" no longer means the female gender role of tending to the home (which at any rate is now mostly automated through laundry machines, electric dishwashers, and the like), but keeping up capitalist productivity norms even in your leisure time. It was observed centuries ago, prior to the advent of public schools, that boys would leave the home and rough-and-tumble play around outside all day, much to the annoyance of their mothers, while girls were considerably more likely to stay indoors and help their mothers out with daily chores. What prevented the mother from becoming overbearing and forcing her boys to stay home and help with the "home-work" was the fact that boys weren't even good at it, and caused much more trouble than they were worth. They are not good at taking care of babies/children and nurturing them with sensitivity to their emotions like girls are. It makes them feel understimulated and bored, and therefore disruptive and annoying (JUST LIKE IN THE MODERN-DAY CLASSROOM!). So the mother would begrudgingly allow the boys to be boys, and socialize themselves outside. Under the influence of schoolteachers, however, this process is critically interrupted since there is no escape from the stifling classroom. You can not just leave it and wander outside and play, except for very regimented "periods" of time. And even in these slots of time, such as recess, the female authorities make sure that the games boys play are as non-combative as possible -- even going so far as to ban group sports all together! Napoleon played war with other children when he was young. On a modern American school playground, he would get in trouble for it.
Other socio-economic factors enter into this, such as the contradiction that Western society is both overpopulated (and thus dangerous; you would not want to let your young boys just wander around with all these masses of strangers and immigrants in the area who you've never met and who have no real affiliation with you -- much unlike a traditional, ancestral community. You would not even let them join specialized groups such as the Boy Scouts which might inculcate masculinity, since there is an epidemic of sexual abuse in them which perhaps a good degree of targeted "homophobia" could extirpate, but far from it, the Boy Scouts were forced to undo their ban on homosexuality, JFL), yet also underpopulated (the average mother does not have very many children like in old times, in large part due to the fact that those aforementioned immigrants can make up for the lack of native fertility). So the whole culture is radically different than what it once was. It is MUCH more rootless, sedentary, compliant, and docile, which are female modes of being. Males are increasingly viewed as defective females due to the orientation of society and the economy and what it incentivizes people to become. Case in point: it is neither possible nor desirable for males to go to war anymore to express their natural evolutionary drive for group conflict, given how much more deadly and destructive it is. Those two British brothers referenced earlier did not survive WWI. They both died. But even if they did survive, they'd probably have been rattled with shell shock, and the society they came back to would have offered little to no succor, the modernist society such that it was.
One last issue I didn't mention is that girls mature quicker than boys on average (reaching puberty and other developmental milestones earlier), which should be reflected in the structure of any education system. Why are boys and girls of the same age in the same classroom being led by the same older female teacher, who will naturally gravitate toward the more mature girls, who in any case the teacher relates to better in terms of sharing a common gender? LIKE people should be grouped together for the best possible growth and development. But schools are not generally good at doing this, hence the case of high-functioning and even high IQ autists who develop emotional problems spurring from social isolation being placed in the same special education classes as drooling retards and irredeemably violent thugs.
View: https://www.reddit.com/r/Teachers/comments/17cgwcy/tired_of_boys_behavior/
Girls are valued for being quiet and compliant (unless they later become stay at home wives dutifully serving their husbands, of course). Indeed, their natural instincts of submissiveness and subservience are harnessed by the school system to mold them into proper consumer-citizens in our modern capitalist economy, where they will submit to their capitalist bosses (dutifully performing the busywork demanded of them) and submit to other recognized hegemons/hegemonies under liberalism, but not to their fathers and husbands ("the patriarchy").
Boys are viewed as disruptive and annoying for not shutting up and listening like they're supposed to. They are too independent-minded and physically energetic, taking a natural disliking to the monotony our modern capitalist economy has to offer, which is why the rate of males in higher education (docility training and indoctrination) has been massively decreasing over the decades. This seems to correspond to the education system increasingly becoming an industrial conveyer belt of rubber-stamped credentials achieved through the rote memorization of useless trivia (which females generally specialize in -- namely the memorization of trivia about persons), rather than a true place of learning, debate, and exploration (which would appeal more to the energetic, combative, and adventurous nature of boys).
It's EXTREMELY illustrative of my point that these two schoolteachers complain about boys "touching each other" too much. The second one even insinuates that it contradicts the boys' reflexive "homophobia" (
), whereas in reality, it's very clearly a manifestation of the natural drive of boys to play-fight each other. But to a female (or a soy male, who would be the most likely type of male to join a female-oriented profession) this is quite a foreign concept.This is why it's important that young boys have MASCULINE-MALE role models helping to socialize them. Because play-fighting is a way that young males in all sorts of species learn how to interact with each other, settle disputes, and navigate the social hierarchy better. It is actually the very essence of their social education. And it explains, by the way, why boys have their natural aversion to homosexuality or implications of weakness in other males (before it is socialized out of them): BECAUSE WEAKNESS/FAGGOTRY MAKES YOU INTO A POOR FIGHTER, ERGO A POOR MAN.
In evolutionary terms, men are supposed to fight for dominance, but not just selfishly against each other. Not even primarily so. Evolution is NOT a individual-oriented process, as I have described in my thread about shame. What play-fighting teaches boys to do is not just engage in interpersonal conflicts, but more importantly obtain the ability RESOLVE these conflicts so that they can come together and unite in the event of a common enemy that need to be dealt with (i.e., group conflict or WAR). Playing sports is a sublimation of this: the male drive to go to war. It also explains the "racism" of boys, which is an expression of tribalistic group conflict, albeit a very UNsublimated expression of it in the modern, multiracial West.
Meanwhile all females need to know in terms of war is to just spread their legs to whomever wins it -- whether it's their returning tribesmen or the enemy. I can recall in this regard the story of a young German teenager at the end of WWII, when Germany itself was being invaded, who was enlisted into the army and shocked to hear the nonchalance with which an older German woman spoke of spreading her legs to the Soviet enemy. It was just a matter of course for her! On the other hand, there is the story of Japanese women who hurled themselves and their children off of cliffs rather than face domination (and presumed rape) by American soldiers, but Japan was even more traditional in gender roles than Germany at that time
Anyway, boys end up becoming effeminate due to the influence of the female-dominated school system (and adjunct professionals they interface with such as psychologists, see below) which disrupts their socialization. It's a fact that's often overlooked in commentary about "the death of men." The other day I watched a video on the topic, and the school system wasn't mentioned once.
I would argue that one of the consequences of the effeminization of men and thus society as a whole is the inability for unified political coalitions to form which can effectively challenge a common enemy (in this case, authority) and create positive changes for society. Yes, revolutionary ideology is inherently masculine, and what we see instead of it (or masquerading as it) is increasing weakness and social fragmentation. What better represents this weakness and fragmentation on the left-wing than the newest iteration of "transgressive" faggotry: transsexuality? A fragmentation of personality, in which a disassociated, false self takes hold to protect the weak, true self, reeling from social/romantic rejection and from the pain of reality, through a fantasy defense. Rather than confronting reality and ultimately reconciling with it, in the way that boys are supposed to learn to do through play-fighting, male-to-female trannies fantasy play like girls at teatime, dressing up stuffed animals (and themselves) into skirts.
The field of psychology, yet another female-dominated profession socializing the young (and errant adults), has been integral in promoting the rise of deference to subjectivity (believing what a person says about themselves uncritically), which has led directly to the legitimization of transsexuality, among other things. It's funny because in many contexts, psychologists will only pretend to defer to a patient's subjectivity, showcasing a false veneer of respect for the patient's understanding of themselves and their situation, while actually subtly communicating to them that they are wrong, illogical, and need to think/act differently. And these are in cases where the admittedly irrational beliefs or overbearing emotional drives of the patient would end up having healthier consequences, if allowed to naturally progress and take fruition, than those of a transsexual who will castrate themselves in the end! An example would be a depressed person in therapy sharing the painful reality of their life, and who would in the process end up discovering the solutions to it, instead being told by their therapist to "reframe" every negative thought and subdue every negative emotion until they are too disconnected from reality to help themselves anymore. But crucially, they are thus made more compliant with society and less willing to complain, which is the only purpose of such "therapy."
Meanwhile on the right-wing, the group-based dynamics of evolution and its manifestations in politics are totally eschewed as "collectivism." Instead what's promoted is the most antisocial, selfish, and individualistic bastardization of masculinity, role modelled by hypocrites such as Andrew Tate -- a "Muslim" mongrel who pimps and fornicates, and clearly worships money and status in the world much more than any divinity. To the Tate Brothers, religion is just another form of posturing, or wearing contrasting fancy outfits. Andrew Tate's brother has even admitted it: that he came to identify as Christian not because he believed in God, but because he liked the "values" of the Bible (which he could only superficially describe). How does this make him any different than a tranny choosing to identify as a female because they like the superficial bearing of females? Despite the two Tate brothers being so close, or perhaps precisely because of it, they identify as different religions (or shall I say: genders?
) to differentiate themselves. The common denominator here is NARCISSISM.In fairness, I can also see in the Tates' professed religiosity (particularly Andrew's) a desire to supplement the influence of their deceased father, but based upon their descriptions of him, he was extremely narcissistic himself, so the point stands. Indeed, the Abrahamic God and "His" relationship with "His Creation" is the very definition of narcissism.
I am reminded of the story of two young British brothers during the start of WWI, who were horribly bored on their family farm. They were EXCITED when the war kicked off and they could finally go to fight. This encapsulates the male spirit. Capitalist busywork/"grinding" and productivity should NOT be promoted as the meaning of life for men, especially since it's a rigged game and only a small minority of people can become rich by the very rules of social hierarchy and the free market in the first place (most rich people are BORN that way). In the case of those British brothers (not the Tates, JFL), they could only hope to work on a farm or maybe a more exciting urban factory in their lives. Things are not much different now in terms of upward mobility, or they are even relatively worse. But "get excited for monotonous wageslavery and the not just unlikely but INCREASINGLY unlikely promise of being rich" is the main message of modern right-wing influencers.
Due to the school system, it is notable that "homework" no longer means the female gender role of tending to the home (which at any rate is now mostly automated through laundry machines, electric dishwashers, and the like), but keeping up capitalist productivity norms even in your leisure time. It was observed centuries ago, prior to the advent of public schools, that boys would leave the home and rough-and-tumble play around outside all day, much to the annoyance of their mothers, while girls were considerably more likely to stay indoors and help their mothers out with daily chores. What prevented the mother from becoming overbearing and forcing her boys to stay home and help with the "home-work" was the fact that boys weren't even good at it, and caused much more trouble than they were worth. They are not good at taking care of babies/children and nurturing them with sensitivity to their emotions like girls are. It makes them feel understimulated and bored, and therefore disruptive and annoying (JUST LIKE IN THE MODERN-DAY CLASSROOM!). So the mother would begrudgingly allow the boys to be boys, and socialize themselves outside. Under the influence of schoolteachers, however, this process is critically interrupted since there is no escape from the stifling classroom. You can not just leave it and wander outside and play, except for very regimented "periods" of time. And even in these slots of time, such as recess, the female authorities make sure that the games boys play are as non-combative as possible -- even going so far as to ban group sports all together! Napoleon played war with other children when he was young. On a modern American school playground, he would get in trouble for it.
Other socio-economic factors enter into this, such as the contradiction that Western society is both overpopulated (and thus dangerous; you would not want to let your young boys just wander around with all these masses of strangers and immigrants in the area who you've never met and who have no real affiliation with you -- much unlike a traditional, ancestral community. You would not even let them join specialized groups such as the Boy Scouts which might inculcate masculinity, since there is an epidemic of sexual abuse in them which perhaps a good degree of targeted "homophobia" could extirpate, but far from it, the Boy Scouts were forced to undo their ban on homosexuality, JFL), yet also underpopulated (the average mother does not have very many children like in old times, in large part due to the fact that those aforementioned immigrants can make up for the lack of native fertility). So the whole culture is radically different than what it once was. It is MUCH more rootless, sedentary, compliant, and docile, which are female modes of being. Males are increasingly viewed as defective females due to the orientation of society and the economy and what it incentivizes people to become. Case in point: it is neither possible nor desirable for males to go to war anymore to express their natural evolutionary drive for group conflict, given how much more deadly and destructive it is. Those two British brothers referenced earlier did not survive WWI. They both died. But even if they did survive, they'd probably have been rattled with shell shock, and the society they came back to would have offered little to no succor, the modernist society such that it was.
One last issue I didn't mention is that girls mature quicker than boys on average (reaching puberty and other developmental milestones earlier), which should be reflected in the structure of any education system. Why are boys and girls of the same age in the same classroom being led by the same older female teacher, who will naturally gravitate toward the more mature girls, who in any case the teacher relates to better in terms of sharing a common gender? LIKE people should be grouped together for the best possible growth and development. But schools are not generally good at doing this, hence the case of high-functioning and even high IQ autists who develop emotional problems spurring from social isolation being placed in the same special education classes as drooling retards and irredeemably violent thugs.
Last edited:
