6 Fundamental Goals Feminists have for Social Change.

Feminism’s Micromanagement of Gynocentric Idolatry.

Readership: All
Length: 2,800 words;
Reading Time: 10 minutes;


About a year ago over at Boxer’s place, fellow Manospherian Derek Ramsey outlined several “problems” with the basic philosophy and implementation of Feminism in his post, The Definition of Feminism (2019 September 21).  These problems are listed as follows.

  1. Equal opportunity is incoherent because men and women are different, not equal.
  2. The conundrums involved in equality of outcome (as opposed to equality of opportunity).
  3. In reality, Feminists seek inequality—of opportunity and outcome—favoring women.
  4. Feminists treat opportunity as a Zero Sum Game.

Here, I wish to point out that it is impossible for these problems to ever be properly resolved because they are intrinsic characteristics of the female mindset. Consider the following.

Rollo’s Cardinal Rule of sexual strategies (2015 January 5) speaks to the first and fourth points by proscribing a Zero Sum Game.

“For one gender’s sexual strategy to succeed, the other gender must compromise or abandon their own.”

Dalrock’s Law addresses the second and fourth points of application.  For those new to the ‘sphere, Dalrock’s Law of Feminism (2018 September 6) states,

Feminism is the assertion that men are evil and naturally want to harm women, followed by pleas to men to solve all of women’s problems.”

Ramsey emphasizes the third point and assumes the fourth point in Derek’s Law of Feminism (2019 October 1), which states,

“The best definition most consistent across all flavors of feminism is the promotion of gender inequality favoring women, that is, female supremacy.”

In summary, the Feminist perspective assumes a Zero Sum Game, not only in terms of opportunity, but for all social interaction. Thus, it may be insightful if we were to examine Feminism, not only as a corrupt social movement, and a hoodwinking philosophy, but also as a large-scale, culture-wide social game.

It is important to note here, this assertion that either the male, or the female, but not both, can “win” by exacting their respective prerogatives in the relationship are primarily the feral views of the female sex.  (The Manosphere reached these conclusions by observing females.) In contrast, marriage minded men have the understanding that a Positive Sum Game is necessary, in order to produce a family unit – a long lasting union conducive to deep contentment and the rearing of children. Thus, the demise of marriage is largely a result of women clinging to the Zero Sum Game strategy in their stubborn insistence on winning.

As soon as wimmin realize that they must change their mating strategy for a LTR to work, it becomes tempting for them to either (1) seek to control the man through various means, or (2) bow out of the union and go off seeking a better playing field – especially when responsibilities come home to roost. To carry either of these two options to fruition without subjective impunity, Feminism as a social movement must achieve a multitude of goals, which must be continually coddled and nurtured to bring them to fruition.  The most impressive thing about this scheme is that the feminist reach for control extends beyond the clutches of any individual woman, to envelop government policies and societal norms.

The remainder of this post will identify and discuss six of these goals, along with the motivations and Purposes behind the Zero Sum Game of Feminism.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is female-scrutiny-of-male.jpg

1. The Primary Goal of Gaining Authoritative Control

The goal of gaining authoritative control is perhaps the one goal with the most strategic benefit, because this gives gynocentric idolaters the power to attain various other goals (to be discussed below).

Wimmin often state that men should have control, especially self-control, but this admission is only offered in the context of Chivalrous service to wimmin, so that men can become more capable servants in doing what wimmin want them to do.

The motives behind the primary goal of control have (at least) three main purposes.

  1. To attain self-sufficiency and self-determination.
  2. To manipulate the social environment in favor the Feminine Imperative.
  3. To control men for the purpose of serving feminine interests.

The purpose of the first motivation will become self-evident in the following discussion.  Several expressions of the purposes of the second motivation will be discussed in later sections.  The third motivation remains as an underlying theme for all intents and purposes.

Of note, this greed for authority and control is alluded to in Jack’s Law of Feminism (2019 January 18):

“Feminism is the assertion and justification of women’s rejection of male authority in favor of an institutionalized social ontology which is dictated by the Feminine Imperative.”

The Feminine Imperative at its worst, is nothing more than solipsistic, hamster fueled, self-willed, self-determination, where carnal pleasure and hedonistic liberty abound.

Les Demoiselles d’Avignon, by Pablo Picasso, 1907.

2. The Goal of Self-Determination

Psychological self-determination (not to be confused with political self-determination) is essentially pursuing activities according to one’s interest, enjoyment, and inherent satisfaction.

To be fair, a certain amount of self-determinism is necessary for healthy psychological growth and emotional maturity. As such, self-determination is not inherently wrong or immoral, but should rightfully be implemented such to achieve the well-being of the entire family, and not just the wimminz personal interests. Making this adjustment is one of the primary challenges to newlywed wives.

To effectively optimize inherent potential, self-determination needs to be nurtured and disciplined by external loci, such as a father figure, or a structured social environment, like a family or a peer group.

However, many women obviate the more restrictive (and healthier) feedback loops of external reinforcement (e.g. father or church authority) by rebelliously choosing alternative mentors, role models, or peer groups that support her choices.  Since herds can be freely chosen, this partly explains women’s continuous pressing necessity to conform to the herd.

Feminism plays on this inherent weakness in encourages wimmin to pursue total self-determination, which denies any duty to comply to expected behaviors and avoids external regulation involving rewards and punishments.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is 43239e0300000578-0-image-a-34_1502398031839.jpg

3. The Goal of Sexual Self-Determination

Of specific note, Feminism pushes the idea that wimmin are, or should be, entirely self-determined with respect to sexuality and reproduction.

We don’t need to look too hard to find examples of sexual self-determinism in wimmin.

  1. Both The Other McCain and Dalrock reported on the rise of Insta-Wh0res (ca. April 2019).
  2. In a previous post, How much is Virginity worth? (2019 September 6), we reviewed how women are selling their virginity, in essence, trading their MMV for cash.  Yet, many of these same wimmin cling to the hope of one day being “married” while they willfully deny how sex and marriage are inextricably linked.
  3. In another post, Irresponsible Ejaculation Causes Abortion (2019 September 23), we saw one wimminz clear statement about control.


Here, we shouldn’t jump to the conclusion that men are locking their wives and girlfriends in stocks and bonds in a brutal effort to “control” their wimmin.  No, this is a statement of Psychological Projection.  The sentence in bold reveals Wimminz true motives – to control — and the object of control is men.

Can you imagine?  Wimmin want to decide which men can have sex!  This is exactly what R.S. McCain was getting at when he wrote, Guy Gets Laid, Feminists Get Angry (2019 September 22).

“Feminists believe that women should have 100% control of sexual activity, that they should be arbiters of who does and doesn’t get laid.”

But McCain doesn’t take it far enough.

  • Feminists believe that women should have 100% control of the whole sexual marketplace (SMP).
  • Feminists believe that women should have 100% control of the whole procreative process, or the interruption thereof.
  • Feminists believe that women should have 100% control of the management and distribution of resources.
  • Feminists believe that legislation should be used to implement all of the above.

This quest for control seems to have no boundaries of common decency.  Even after admitting that abortion is murder, the author went on to say,

“Abortion is the “cure” for an unwanted pregnancy.”

But truth be told, women already have 100% control of sexual activity!  (Except in the cases of Biblical marriage [2] or authentic rape.)  Women are the fundamental Gatekeepers of Sex – arbiters of who gets the key to the golden gyna, and when, and by extension, which men are deemed worthy of procreation.

Yet, this is still not enough to satisfy the Feministas of Flatbush.  They also believe women should decide which men can keep their Johnsons!  A previous post, Eunuchs of the New Feminist Order (2019 August 31) revealed how some women can be so bold as to assume they have the authority to snip the d!cks off of men.  This includes vasectomies, chemical neutering, and any legislation pertaining thereof. [3]

What if we turned this around, for the sake of equahluty? It would read something like this.

“Women believe that men should have 100% control of sexual activity, that they should be arbiters of who has sex with whom, and when, and who is worthy of procreation.”

Actually, this does seem more appropriate, and of course we know that men would be much more gracious in this matter.  But can you imagine the reaction we’d get from wimmin if men decided which women can have sex, and with which men, and when?

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is personal-space-happy-couples-sex.jpg

4. The Goal of being Free from Responsibility

Another important goal of Feminism is the effective displacement of responsibilities.  Since someone must assume the burdensome aspects of responsibility, the Feminist order assigns all responsibility to men, or else, diffuses the responsibilities into big government.

This particular goal of Feminism is wrapped up in Boxer’s Definition of Feminism (2019 January 18):

“A conspiracy against all men and all nations, to offload the individual and collective responsibility for female misbehavior onto men.”

But the problem with displacing responsibility is that for certain issues, you just can’t do it.  Every person has his/her own sphere of influence, which no one else can enter.  Women want to disabuse themselves of natural consequences and the responsibilities of being free moral agents, and the shame thereof, by shrinking this sphere of influence down to a singularity.  This is most often done by expelling from their consciences any sense of personal agency.  Wimmin want so desperately to believe that agency and responsibility can be magically transplanted from one gender to another, that this desire takes on the form of solipsistic hamsterbation (AKA psychological dissociation).

An all too common example of how extreme and perverse this disassociation can be, is how women rationalize their need for abortions.  As mentioned above, the previous post, Irresponsible Ejaculation Causes Abortion (2019 September 23) illustrated how “a women” made the case that abortion was the result of Menz irresponsibility, NOT Wimminz.  This is another classic case of Psychological Projection that we see coming from women way too often.

Men may cause pregnancies, but men don’t make pregnancies unwanted by the woman.  Most women who abort their progeny go to clinics on their own initiative…  Often without even informing the man.  Often to the man’s utter dismay!

All these arguments about abortions, condoms, pills, castrations, vasectomies, laws and legislation, and who is responsible for what, amounts to nothing more than a Pandora’s box of selfishness and sexual sin – which must necessarily be micromanaged for the blame to be shifted.

Even though the related arguments are haywire, the proliferation of these ideas on mass media, and their seductive appeal to the fundamental feminine desire for a gynocentric utopia, have slowly caused them to become more acceptable to the wider public since the 1960’s.

The Human Be-In, The Summer of Love, 1967.

5. The Goal of Remaining Clandestine

One of the primary strategies employed within the Game of Feminism is to obscure the goals and the purposes from the opponents (primarily men, but also other women within her competing social sphere). This has been done with remarkable skill for decades, as these goals have only become apparent to men since the advent of Red Pill consciousness.

The inherent value of secrecy to the feminine psyche is shown in the fact that they go ballistic whenever their secrets are revealed.  This is the cause of all the cries of “misogyny“. You see, according to the religion of feminism, introspection and confession are grave sins, but fornicating and child sacrifice, not so much.

Remarkably, even the traditional concept of the Feminine Mystique supports this goal (the original concept, not Friedan’s version).  Prior to the late 20th century, women utilized the Feminine Mystique as a cover for their iniquities, and to present themselves in the best possible light, all to secure better prospects of landing a better grade husband, and to elevate their socioeconomic status.

Currently, the PoundMeToo playgame is a classic Plan B for many wayward, agency-lacking wimmin to resort to whenever that vital secrecy has been breached.

The goal of secrecy is not limited to individual wimmin, but is also expressed through selective censorship by MGM news agencies and internet host providers.  Recently, it was discovered that the megapowers of the information age have been… [We regret to inform you that because of “user policy violations”, the remainder of this paragraph has been redacted by IA internet bots.]

6. The Goal of Gaining Status and Respect

In the current, postmodern west, women seek to retain an aura of buoyant unpredictability, and pass themselves off as being flighty or emotional.  Yet, even so, they demand “respect”, in which “disrespect” is defined (here) as anything that pricks a woman’s ego or deters her self-centered prerogatives.  Manospherians know that wimminz idea of “respect” is not the same as a man’s concept of respect, and the female demand for “respect” amounts to little more than a $ћit test.

To top it all off, Feminists must capitalize on their gains by establishing themselves as respectable winners of the Zero Sum Game.  Part of this is done by displacing the responsibility, and thus the blame for their errant choices, onto men, as described earlier.  But abandoning responsibility also excludes them from the accompanying honor and respect that comes from being responsible.

Dalrock has described this desire for status as a weakness of feminism in his post, Status is a powerful motivator. (2019 September 23). He writes,

“Marriage conveys legitimacy to the children, and status to the woman.  The man’s money could be obtained via child support without a wedding, and likewise his assistance (living together would do the trick).  For middle class women, there is only one respectable way to babymamahood, and that is by marrying first, and then divorcing whenever it is most convenient after she has the number of children she wants (from that particular baby daddy at least).”

Feminists have been able to dampen the shame of divorce.  Laws which facilitate divorce, and the widespread frequency of broken marriages have made it generally acceptable to the larger society.  But for some reason, wimmin cannot escape the shame of the humility imposed upon them by being single mothers.  Women know this, hence perpetuating their demand for legalized and subsidized abortion.

In sum, respect is fundamentally crucial to men, but it just isn’t in the game plan for women.

Well, not quite. There are a few caveats. For example, I can respect a woman for being able to do this…

“Chinese students wrap their arms around their waist and touch their belly-buttons to attempt a “”Belly-button challenge”” at a school in Luoyang city, central China’s Henan province, 12 June 2015.”


The primary purpose of Feminism is to construct a gynocentric utopia, which is essentially an evil idolatry.  This utopia, which is only possible in a world without God, embraces secular humanism as their primary religion.  Pleasure and The Pride of Life are emphasized as the greatest moral good, even over the sanctity of human life.

To construct this gynocentric dystopia, Feminists must micromanage every detail of life and society, in order to maximize women’s freedoms and pleasure, and minimize their personal responsibility.  Within this world of Bizarretta baristas, bwitchy wimmin control everything, and supposedly get everything they think they want.

“For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft,
And stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry.”

1st Samuel 15:23 (NKJV)

What wimmin do not understand is that when they start controlling themselves and taking responsibility for their actions (viz. assuming moral agency), then men will not need to step in and do so in ways that abhorrently countermand wimminz fleshly desire for autonomy and self-determination.

Don’t start one, won’t be one!


  1. According to 1st Corinthians 7:5, a woman may rightfully expect regular sexual attention from her husband, and she has the authority over his body in terms of his sexual desire and satisfaction.  But that is within an intimate relationship between man and wife.  Women in general do not have authority over men’s procreative choices or abilities.  If a woman willingly lays her body down to be shagged by a man, which is her natural use in marriage, then by nature of the transaction, she is submitting to his authority, and his decision to ejaculate wherever he pleases.  If that results in a pregnancy, then she should have accepted that as a possible outcome long before she prostrated herself.
  2. Deuteronomy 25:11-12 tells us that if a woman ever has a man by the balls (literally, as in a fight), you should cut her hand off, showing her no mercy.  The literal application of this verse might be a rare event, but the figurative meaning is evident.  Women do not have any authority over men’s fecundity or patrilineage.


About Jack

Jack is a world traveling artist, skilled in trading ideas and information, none of which are considered too holy, too nerdy, nor too profane to hijack and twist into useful fashion. Sigma Frame Mindsets and methods for building and maintaining a masculine Frame
This entry was posted in Conspiracy Theories, Culture Wars, Female Power, Feminism, Freedom, Personal Liberty, Moral Agency. Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to 6 Fundamental Goals Feminists have for Social Change.

  1. bee123456 says:


    “According to 1st Corinthians 7:5, a woman may rightfully expect regular sexual attention from her husband, and she has the authority over his body in terms of his sexual desire and satisfaction.”

    Should not this read,

    According to 1st Corinthians 7:5, a woman may rightfully expect regular sexual attention from her husband, and she has the authority over his body in terms of her sexual desire and satisfaction.

    I suggest replacing “his” in the second line with “her”.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Jack says:

      @ Bee, no, the text is correct, but I see how it can be confusing, so I’m going to write another post to explain it in further detail, just to be clear.


    • Jeff Barnes says:

      Lust looks to take from the other, while godly sexual desire looks to give to the other. Got this idea from Matt Fradd.


      • Jack says:

        @ Jeff, I don’t see anything wrong with mutual reciprocity in giving and taking, including sex within marriage. In fact, this is necessary for personal humility and civil socialization. Lust sets up an idol and cultivates a mindset of spiritual poverty. That is to say, one is obsessed with the getting, and is unable to give. I guess this is what Fradd was getting at.


      • Sharkly says:

        “Lust looks to take from the other, while godly sexual desire looks to give to the other.”
        Awwwwwwwwww! Isn’t that a cutesy bunch of Feminist sentiment.
        The problem for me is that the Bible doesn’t say that, but almost the opposite.
        All sex outside of marriage is wrong,(even if you both want to give it to each other) and refusing sex within marriage is to defraud your partner and render them over to Satan for temptation.(1 Corinthians 7:2-5)
        I don’t know Matt Fradd, but, based upon that quote, he sounds like another gelded goddess worshipper.
        It is better to marry than to burn, says the Apostle Paul. But according to Feminist Fradd you’re lustfully taking sex from your wife, if she’d rather deny you the sex she vowed to you when she vowed to be yours “to have and to hold”. Fradd is cheering the bitch on to burn her husband by denying him sex until he gives in to her control.
        “Feminists believe that women should have 100% control of sexual activity, that they should be arbiters of who does and doesn’t get laid.”
        Fradd is not on God’s side, telling the wife she is defrauding her husband and God by engaging in this sexual immorality of refusing her husband his due. You are not “taking” your wife’s sexuality! She was already given to you “to have”(sexually) by her father and by her own public vow. She is trying to take back control of what is no longer hers, to deny you what she vowed while expecting you to fulfill your side of the vow. She is defrauding you and God’s institution of marriage. Because castrati like Fradd defend this whore-worshipping rebellion, whereby women commit sexual immorality by abandoning their marriage vow to their husband, which is as unto Christ, and hold out their sexuality reserving it unto the will of Satan instead.
        Ezekiel 16:32 You unfaithful wife! You desire strangers instead of your husband.
        If your wife denies your reasonable request for honorable sexual activity, it is only because she has the unfaithful heart of a whore! Don’t sugar coat it. If she doesn’t put out, she is committing fraud, or Fradd, against her marriage, which she vowed to honor, and against you whom she vowed to obey. The person “taking” from your marriage is this despicable false-teacher who aims to take away what you as a man were rightfully vowed, by his satanic lie. If God reigned in our churches, no husband would ever be looked down on for taking his wife according to his own good pleasure to satisfy his bodily urges that she was created by God to satisfy. Don’t listen to that Biblically ignorant Feminist deceiver.


      • Jeff Barnes says:

        @Sharkly I agree with what your saying (I have taken the redpill). I don’t think I communicated the idea well, let me try again. Rightly ordered sexual desire generally tends to encourage us to give of ourselves. An example is a single person who is pursuing chastity and fleeing from sexual sin would have a greater ability to serve God and hence his neighbour. Also ideally in a marriage both partners are looking to sacrificially love one another, so that spiritual reality mirrors the physical. Have you read The Way of the Superior Man? This book has a wider view of sexuality in terms of the impact of our sexual energy. From you name and profile pic I thought you were a female but now from your comment I am guessing you are a man.


      • Sharkly says:

        No, I have not read ‘The Way of the Superior Man’. Us superior men read the Bible, and not so much these new books by other guys from this adulterous generation. I had a great father, and I spent my entire youth watching my father who feared God and none other. My father dedicated his life to working for God, he was a zealot for God. I don’t need a book to tell me how to be a superior man. It is what I am. While I am also still a sinner, I don’t see anybody alive in this generation who could give me a better example of how to be a man of God than I got from my own father, and that I get from God’s word, and God’s Spirit which is alive in me.

        All charity/love is sacrificial. There is no genuine love that is not sacrificial. Sex and love are two different things, don’t try to confuse them together. Sex can be either a sacrifice, a win-win situation, or even an act of aggression, depending upon the situation and choices of both parties. To give yourself sexually to your mate can be an act of love, if you otherwise might not want to, however it is due to your spouse, and they have every right to take what is theirs, especially considering that sex is part of the purpose for marriage, and to refuse sex is to immorally defraud your mate sexually, and turn them over to satanic temptation.(1 Corinthians 7:2-5) Don’t let some Feminist goddess worshipper get you hung up on some hypothetical strawman sexual abuse. Just stay away from deviant sex acts and enjoy your mate as God intended you to do. Forget Matt Fradd. Just flip the taking/giving switch in your frame of mind. You’re not some beta-male taking sex from your wife, you’re an alpha-male giving that lucky lady a blast of your righteous seed. And you’d both be having a blast if you both had your hearts and minds in the right place. But you are primarily responsible for your own attitude and performance, there is only so much you can do if she is committed to sabotaging her own sexual experience.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Jeff Barnes says:

        Again I mainly agree with what your saying. This is my last comment because I think we are speaking past eachother.


  2. bee123456 says:

    Bee’s Law of Feminism

    Feminism is rebellion against the authority and dominion of their earthly father’s and their Heavenly Father.

    A big hat tip to Eric von Kuehnelt-Leddihn who wrote, The foundation of all liberalism is the murder of the Father. (rough quote, by memory)

    Liked by 3 people

  3. Scavos says:

    Sadly, I see a lot of men in my church mentioning the whole “If a woman does x, y, or z sin, then it’s the man’s fault.”

    Then they wonder why men like me are staying single and why they can’t get more men into the church. I just facepalm whenever these conversations come up.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Jack says:

      “If a woman does x, y, or z sin, then it’s the man’s fault.”

      In a sense, this is true, but not in the way people want to think. They want to make men out to be lazy servants in an effort to shame them into greater subservience to the whims of the Feminine Imperative. But the truth is that if the majority of men put their thumbs down, stepped up their Game, and collaborated in a joint effort to subdue the Feminist rebellion, then women would think twice about kicking against the goad. But most men aren’t doing this. They haven’t done it in so long that they have forgotten how to do it. So in this respect, it is men’s fault.

      “Weak men bring bad times”, and all that.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Novaseeker says:

        Jack —

        Yes, indeed. I fear it’s even worse than that, though.

        Feminism, as we know it, with its deep, penetrating, thorough infiltration deep into all corners of our public, private, and social lives, would have been utterly and completely impossible had men not more or less thoroughly supported, enabled and furthered it. I know it’s popular in the sphere to say “no, that’s wrong, it was a few men … nobody asked most men”. That’s true, in terms of how things started out, but it’s also beside the point in 2020, and has been beside the point pretty much since 1970. The fact is this: almost all men, as fathers, de facto support feminism when it comes to their daughters. This has been the case since the social revolution of 1965-1975, and it applies to almost all fathers of daughters, regardless of their politics, religious affiliation, personality type, socio-sexual rank and what have you. The men who are not like this are a small minority of men in any context, and have been for decades.

        The entire feminist system finds its origin in the separation of sexuality from reproduction, and in the economic independence of women from relying on any one specific man economically (father or husband). These are the twin foundations of everything else in feminism, and both of them are firmly, extremely firmly, supported by most fathers of daughters in 2020. The chain of causality that runs from these roots covers more or less everything that the sphere has discussed in the last 15 years. For when girls are focused on their careers and developing their economic independence, marriage will be delayed (and it gets later every year, as we first saw in Europe, which was socially further down the track, a couple of generations ago, and is now coming to the US). When marriage is delayed, and women have an extended period of financial independence prior to marriage, (1) fornication becomes rampant (no, most humans are not going to remain celibate from 15-30, regardless of their religious affiliation — the ask is too big) and (2) women select men on the basis of sexual/emotional attraction during this (unfortunately formative) period precisely because they are not marrying until later. And, eventually, most women do “lane change” (as Rollo describes it), to husband-hunting mode, but at that point the social, psychological and spiritual damage is practically irreversible.

        And standing behind this entire chain of causation? A long line of millions of fathers, scowling and with their arms folded, glaring in warning at anyone who would dare challenge any part of that line of causation, under threat of violence. Yes, women did ask for this, they bear a significant part of the blame, but men enabled it, eagerly, diligently, and passionately, and so to this very day in the vast majority of cases, and see doing so as an essential part of their mission as men, as well. Fathers used to not wish these things for their daughters, but that changed around the time of the social revolution — not all at once, of course, but over the course of a generation it simply changed. And the result is that fathers started, en masse, to passionately (and under threat of violence if challenged) support their daughters in some kind of “worst of all worlds” way — some combination of son-with-boobs plus daughter-of-the-king plus “superior moral creature that any mere male must worship in order to be worthy of”. It was and is a curious mix of feminism, evangelicalism and victorianism, combined in perhaps the most toxic way possible, and for decades now it’s been the “default setting” when looking at fathers and daughters, and is all the more prevalent the more “conservative Christian” you go — the only thing that changes is that in the more conservative Christian settings (1) the girls look more feminine, in general, because that sub-culture prizes a feminine appearance for women still and (2) the ubiquitous fornication going on is studiously ignored, swept under the rug and simply not discussed, period — whereas in other settings, femininity in presentation is less emphasized, and open sexual license is more or less openly celebrated. That’s it — there’s your “conservative Christian” approach to these issues, enforced by the not so subtle threat of personal violence from the millions of fathers directed against anyone who would as much as suggest that there is anything wrong with the picture, never mind actually do anything about it.

        So, yes, men are right in the middle of this. So are women of course, but blaming women, even claiming that women are “more to blame” for the current situation than men are, really totally obscures reality so badly as to be a more or less useless frame of viewing things as they actually are, I think. (I know you were not saying this by the way, Jack, so this is not a critique of your post or your comment .. just a comment that critiques a view that is very often expressed in the sphere.)

        Liked by 6 people

      • Jack says:

        @ Novaseeker,
        That’s quite a thorough, yet concise survey of the problem. I may use this in a future post.


      • Scavos says:

        Jack, Novaseeker,

        Fair points made. I appreciate your input. Based on the conversations with these men, the context from them seems to be focused on the “here and now” rather than looking at “how did it come to this?” Perhaps I’ll bring this up to gauge their responses, in order to bring clarity to the topic.


      • Jack says:

        @ Scavos,
        Changing the contextual timeframe would be an excellent approach to reframe the discussion into a more insightful one.


  4. Pingback: Sexual Authority | Σ Frame

  5. Pingback: Zizek – Everyday Sexuality | Σ Frame

  6. Pingback: The Lopsided Liberalized Mating Market | Σ Frame

  7. SFC Ton says:

    Life is a 0 sum game

    Failure to deal with that is a major problem for those who (in theory) oppose the left


  8. Pingback: Secrets | Σ Frame

  9. Pingback: The Decadent Christian (Ressentimentalism) | Σ Frame

  10. Pingback: The Lecherous Horndog | Σ Frame

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s