The Feminization PsyOp
We are in a time of transition in gender relationships that hasn’t happened for 5000 years. I invite both women and men to consider whether this might turn out to be better for both, once the dust has settled—or the ashes, as Unbekoming would term them. This article primarily responds to his posts The Feminine War on Human Nature and The Great Feminization. The former concludes:
The reckoning is coming. The question is whether it arrives through gradual reform as more people awaken to feminism’s lies, or through civilizational collapse as the men who keep everything running simply walk away. As Briggs grimly notes, sometimes you must “let it play out to its logical conclusion and then rebuild from the ashes.”
And the latter ends:
The choice before us is stark: accept feminization’s logic and watch civilization decay, or restore balance and accept the conflicts that entails. Andrews has shown us the stakes. Whether we act on that knowledge determines whether future historians will study our civilization’s recovery or autopsy its collapse. The great feminization need not be our epitaph—but only if we find the courage to confront what we’ve allowed to happen and chart a different course.
My formula for a persuasive argument is that it should be 70% facts, 20% logic, and 10% conclusions. Anecdotes and individual examples should be used sparingly to illustrate the data—but not AS data. My only dogma, as readers know, is that I’m no better than anyone else. People are inherently good and, when they behave badly, systems and stories are to blame. You can never change other people. Whatever is wrong for someone else to do to you is wrong for you to do to them. Therefore, if we don’t want others to control us, we can’t aspire to control them. We can only give them more choices by changing the system. To change a system requires going to the root and finding the cause. The cause always starts with a false story, aka a lie.
Unbekoming, who doesn’t show his face or reveal his name, violates each of my principles for argument and social change. He presents anecdotes and individual words and actions to represent feminism, which he never defines. Instead of arguing ideas as right or wrong, he talks about people as good or bad. Male control of money and property, with females and children counted as the latter, was the start of civilization and is our human nature. While ‘they’ might be lying to us about everything else, this can’t be questioned. Women having power over themselves and their children is equated with women having power over men. The solution is men regaining power over women. Unbekoming has no vision for how that will happen, other than civilizational collapse and men building from the ashes.
Patriarchy does not mean rule by men, but divine rule by one head archon seen as the legitimate heir of the Aryan sky father Patr Dyeus. When ‘kingship was lowered from the heavens,’ he gave this heir the right to rule the world and appoint his successor, from among the archons who compete for his favor. Hierarchy comes from heiros, the original spelling of Aryan. That competition was to subdue whole populations.
Patriarchy was originally imposed by inciting men who weren’t getting sex to infiltrate walled cities under the guise of being nomads. They opened the gates and let in the attackers who killed the men, raped the women, and took the prepubescent girls as sex slaves and domestic servants. By holding children hostage, women became docile slaves to their rapists, and competed among themselves to be the best sex slave in order to buy more freedom for their children. This has been the unspoken social contract up until my own generation when, for the first time, women had access to money and property of their own.
Men having exclusive sex slaves and domestic servants who bear and raise their heirs is neither natural nor essential to developed cultures, as is proven by archeological evidence pre-3000 BCE. I don’t believe the oligarchs who think they’re gods are omniscient or omnipotent. They tolerated working mothers in order to double the mortgages owed to them. But it created a loophole through which women could have power over themselves. The oligarchs’ only recourse is to hold the children hostage, same as they imposed patriarchy 5000 years ago. This time it’s through family court.
I should have issued a trigger warning before I used the term patriarchy. I realize that can create a lot of emotional trauma for those who are masculine-presenting. These ancestral wounds have made the testosterone-abled too fragile to endure criticism to their self-identified gender. That’s why Janice Fiamengo needs to rush to their defense by attacking the testosterone-lacking for being so mean to her boys. Never mind that women like me are critiquing a system while she’s smearing women for their inherent character.
Fiamengo is not wrong about Woke Feminism being destructive and divisive, as it was intended, and as I wrote about in the article by that name. The real feminism that changed the 5000 year playbook was about empowering mothers, which Fiamengo is not. Like the walled city, that feminism was infiltrated, bribed, attacked and usurped because women were slipping out of control. And women have always been the payment for serving the empire. Let’s look at that further.
women should be chasing after men
On my last article, Julius Skoolafish wrote:
I will throw myself headlong lightheadedly into the front-end loader, see your misandristic inferences and raise you a couple of misogynistic Arthur Kwon Lee articles …
• Patriotism doesn’t matter if men can’t get laid – Arthur Kwon Lee
And … • Men are the beautiful gender, not women - 𝐀𝐫𝐭𝐡𝐮𝐫 𝐊𝐰𝐨𝐧 𝐋𝐞𝐞
I wrote back:
Wow! I did not expect to find such a perfect confirmation of my patriarchy theory as Arthur Kwon Lee. ‘If men can’t get laid, we’re not going to fight for the empire.’ Exactly! We’re back to Stone Age incels being bribed with rape and sex slaves to commit the empire’s atrocities. I like how he points men to places they can move that have ‘docile’ women. I’m trying to figure out what the downside is of men not defending the empire if they can’t get laid.
And we women have been talking about the stunning beauty of males in other species and how hard they work to get laid. Intricate fan dances with plumage! Building a little amphitheater to put on a show! Fancy flight patterns with acrobatics! Building a home you hope will attract her! Mind-boggling sculptures of mud and twigs! Watch any nature special, we women have been gypped!
Arthur seems to miss the point of this. The males of other species work so hard because they have to, in order to have sex. Females who want sex don’t need to try, only choose. But because of patriarchy, women now have to compete in order to become someone’s sex slave—as Arthur would have it. He’s just pissed that men have to do the work without the payment that’s been coin of the realm for 5000 years--girls. He seems to think the empire needs to remedy this but I dunno how that’s gonna happen.
However, if he think males are inherently more attractive, why isn’t he gay? Because those are the men who ARE working it. And how ancient Greece solved the incel problem. Then I might agree men are the beautiful gender, and smell better too. When I ask my gay buddy in aerial what scent he’s wearing, he answers ‘Expensive.’ And I believe it.
patriarchy is unbekoming
Unbekoming has followed up his interview of Janice Fiamengo and article on ‘The Feminist War on Human Nature’ with ‘The Great Feminization’:
In the first article, he lumps together the 1848 Declaration of Sentiments that says all of history has been male tyranny, with women sniping online about their husbands’ sexuality or posting #KillAllMen. Has Unbekoming heard of infiltration and controlling the opposition? He seems to take all this at face value, that modern feminism is a grassroots movement in which each player—although not controlled—can be seen as representing the whole. This seems naive for a seasoned conspiracy realist.
Facts exist, however. In 1848, every history of every Indo-European society reported that men had always held the power of violence, money and property ownership over women. Women’s sexuality had always been owed exclusively to one male, chosen by her father. According to the law, she was his possession. As I wrote to Peter Goodgame on his excellent blog Sky Gods and Sacrifice:
On law, from Gerda Lerner’s The Creation of Patriarchy:
“Of the 282 laws in the Code of Hammurabi, 73 cover subjects pertaining to marriage and sexual matters. Out of 112 surviving Middle Assyrian laws, some 59 deal with the same topics. ... Out of 200 Hittite laws only 26 deal with marriage and sexual regulation; on the other hand, they are more restrictive of women than the other law codes.”
It hasn’t been until the last half-century that archeologists found evidence of advanced cultures, to which we have yet to catch up, in which women owned their own sexuality and children. It’s taken anthropologists like David Graeber to reveal that cultures of women’s sovereignty have existed this half-millennium, but not in Europe. So the 1848 Declaration is not accurate but you wouldn’t know that from his-story.
Fiamengo and Unbekoming make much of women claiming moral superiority. A quarter to half of these oldest laws pertain to men controlling women’s sexuality. The oldest moral code is what I call the Rule of Reciprocity: whatever would be wrong for someone else to do to you is wrong for you to do to them.
There is no place and no era in which women have controlled men’s sexuality. There has never been matriarchy. So the question isn’t whether men should rule women or women should rule men, the question is whether we should rule ourselves.
one-legged maga-hatted gypsies
Unbekoming cites from his interview with William Briggs, ‘who also challenged climate orthodoxy’:
“We have to let it play out to its logical conclusion and then rebuild from the ashes.” He identifies Equality—that sacred feminist principle—as the poison destroying science itself. “Because these ladies get into science, discover that they aren’t as good at it as the people [men] there, and then start whining and carping about being Victims.” The annual conferences—Women in Physics, Women in Statistics—exist not to advance knowledge but to advance grievance.
Briggs’ point cuts deep: “If they had anything worth saying about the world, and could prove it, then nobody would care if they were one-legged midget MAGA-hatted gypsies.” But instead of producing better science, feminist scientists demand their poor work be accepted as good because of who did it. Equality, as Briggs warns, “infects and degrades and eventually destroys everything it touches.”
In ‘The Oligarchic Bargain: Why Capitalism Loves Feminism,’ Unbekoming states:
If feminism were truly threatening to power, it would be crushed. Instead, it’s lavishly funded, institutionally supported, and corporate-championed. This paradox reveals feminism’s true function: not liberation, but labor market restructuring in service of oligarchic interests. … This is why every globalist institution—from the UN to the World Bank to the WEF—champions feminism. Not because they care about women, but because feminist societies are easier to control.
Exactly! I don’t agree with Unbekoming’s fatalism that all threats to power are doomed, but he outlines exactly how feminism has been usurped. Why is he blaming women rather than the oligarchs? He then blames feminists for Marx, so they’re simultaneously ‘capitalism’s handmaiden’ and Marxist dupes out to destroy the family for communism. And they created immigration too by fighting all those wars in foreign countries and being economic hitwomen who incited coups and colonization. Oh, wait a minute, no, men did that … but immigration’s still the fault of women and their damn empathy.
the objectification paradox
In The Feminist War on Human Nature, Unbekoming cites:
But there’s a deeper tragedy here, one that Zinnia captured brilliantly in her essay on “Zoomer Girl Derangement.” As she writes, “Girlhood ends when the world looks at you. One day, you wake up and you’re a sex object. This is terrifying. Men want you and they are bigger than you and stronger than you. Yet almost immediately, young women discover that this source of vulnerability is also their greatest power. The paradox is crushing: your desirability simultaneously endangers and empowers you.”
I will attach my article on Zoomer Girl Derangement and my conversation with ‘John Carter’ on why he doesn’t actually want to marry or support a woman, as he encourages Zinnia to see as her due for being pretty. However, he would like one to have his baby and give it to him … not only getting the milk for free but the calf too.
Does a woman’s desirability actually empower her, given that men like John want sex and babies but no responsibility for the mother? And is it really power to get a man to take financial responsibility for you?
the two-income trap
Unbekoming cites Helen Andrews on the economics:
Andrews connects this to the “two-income trap” Elizabeth Warren inadvertently documented before her political career. Competitive bidding for housing and education assumes dual incomes, pricing out single-earner families. Women cannot afford to stay home even if they prefer it. Men cannot support families alone even if they want to. Children are raised by strangers while parents serve corporate masters.
Andrews has stolen this connection from me. I define it in my book:
the two-income trap: a term coined by Elizabeth Warren and her daughter to indicate that, as incomes rise, so do expenses for the same commodities, driven up by the bidding war on houses. Therefore, while women won the right to work in one generation, giving them more choices, they lost the ability to raise a family on one income in the next.
Warren only showed “that the 2013 couple spends a smaller percentage than their grandparents on food, appliances, cars, clothing and vacations. The food and goods that they do buy are cheap—cheaply made, mass-produced, and sold at big-box stores. Their access to stuff is greater than ever, but the quality of their goods and their ability to produce have both been wiped out.”
Strangely for an economist, she never mentions the bidding up of debt on houses, which was my addition. To Andrews and Unbekoming, this isn’t at all the fault of the bankers. It’s women! They should have organized en-masse to refuse to get an education or work outside the home. Didn’t they see what would happen? Where was their economic savvy to understand debt-based competitive mortgages created out of thin air by bankers?
But now, alas, the genie may be unbottleable, laments Unbekoming:
The solution isn’t returning women to kitchens—that’s neither possible nor desirable. The solution is acknowledging that different institutions require different virtues, that masculine and feminine approaches each have value, and that pretending otherwise destroys both.
So gracious of him when he’s just admitted that women who DO desire to return to the kitchen no longer can. So what is he suggesting? What is this ambiguous ‘different institutions require different virtues’? Please elaborate, dear Unbekoming, a generation depends on you.
Is there a plan anywhere out there to take back mortgages from the oligarchs, freeing both men and women’s labor to serve the family and community? Or are you fine with men’s labor serving the oligarchs, as long as they get paid in women as sex slaves and domestic servants? Stop whining and attributing everything that’s gone wrong to feminism, using anecdotes as your arguments. Man up and put your solution rooster in the ring.
wussy monarchs
Unz Review published an article by Edward Dutton called The Rise of the Extreme Female Brain. It begins:
Research indicates that we can reasonably distinguish between the “Extreme Male Brain” and the “Extreme Female Brain.” The former is interested in logic and systematizing to the neglect of emotion and how people feel. The latter is focused on the emotions of others, on empathy, and on ensuring everyone is included but it is “system blind.” As women have become more influential in society, it seems fairly clear that we have moved from a focus on logic and consistency to an obsession with how others feel. This shift is epitomised in the treatment of Prince Andrew or, as we are suddenly supposed to call him, Andrew Mountbatten Windsor. …
On 30th October, seemingly in response to the King being booed by members of the public and someone aggressively asking him how much he knew about his brother’s behaviour, Andrew was stripped of his titles of nobility, his knighthood, the prenominal “His Royal Highness” and even of the title “Prince,” humiliatingly reducing him to the status of a “commoner.”
I commented:
Glad that, as a male, you can ‘reasonably’ and ‘based on research’ distinguish between the extreme male and extreme female brain, Edward. The extreme male uses logic and consistency, the basis of your argument here, but lacks emotion–something you see as an obsession with how others feel, epitomized in the extreme female brain. The extreme male brain is a positive trait while the extreme female is a negative trait that the extreme male is lacking. To be emotional is to be illogical–logically speaking. Therefore male is better, female inferior, in your ‘research.’
A lack of awareness of others is called autism. It goes along with an obsession with order and predictability, and one’s self. This is the male brain, if you’re defining it as lack of empathy. An extreme of that would be a psychopath or sociopath.
A hyper-awareness of others and what they think of you would be the opposite. There are certainly more women than men who have a desire to please others, at their own expense. More women are conflict-adverse, which is why few comment in the contentious Unz forum.
From your analysis, the guy called the king suffers from an inordinate desire to please others. He just can’t stand to not be popular! He ‘defenestrated’ his poor brother because people booed him. And this is the fault of women!
Is that logical? You don’t think this was done to prevent an actual investigation into the facts? You don’t think this was ordered by those who really pull the strings of a king, the Rothschilds? No, according to you, he showed ‘hysteria’, a word with the same root as hysterectomy to mean a women’s malady, used to discredit and lobotomize women who claimed sexual abuse.
I don’t get caught up in these royal soap operas because my interest is in the systems of hierarchy, as in my book How to Dismantle an Empire. From my research, it started with men who believed themselves superior to women. Obviously, that’s still running the world, not feminine empathy.
courting abusers
This article by Zawn Villines is one of the best I’ve seen exposing the ‘courts biased towards mothers’ lie. Some excerpts:
In 91% of custody cases, the parents mutually decide to give custody to the mother. Fathers fight for custody in court in less than 4% of divorces.
Twenty-seven percent of fathers completely abandon their children after divorce. It’s so rare for women to abandon their children that there is no recent, reliable data on the subject.
Fathers who fight for custody typically get it. Even 30 years ago, 94% of fathers who sought custody got sole or joint custody. Abusive fathers are especially successful. Seventy-two percent win their custody cases. In one study where both parents fought hard for custody, mothers were awarded custody just 7% of the time. Only in a patriarchal society does a 93% win rate somehow equate to male victimhood. …
Contrary to what men’s rights advocates would have you believe, though, women don’t win custody on false claims of domestic violence. Numerous studies have shown the opposite: women are twice as likely to lose custody when they report abuse, even when the abuse is documented. No such bias exists for fathers, who do not lose custody at higher rates when they claim abuse.
Courts are also eager to place children with male parents whom the child says has abused them, according to this series of case reports. Fifty-nine percent of abusive fathers were given sole custody, suggesting that abusers are actually at an advantage. And even when the fathers did not get sole custody, not one single abuser was denied contact with the child.
In two-thirds of cases, the court pathologized the mother for attempting to protect the child, punishing her for her protective instincts and reducing her contact with the child. Tragically, the same review found that 88% of children placed with abusive fathers experienced new episodes of abuse after their father gained custody.
A very funny Zawn article starts: “Thanks for reaching out to the #notjustmen hotline with your emergency! We are a sister project of the #notallmen hotline. If you need help from them, please hang up now and reach them here. We at the #notjustmen hotline have observed a new trend: Men understand that it is no longer socially acceptable to derail conversations about sexist abuse by claiming it’s not all men. So they’ve taken to reminding us that it’s not just men.”
The article I couldn’t find analyzes a study that ‘proves more women than men abuse children.’ Those who remember state reports showing the unvaxxed were dying at 3X the rate of the vaxxed know to dig deeper—like finding out those vaxxed in the last 3 weeks were being counted as unvaxxed. When something is counterintuitive, dig.
What the article showed is that the raw data was misleading. Something like 90% of the time when there was one caregiver, it was a woman. When there was a father and a mother, and the father abused the child, the mother was charged with failure to protect even if she was also a victim of the abuse—counting equally with active harm. And neglect was counted as abuse even when no harm came to the child.
When weighed as a percentage of total caregiving and separating active intent to harm from neglect or failure to protect, the results showed that fathers were overwhelmingly the main perpetrators of abuse. Zawn continues:
Men are not the only abusers. But every available statistic suggests that men disproportionately contribute to abuse, child neglect, and similar issues. For example, 20% of men have abandoned all of their children, but less than 0.002% of women have. Most men do not pay all of the child support they owe—which, incidentally, is a tiny sum, with average monthly child support payments hovering around $400 (less than it costs to cover a month of childcare).
When fathers get child support—which they almost always do when they’re awarded custody—they get more.
the abortion canard
Of course, Unbekoming cites abortion as proof that millions of potential mothers are babykillers with no natural feeling for a child. They’ll have the skull of a full-term infant crushed, with its brain sucked out! That’s now legal in Australia, where he is. For some reason, mothers carry a child for nine months and then change their minds. They need to be forced to have those babies and hand them over to the men, who are better at caring for kids. That’s what they want us to believe.
A psyops is something that turns us against one another instead of uniting against the rulers. This smells like a psyops to me. Can I have some moms weigh in on the comment thread? Do you find it credible that mothers are having full term abortions on a whim? It goes against everything I know as a mom and every mom I know.
For a perspective of what a mom will go through for her kids, I highly recommend:
In this feisty video, I look at The Dragon Mother: a New Look at the Female Psyche, or Female Psycho as is Michael’s view. And women who love men and trash other women, like Janice Fiamengo, self-professed man defender, and Hannah Spier who co-authors the podcasts, “What Should I Tell My Daughter?” and “Psychobabble.” I contrast my system, which releases men from soul-sucking jobs and allows their labor also to serve the family.
Reporting from the white guilt capital of the world, I look at seventh wave feminism as defending the right of men to look like women and the right of women to work like men. OG Feminism, pre-patriarchy in 3000 BCE, was women’s ownership of their own bodies and the ability to raise children who were exclusively theirs. I examine how that became twisted and the folly of men telling women what’s wrong with feminism.
“There is no reciprocity. Men love women. Women love children. Children love hamsters. Hamsters don’t love anyone; it is quite hopeless.” ― Alice ThomaElliss.
I look at a post on Toxic Old Divorcees, ‘hypersexual tribal sh*t’, sociopaths on love & marriage, the war of the sexes and ‘hoes, horndogs & hookers.’ I end with dragon dreams and womb wealth.
Looks at A Partial Explanation of Zoomer Girl Derangement by zinnia and John Carter’s articles Tonic Masculinity, The Devouring Mother of the Digital Longhouse and Pixel Valhalla. I give an alternate explanation as a mother of zoomers and challenge whether men want to buy neither the cow nor the milk, and when they call women hoes are merely quibbling over the price.
It seems to me that in the elite's efforts to pit groups against each other as paper dragons, male/female is as good a division as any.
And you seem blessed to sniff out the most egregious of those who are influenced by such psyops.
Dear Tereza. Thank you for your courage and digging into the shenanigans. I don't follow the people you have quoted and it almost boggles my mind how these men are blaming women for the biggest problems in our world. There's so much distortion around us, but rather than blaming women - who has the power? And the money? That's where it always leads too....
In your last article you mentioned putting housing into a trust. I'd like to learn more about the different kinds of trusts and how to protect our assets and my business. Do you have people you "trust" that can help me?
And as for moms speaking out about full term abortions. I don't have any info, but my gut says that if a woman is choosing that at 9 months, there's something seriously wrong going on. Perhaps she's experienced a level of abuse or fear that has kept her frozen and not facing reality. I think most people are dissociated from reality to some degree - and if you'll get in trouble, loose support from family or parents or partner from being pregnant, some might choose to bury their head in the sand. Avoiding reality is a common problem, and that would be just one extreme example.