Why has The Establishment*, for half a century full-on, favoured replacing men with women leaders?
Obviously, we can be sure that the real reason has nothing whatsoever to do with benefiting women! While the occasional woman (a tiny minority) may be happier and more fulfilled as a 'leader', the mass of women are systematically immiserated by becoming manipulated pawns, and their lives wasted.
You doubt this assertion? Look At Their Eyes! (...The windows of the soul - the entrenched misery, desperation.)
But why? The answer is simple. The Global Conspiracy of Purposive Evil are behind official feminism - as they are behind all mainstream ideas of recent decades - and what they want is control of the world population - and therefore they want the most controllable personnel: and women are more controllable than men.
Think about it: Men and women are psychologically different, so one or the other is going to be more controllable than the other, on average - and that would be women.
More exactly, women are more inclined to want to control themselves and each other.
The Establishment want control, but ideally they do not want to impose control - they want people to choose to be controlled to the extent that they deny being controlled, so much have they internalised their situation. To know one is being controlled is to invite resistance and reaction. But if the person regards the state of being controlled as their own choice and necessary and for their own well-being - well, that person is self-damned and actively resistant to repentance and liberation.
The modern, preferred, kind of control is via invisible and impersonal media and mechanisms - via the likes of perceived peer pressure, fashion and social approval/ sanctions. Women are much more manipulate-able by these indirect mechanisms than are men; because they are more sensitive to them and voluntarily collude in imposing them.
Women constitute the great majority of mass media and social media addicts (see who are glued to their 'smart'-phones as they walk along busy streets); and can be induced to do almost anything to themselves and each other! - Up to and including gross and permanent uglifying mutilations such as genital surgery, foot binding, plastic surgery and tattooing - as well as the more normal and obvious rotating absurdities of hair, makeup and clothing fashions.
(Women will not only do these things to themselves and each other, but will believe and argue that it is both necessary and good to do them.)
The relative manipulability of women is also seen in terms of the fact that in all developed countries women have chosen sub-fertility and the extinction of their tribes in order to pursue 'leadership' goals - such that the representative modern woman chooses (and fights!) to become a middle manager drone embedded n a bureaucracy, instead of a wife and mother running a home - and this is the other side of the coin of mainstream 'official feminism' focused upon women as favoured leaders.
In sum, from the perspective of a global ultra-elite with an evil agenda for the destruction of values, and the strategy of seeking this via control; it is easy to understand why they should want women as leaders rather than men - and why this agenda should have been consistently, and increasingly, pushed for so many decades, across the full spectrum of mass media, government and official propaganda, via the arts and charities, and through the systems of law, education, mainstream so-called-Christianity, and all other powerful social influences.
*Note: For those new to this blog, I should make clear that I regard the ultimate core-controllers of The Establishment to be demons - literally those supernatural personages of purposive evil as described in the New Testament and familiar to modern people via CS Lewis's The Screwtape Letters. These immortal spirits provide the long-term strategy and direction which can be perceived in history - but the great mass of their servants, serfs and slaves are men and women.
One could also note that female leadership is not necessary to destroy an organization or profession. Mere female participation in an organization or profession has a negative, undermining effect. Once females join the organization, it no longer focuses on "the mission", but on the women and their feelings. The men stop doing their jobs and focus instead on winning female favor (and meanwhile the women starts playing the men off against each other and trying to get men to do her job for her). If the organization has any sort of professional standards, these are invariably lowered. This phenomenon is most obvious in the more "macho" professions with physical performance requirements (military, police, firefighter) but is also manifest in sedentary jobs.
Female leadership amplifies this destructive effect and permits her to systematize it "from the top" but once they are in the door at all, decline invariably follows.
Part of the reason why discrimination in favour of women is so popular is definitely that females are more conformist and collectivist by nature, more inclined to simply go along with fashionable views and less able to generally think outside the box.
This is also the main reason why there has for a long time been such a deluge of propaganda from the media, academia, education systems and all the rest regarding how men are responsible for all the world's ills, enjoy many ill-deserved privileges, are systematically oppressing women, are collectively responsible for various crimes or violence against women etc. etc. It is a form of psychological warfare. If you can psychologically break the male population and instill in them as much shame and self-hatred as possible, it ensures there is no resistance to the agenda of the elites. Females on the other hand do not really need to be broken, as they are by nature more inclined to simply go along with the prevailing agenda. Basically, you use women to control men to ensure there is no resistance to those at the top.
It is also why males are heavily discriminated against in areas such as family law, reproductive rights, employment, education and the like. If there are larger numbers of males that are more marginalised from meaningful roles in family life or the workforce, they are more likely to believe they have no stake in society and are therefore less likely to defend society if it comes under attack.
@JP and M - Indeed, largely-so, but what I am interested in is the spiritual agenda.
Impairing efficiency and effectivness of institutions is not the ultimate objective - it is merely a means to the end of *spiritual* SDI - subversion, destruction, inversion.
My impression is that (as a broad generalisation) when men are being controlled, it is by coercion and fear of one sort or another; and they usually know it is happening to them personally, and hate it explicitly, even if/ when they do nothing about it.
It is different with women - and this is why the demonic elite have focused upon getting women into those positions of leadership which have traditionally been occupied by *self*-motivated individuals. These then cease to be leadership positions, and instead become conduits for channeling The Establishment agenda.
Indeed. You can't serve two masters. You can't serve both Satan and money
Indeed. Including the leadership position called "head of the household"
The system of Leftism uses anyone that it imagines has a grievance against the majority, and then discards them when their usefulness is done. Ideology is a mind-virus such that all things are a means to that end, and the only benefit is warm feelings for the underconfident. Most women are increasingly underconfident since they have been displaced from traditional roles, in which they had an exclusive place, and turn into labor by the pound like everyone else. Great article :)
Bruce, come to think of it that is an important distinction you make.
Men who are being controlled through coercion or fear are more likely to be somewhat aware of it and resent it. Even if they don't have the will to do much about it. Whereas women are more likely to happily submit to a more dominant power. That may be part of the reason why female leaders are more useful.
But the impression I get is that the global elites don't really place a high priority on replacing men with women in positions such as government leadership (though that may be happening now to some extent with Clinton, May, Merkel and so on). After all, most government leaders are part of the 'inner club'. So they are not targeted for marginalisation in the same way as the majority of lower status males in society are.
Instead, I get the impression the elites place a higher priority on replacing men with women in positions slightly lower on the food chain such as middle management, bureaucracies, local government, the professions, academia, most jobs that don't require physical strength etc., as well as the obvious role of 'head of household'. These are the areas where they need a larger number of well trained foot soldiers that are not really privy to the real agenda at the top, but can still faithfully carry out the ideological dictates that are a cover for the real agenda.
It is fairly obvious why the modern left has championed women as a key victim group. Unlike other groups such as homosexuals or racial minorities, women make up a majority of the population (and are therefore key to electoral majorities). Moreover, women have far more ingroup bias and preference than men and so they are a more natural fit for identity politics of one kind or another.
As always, the question of which group is actually most disadvantaged or aggrieved is a secondary concern to which groups can be more effectively mobilised for political purposes.
Post a Comment