Feminism, Family Destroyer – Illimitable Men

Feminism, Neoreaction

# Feminism, Family Destroyer

November 25, 2013September 3, 2014by IM

I intend this article to be more of an “academic entry piece” to red pill philosophy, so I have included references to my points for those who need a veneer of academic credibility in order to open their minds to facilitate the reality that can be readily observed on a day-to-day basis by any unbrainwashed human in a feminist society. I do however apologise that the citations do not link to the footnotes as I don’t have the software readily available to do it, so you will have to look in the footnotes manually to see the sources.

Feminism has caused a rift between the sexes, between the age-old union of man and woman, the yin and yang that makes two peas in a pod, men and women have been culturally emancipated from each other in a social engineering effort for them to “not need each other” or very specifically, so that women specifically “don’t need no man!” and can become “a strong independent woman” (read: lonely) which certainly begs the question, how did this come to be?

This paradigm was socially engineered via the efforts of an ideology known as feminism, it was an ideology that sold women the lie that men were inherently evil beings who were oppressive in nature, and by demonizing men told women they needed to give up their femininity and take on more masculine traits in order to meet men on a level playing field under some perverse pretense of “equality.” A divide and conquer technique used to pit the genders against each other, if you will.

We always hear about the “positives of feminism” some real, (civil rights) some imagined (women commonly adopting boisterous and narcissistic self-entitled behaviour? not so much) of course the negatives are something the incredibly biased leftist media neglect to mention or even explore (they give you only one perspective,the so-called “strengths”, but neglect to mention its weaknesses you see), so for once, let’s look at just some of the plethora of negative elements in society which we can attribute as either directly caused by feminism, or correlated with but not caused by feminism. Oh boy, don’t we sure have a lot to talk about?!

1. Single Parenthood.
(READ: Single parent households are almost always headed by women [1]), this is because women tend to unilaterally get custody in the majority of cases due to a biased family court system, another reason for single parenthood is because women can have babies without the consent of the “sperm donor”, eg: she lies to a man that she is on contraception when she is not, when he leaves his sperm inside her post coitus she lets it fertilise inside her and has a baby without the fathers knowledge or consent (reasoning: because she’s broody and wants a child) by the time she carries the baby to term, the man is out of the picture and is completely unaware that his genetic material has been used to create human life.

Single parenthood is bad, one parent is not as good as two for multiple reasons: it leads to lower resource availability, there’s a lower chance of valuable skill sets being made available to the immediate family because there’s only one parent with one set of skills, rather than two parents with two sets of skills and of course then there’s the big one, the primary socialisation of a child – only one gender influence on the child’s development. Atypically in modern western society this manifests as a feminist-feminine influence with no to minimal hegemonic masculine influence on the childs developmental process whatsoever, the resulting lack of developmental diversity holds the child back and gives it a far from optimum start in life to fulfill the apex of its hypothetical potential.

On the note of a lack of resources and the welfare state reliance which encapsulates the majority of those whom can be considered single parents, children raised in single parent households are more likely to be in poverty (as there’s only one adult who can bring in money. [2]) The poverty has a knock-on effect and increases the likelihood the child will commit a crime and spend time in jail [3], it also decreases the likelihood a child will reach university level and attain a bachelor’s degree, as at the high school level it has been observed they begin to fall behind. [4]

This trend is even more resounding in the case of young boys, women cannot teach boys masculinity and what it is to live in the male condition because they simply do not experience it for themselves and by the inherent nature of their own experience, have an opposing frame of reference. A woman can analyse and deduce masculinity from the outside and try to rationalise its nature based upon her observations, but this knowledge is inferior to that which comes from the condition of being male itself, from a man.

A woman cannot teach boys methodologies which men rely upon in their interactions in handling women, they cannot teach them to think like men, they are far more adverse in nature and thus have a tendency to wrap their boys up in cotton wool rather than foster his biological disposition to acquire strength via the tests and tribulations that are available to challenge and strengthen the fortitude and mettle of a young boy, this is strength an adult woman will expect him to have when he is an adult man if she is to choose him as a suitable mate and if he doesn’t “man up” and “grow some balls” his female peers will be asking when they all reach adulthood “where did all the good men go?” This but a mere manifestation of the scam which exposes the feminist idea of gender equality as a complete sham in actual practice.

The type of knowledge that boys need specifically from their fathers is that of which a man of significant value would impart onto his young son in various rites of passages such as: pep talks, trips together through hunting, sports and other male-to-male bonding experiences, experiences which fortify the bonds of father to son friendship and mentorship which young boys NEED to flourish and actualise the best versions of themselves.

Denying boys their fathers is inherently setting them up to fail with odds which do not favour them from the get go as the sheer multitude of knowledge they need to acquire which cannot be taught by their mothers must then be learnt through a psychologically painful, arduous and often humiliating process of trial and error, leaving only the toughest boys to survive and quite literally fight for their masculinity.

Do you need proof of these assertions because you’re cynical of such inherently conducive logic? Allow me to oblige: In single parent households where there is the absence of an father there is a statistically significant increase in rates of suicide, drug abuse and alcohol abuse in young men [5], single parenthood lowers the educational attainment of boys and promotes higher dropout rates (girls are outperforming boys in education at all levels, but especially university level now) [6], it also increases the prevalence of behavioural disorders that can manifest in boys and increases the likelihood that the boy will commit rape. [7]

2. Institutional and social sexism (men must self-censor, women need not.)
The ridicule of men is overt and widely accepted in the media, at work, on the street etc. Women are allowed to make blanket generalisations which are often offensively directed at men (usually delivered in a delightfully catty, condescending manner) and nobody bats an eyelid at this overt display of sexism. Yet you tell a 50-year-old woman she’s quite old (a fact) and you’ve caused great offense which needs social correction that usually goes by something along the lines of: “You never ask a lady her age!” (so apparently the pre-requisite to receive the title of “lady” is simply to be old? anyhow, I digress) It appears that apparently women are so special that many of them can’t handle being old when they get old. Inversely a woman can say you’re a Neanderthal whose brain lives in his cock and nobody will bat an eyelid, a statement far more explicit than asking a woman her age or identifying that she is not young, behold that delectable double standard!

3. Men are safe to criticise and challenge, women are not.

Following on from the previous point, women are not allowed to be criticised anymore as apparently we must place an incredibly high amount of priority on what one could only consider inane sensibilities which manifest from one’s personal insecurities, criticism is about feedback and improvement but women on the feminist bandwagon tend to illogically rationalise anything negative sounding as oppressive and thus shut down completely, resorting to fallacies, shaming tactics and sticking their fingers in their ears to maintain their belief system (quite reminiscent of religious extremism really, isn’t it?) see a rather sublime example of the phenomena I refer to here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvYyGTmcP80

For example, most fat women cannot handle being told they’re fat, that they need to lose weight and being given advice on how to lose their weight, more than likely the woman in question will be offended you’ve acknowledged she has an unhealthy BMI and she’ll either shut down on you, or if she’s american, possibly join one of these perverse fat acceptance movements. Ugly women (not necessarily fat, just ugly) would rather be told that they’re beautiful rather than be told they’re not beautiful and being advised to work on their physicality to help it become the best of what is genetically attainable for them.

In this paradigm where the feminine whims and sensibilities dictate the confines of what essentially constitutes a gynocentric society, society (including lots of clueless men) thus begin to talk more and more bullshit to placate the fragile and delicate egos of western women, rather than be honest and help them to work on improving themselves via the distillation of tough love, also commonly known as “the truth.”

Such is the way of life in places like Eastern Europe where feminism is less pronounced due to the ideology being prevented from spreading there until post-1991 (due to the Soviet Union and Iron Curtain), the ideology has only recently spread there as Eastern European states have joined the EU and opened up their borders to western European nations (which are all feminist welfare states) however, I digress again.

4. Children from single parent households are worse behaved.
Children are no longer punished by schools or their parents, resulting in unruly behaviour and audacious little scrotes saying things like “what you gonna do then? you can’t hit me!” in a provocatively taunting manner, this factor is exacerbated by single parent households as the lack of a strong masculine presence often leads to a lack of self-discipline, substance abuse and all other kinds of shit which ends up in poor behaviour [8] (referenced earlier, but fuck it, have another reference.)

5. Violence/Aggression and any such component associated with masculinity is portrayed as negative in all absolutism.

Apparently these things can never be productive, instrumental or beneficial and they’re always unintelligent, uncontrolled and unproductive. Apparently violence cannot be intelligent or purposeful. Violence can be used instrumentally to discipline people, the military use it and they produce great, self-disciplined strong characters, men. Society used to use the same kind of discipline to a lesser extent, just look at how poorly disciplined most kids are now (go outside and observe if need be) to see what an absence of violence based discipline has resulted in.

Aggression can be used to negotiate/haggle/win/compete etc, masculinity is all of these things as is symptomatic of testosterone, to deny the male condition its right to exist is probably one of the most perverse and ironic things about feminism entirely – it claims to be about “gender equality” whilst it actively vilifies 1 of the 2 genders, masculinity, as inherently malevolent and in need of subjugation so thus by extension of that it demands that masculinity is subject to control in the form of checks and balances sanctioned by feminist approved research and dogma. In short: Feminism tries to pervert masculinity by redefining it with concepts like “the new age man” and demonising what masculinity actually is and always was.

Women test men for dominance like children test adults for dominance, if she thinks you cannot and will definitely not use your physicality as part of the contest for dominance then she will fear little from a man castrated of any iota of imposing physical dominance and use this fearlessness abusively, it’s not just about using violence, but more so the implied threat of violence, the deterrent – if you appear non-hostile as a man then to a woman, due to absence of fear, you are immediately respected less on both a superficial and psychological level. There’s a reason the high school jocks always got all the poon and respect, they were big, which subconsciously implies the ability to kick ass/protect/put her in her place when she’s being irrational and insufferable.

To put a more mainstream glazing on this because some of you out there with ridiculously poor logic will try to construct a strawman of me as encouraging domestic violence and thus all my reasoning null and moot, it is typical that a woman will respect a tall muscular man much more than even a muscular short man, simply because the size and the potential for that size to be used for protection/violence demands respect and it’s this implication of violence which women find inherently masculine in nature and by extension of being masculine, attractive. We can see this most profoundly in mainstream science via woman’s dating preferences, where they are mercilessly biased towards preferring and dating tall men.[9]

Pre-feminism it was socially acceptable to slap or hit a woman or child who was acting out to put them back into line, all of a sudden post-feminism this became a taboo, a most heinous crime. People don’t seem to differentiate between hitting someone because they’re unreasonable and just mindlessly trying to kill them with your bare hands. It seems in a feminist society that a smack and kicking the crap out of someone until they suffer injuries to their internal organs are synonymous acts of atrociousness, they cry “violence is bad, you shouldn’t ever use violence!” “you should never hit a woman!” “I don’t believe in hitting children!”

The reality is, not all violence is bad, it can be instrumental in reinforcing positive and constructive behaviours as long as, like anything, it is not exploited to the point of extremity or systematic abuse. Research has found that smacking small children, as long as they know you are smacking them because you care and want to correct their behaviour, does not do any harm. [10]

Obviously, no such similar research has been done on the romantic relationships between men and women as even the lightest slap from (a man to a woman, but ironically, not from a woman to a man) is considered domestic abuse and thus it is deemed far too politically incorrect to study such phenomena, it would never get the funding in a modern feminist state, but I put forth and postulate that you’d find similar results in cases with male to female interactions, if you want to back it up with real-life observations try asking the baby boomers or the baby boomer parents their opinions and experiences on it (assuming the people in question are willing to discuss such things.)

6. Safety and comfortability are valued over liberty, risk and hard work.
What this means is a sizeable number of people are getting lazy and unproductive (welfare state dependency) and the authorities are able to keep tabs on an ever-increasing population size (police state – CCTV – NSA etc) This is an effective change from masculine moral values to feminine ones in terms of how state government is run. Women make up the majority of the electorate and thus have a bigger say in dictating social policy with their vote. Feminism is not the only cause of the ever-increasing emergence of what appears to be a police state in western nations, terrorism and 9/11 have been used as scapegoats to justify such impingement on ones personal freedoms, however although not the sole reason it is safe to say that the legacy feminism has left is certainly a significant reason, if not a facilitator of today’s emerging western police states. Scare the women, give them a vote, they’ll vote for safety.

7. Wages have lowered in real terms since women entered the workforce.

I won’t say a lot here as the title speaks for itself, however look at this rather sensually telling graph compiled by research done by CNN Money:

Wage rates in America declined in real terms since 1968, not so ironically, coinciding with the eruption of the feminist movement. Where one wage used to be enough to feed an entire family, now often enough at the lower end of the socioeconomic scale two wages are needed. [11]

8. People are more unhappy than they used to be due to the destruction of the family unit and the loneliness it spawns.
More and more people are living alone and dying alone. There are more houses now with 1 person living in them than ever before, we’re becoming more disconnected as a society as more and more family lines cease to continue their lineage, instead falling into disarray due to the ease of divorce and an overly sexualized society which promotes promiscuity over commitment in order to sell products – it’s essentially an implosion of moralistic self-destruction which attacks societies collectives baser instincts in order to “rape them” for profit. [12]

9. The casual normalisation of “Hyper Promiscuity.”
People are casually fucking others without any real pair bonding and then opting to settle down when they’re much older out of fear of impending loneliness and forced solitude or choosing not to start a family at all. The mating culture for people of most ages is simply to use people and fuck them, forming no real pair bonds or emotional connections. Some people attempt relationships but the strength of these relationships is adversely affected by the external temptation which is hook-up culture, say when a relationship is going through a turbulent time, the opportunities offered by hook-up culture can seduce a spouse, leading to adultery, the eventual divulgence of said adultery to the other party involved and then typically an end to said relationship.

Hook-up culture is a direct consequence of the “sexual revolution” which feminism sparked, ignited and proclaims so loudly to be proud of. The notion that female promiscuity should be untamed and socially acceptable conduct, this can still be seen even today with feminisms efforts to normalise female promiscuity via campaigns such as being “anti-slut shaming” sure, because encouraging promiscuity is not only putting one at sexual risk via the prevalence of sexual disease, but is psychologically unappealing to a man looking to seriously build and create something with a woman for the long-term, thus damaging her own long-term chances at attaining happiness with a suitable suitor. Oh the self-inflicting irony.

1. The New York Times, ‘Single parents around the world’ – http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/10/single-parents-around-the-world/?_r=0

2. National Criminal Justice Reference Service – ‘Single-Parent Families Cause Juvenile Crime’ (From Juvenile Crime: Opposing Viewpoints, P 62-66, 1997, A E Sadler, ed.) – http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=167327

3. D. Cornell (et al.), Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 5. 1987. And N. Davidson, “Life Without Father,” Policy Review. 1990.

4. Sage Journals, ‘The Changing Effects of Lone Parent Families on the Educational Attainment of their Children in a European Welfare State’, J. Dronkers – Excerpt.

5. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services National Center for Health Statistics, ‘Survey on Child Health’, Washington, DC, 1993.

6. Child Poverty Action Group, ‘Who lives in Poverty?’, <http://www.cpag.org.uk/content/who-lives-poverty>

7. McLanahan, Sara and Gary Sandefur. ‘Growing up with a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps.’ Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1994.
8. The Telegraph, ‘Children in single parent families worse behaved’, <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/8064435/Children-in-single-parent-families-worse-behaved.html

9. PLOS One, ‘Are Human Mating Preferences with Respect to Height Reflected in Actual Pairings?’, <http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0054186>

10. Child Discipline, ‘Weak Evidence for a Smacking Ban’, <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1118118/>

11. CNN Money, ‘A history of the minimum wage since 1938‘, <http://economy.money.cnn.com/2013/02/14/minimum-wage-history/>

12. BBC, ‘People living alone ‘are more depressed’, <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-17475240>

If you have a problem you wish to discuss with IM, you can [seek a consultation here]

### Share:

- Twitter
- Facebook
- Reddit
- WhatsApp
- Telegram

### Like this:

## 9 thoughts on “Feminism, Family Destroyer”

1. Check out this documentary on Cultural Marxism, which Is really what is to blame for feminist extremism ideology, I think you explained all the ramifications of feminism but this will show a bit of history and give context to where the breakdown of western civilisation began.

   Reply

2. its already starting
   i’m seeing more males, although not homosexual (i think) starting to act like WOMEN or at least less masculine)
   also, kids need both parents because of PHEREMONES..
   when males are around JUST WOMEN in childbearing ages, they get weaker
   DON’T FORGET:
   when women of childbearing ages get together, their cycles synchronise==and when no real men around, boys have no thought of getting on liquor of POT for weeks at a time

   Reply

3. Fantastic.

   Reply

4. I disagree with your statement that women entering the work force has weakened wages for men. If you look at your graph there is a sharp increase in wages in the 1940’s. Why is that?After the military might of many industrialized nations bombed the crap out of each other during world war 2 the infrastructure of many of those nations was in great disrepair. Under the Marshall plan the US, who was left whole and whose manufacturing power was enhanced through war time industrialization, loaned money to these nations so that they might rebuild. The United States, conveniently, was one of the only nations set up to sell them the equipment, automobiles, machinery, etc to do this. At that time unions became VERY strong because it was a time of do or die for these companies. You either become a household name or close your doors. The orders were coming in and you had to placate your workers by giving into their demands because you had to make the products. As time went on these other nations rebuilt and started becoming more productive and more competitive, thus leveling the playing field and bringing wages closer to what they would be in a globally competitive marketplace. Unions became weaker and wages went down accordingly. Correlation doesn’t always equal causation. Is there something I might be missing?

   Reply
5. Pingback: Social Engineering in the West; the Shutting Down of Human Consciousness – Astute News
6. Pingback: Social engineering in the West; the shutting down of human consciousness. - Conservative News & Right Wing News | Gun Laws & Rights News Site : Conservative News & Right Wing News | Gun Laws & Rights News Site
7. Pingback: Social engineering in the West; the shutting down of human consciousness. - Dutch Anarchy
8. Pingback: SOCIAL ENGINEERING IN THE WEST; THE SHUTTING DOWN OF HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS. – Gerald's Place
9. Pingback: SOCIAL ENGINEERING IN THE WEST; THE SHUTTING DOWN OF HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS – The Truthers Journal

### Leave a ReplyCancel reply

Search for:

## Follow Illimitable Men

Powered by