Complimentary Gender Roles V. Political Correctness
It’s become something of a minefield, these days, to discuss the subject of gender. People are increasingly offended by any view that doesn’t perfectly mirror their own. I say, “their own,” but, of course, it rarely ever is their own. More often than not, a person is merely expressing their social programming, stemming from ruthless and relentless political agendas. There’s very little critical thinking going on, among the masses, and certainly no awareness of how social engineering is used to steer society in particular directions.
When it comes to gender, there is an effort afoot to make men irrelevant, under a variety of politically correct memes and guises. I don’t know this because I am super intelligent, or because I’m a brilliant researcher. I know this because I’m awake. And by “awake” I am not referring to “woke,” which is a good example of what a social engineering program actually looks like.
No, by “awake,” I simply mean that I have awoken from the dream or illusion that society is anything other than a mental construct; one which serves nothing and no one but those who control it. And if that sounds like some sort of conspiracy theory… well, it’s supposed to. The term “conspiracy theory,” which has an inherently negative connotation, was deliberately designed to dissuade people from questioning official narratives or from realising that many of these “theories” are actually the result of what used to be called investigative journalism.
In any case, the result of all of this chicanery is that men are becoming increasingly confused about what is expected of them by the opposite sex. Many are hesitant to simply open a shop door for a woman. And with reason, since many women are genuinely offended by such actions. Meanwhile, a dozen or so wrinkly old men in suits are sitting around a table somewhere, laughing hysterically at our stupidity. Are you starting to get how this works yet?
The Inherent Limitations of Language
It goes without saying that the words ‘male’ and ‘female’ represent the entire spectrum of human diversity (well, almost). And yet I feel that I do have to make this point, because individuals are increasingly taking it upon themselves to represent the entire human race, or at least half of it. For example, a man will say, “offering to support and protect women is precisely what is disempowering them.”
Well, hold on a minute. Shouldn’t women be answering this question for themselves; not as a collective, but as individuals? Doesn’t the above statement, itself, reflect a typically male and slightly misogynistic attitude (one man presuming to speak on behalf of 3.5 billion women)? Moreover, shouldn’t we be considering the intent and motivation of a man who naturally feels inclined towards a protective and supportive role? In other words, is it coming from a place of love, or because he sees women as being weak and incapable?
Yes, there are strong women who like men to play a submissive role within a relationship. And there are women who enjoy a more, shall we say, traditional arrangement; indeed, who want a man to “protect” her, not least by putting a roof over her head, and to “support” her, whether financially, emotionally or simply in terms of honouring her decisions. None of these individual preferences conflict with anything that I’ve been speaking about. All that really matters is motivation. That is to say, a man can express his love through submission and “service,” by allowing a woman to dominate him. However, a man can also express his love by playing a more protective and supportive role, if that is what the woman desires. And so long as love is the main motivator, neither of these expressions “disempower” women in any way.
To merely generalise that, “women don’t need or want the support and protection of men,” reflects nothing but a political agenda (against both sexes). For by making women aspire to a kind of autonomy, they are simultaneously making men redundant and irrelevant. This is not progress, and has nothing to do with the divinely ordained dynamic that the sexes represent.
Consider, also, that a woman, in recognition of a man’s inclination to play the role of protector, may “allow” him to do so, out of love. Ultimately, life is a grand role play, anyway, albeit a divine one. And we each have unique parts to play within in.
Generally, men and women are obviously different, both physically and psychologically, but these differences are designed to be complimentary, rather than divisive. Attempting to swing the pendulum from one extreme to the other (from suppression to autonomy) serves neither sex, and is deliberately designed to steer humanity towards a sexless, androgynous future, overseen by AI.
Let’s be honest here: Since we are all flawed and potentially vulnerable human beings, shouldn’t we be protecting and supporting each other, regardless of gender, to the best of our ability?
Ultimately, that patriarchy exists at all reflects the catastrophic failure of men to protect women; to protect women from men; from male ego; from male greed; and from the male lust for power. I watch with increasing sadness and incredulity as society embraces a very patriarchal solution to the problem of female suppression. Namely, the turning of women into men.
”I don’t want to protect you because I see you as weak, but because I see you as precious.”
