Was Feminism and/or the Sexual Revolution planned by MEN?

Readership: All;
Theme: The W!tchy War on Masculinity
Length: 1,000 words
Reading Time: 6 minutes + 1 hour video interview

Seeing how the top 10% men fully benefit from an open sexual market, I’ve often wondered if the whole Feminist movement, the Sexual Revolution, and even the convergence of the church is a massive conspiracy spearheaded by powerful men for the purpose of creating an open sexual market from which they can access more p_ssy with fewer responsibilities to themselves, with the consequences being offloaded to all the average Joes.

And who might these powerful men be? One guess is the secret societies of yesteryear that were duly famous for their lecherous rituals.

img-1783682053-6a50d40503fd99.89318504.jpg

Seriously, it seems I am not the only person who has come to this conclusion.

Dead Bedroom Dating wrote,

“This is the reality: Male church attendants are completely powerless under church authority. It’s the goal of church authority to make males powerless, because that empowers church officials and their female followers. Most Western men of course recognized that long ago and just left church.”

In her new book, The Case against the Sexual Revolution, authoress Louise Perry questions the notion that the sexual revolution has been a gain or a liberation for women. Quite the opposite.

“Women have been conned,” she declares. The sexual revolution, Perry emphatically argues, didn’t liberate them. Instead, it liberated the libidos of high-status playboys and lechers such as Hugh Hefner and H@rvey We!nste!n at the expense of women. “We have smoothly transitioned from one form of female subservience to another,” she writes, “but we pretend that this one is liberation.”  The rule of St. Augustine has been replaced with the rule of Don Juan and thus: “It’s time for a sexual counter-revolution.”

Areo: The Bedevilments of Sex: Louise Perry’s “The Case against the Sexual Revolution” (2022/6/3)

In the first three minutes of this interview with Mary Eberstadt entitled, Did The Sexual Revolution Actually Benefit Women? (2023/10/26), Chris Williamson asks,

“Who were the biggest winners and losers of the sexual revolution in your opinion?”

Eberstadt answers,

“It’s a long story, but I think the biggest winners have been men, and in particular predatory men, and I think the biggest losers have been romance, men who are not predatory men, and women, and children.”

At around the 13 minute mark, Williamson cites Louise Perry and Rob Henderson as having similar views.

At the 18 minute mark Eberstadt says,

“I think feminism took a wrong turn a long time ago, after the 1960s, and stopped putting women first…”

After mentioning that p0rn0gr@phy and the sexual Revolution was bad for human relationships because it objectifies women, she concludes,

“Feminism seemed to buy into a kind of libertarianism that benefited men. And so by the 1980s and 1990s, instead you hear feminist voices defending p0rn0gr@phy as a woman’s right and something that no one has a right to question.  And this is a sea change that I think tells us a lot about what happened when feminism stopped putting women first.”

So again, we see that women must come first, and if that hasn’t happened, then something has gone wrong. Of course, the blame for this presumed derailment is shifted onto men.

img-1783682054-6a50d406506209.32567167.png

At 21 minutes, Williamson bats for men by bringing up the reduction in standards for men to gain sexual access.  But he fails to mention that requiring standards for men only works when a grand majority of women are actually worthy of marriage and are also gatekeeping sex before and within marriage, thereby providing men both the incentive and the lack of options, respectively.

Eberstadt responds,

“I think there’s been a lowering of the standards for both sexes.  But I think the biggest problem here is that men are not being given their due, frankly.  They’re not being given things to live up to and strive for, including the privilege of protecting a woman and children.  The idea that that’s even a privilege is dangerously close to being lost in our culture.”

She doesn’t say why — that it’s not a privilege to have a one-hundred-and-second hand kilogram wife who only marries you for the sake of being married, and to accept full responsibility for her offspring with another man, only to be divorce gr@ped.

Conclusions

I won’t comment on the entire interview between Williamson and Eberstadt. Suffice it to say that they raised many valid points, but they won’t cross that invisible line of stating the following.

  • That female sexual liberation breaks down assortative mating and permits all women to bed the top males with few repercussions. Thus, women are victims of their own hypergamy.
  • That women need to be more conscientious gatekeepers of sex if they want men to be more liberal gatekeepers of commitment. IOW, free love has a price that comes later in life.
  • That women should take marriage seriously enough to prepare themselves to be a quality virgin bride if they want men to take marriage seriously enough to “Man UP” and provide the ring. In short, women need to exercise agency.

Given these omissions, overall, this angle sounds like a revamped reprise of The Oppressive P@tr!@rchy™ narrative, except now the key perpetrators have been identified as top SMV men.

img-1783680920-6a50cf98c0b678.27379186.jpg

Exit Question

Here’s a couple questions for readers to ponder.

  1. Is this idea truly true (that top SMV men are responsible for, and are the key beneficiaries of feminism and the sexual revolution), or is this part of a new narrative that is being spun?
  2. If more women latch on to this idea, what will happen?

A. There will be a stupendously drastic pendulum swing back to something staunchly traditional.
B. Top SMV men will be identified as the primary antagonists of feminism, and will come to bear the full brunt of feminist chastizement and denigration.
C. Top SMV men will be herded into breeding communes where they can be controlled and let out to women on demand.
D. Feminism will be “revised” and “purified” with the aim of putting women first once again.
E. More cathartic chatter and nothing will be done to improve the social conditions of lower SMV men.
F. Some combination of the above?
G. Other?

During this month’s theme, I’d like for us to keep this c0nsp!racy theory in the back of our heads and see if there is any evidence for this.

Related