The Misandry Bubble

Reddit View
April 22, 2016

Read the Entire Article Here


The Myth of Female Oppression : All of us have been taught how women have supposedly been oppressed throughout human existence, and that this was pervasive, systematic, and endorsed by ordinary men who presumably had it much better than women. In reality, this narrative is entirely fabricated. The average man was forced to risk death on the battlefield, at sea, or in mines, while most women stayed indoors tending to children and household duties. Male life expectancy was always significantly lower than that of females, and still is.

Warfare has been a near constant feature of human society before the modern era, and whenever two tribes or kingdoms went to war with each other, the losing side saw many of its fighting-age men exterminated, while the women were assimilated into the invading society. Now, becoming a concubine or a housekeeper is an unfortunate fate, but not nearly as bad as being slaughtered in battle as the men were. To anyone who disagrees, would you like for the men and women to trade outcomes?

Women believed that they could free themselves from all their traditional obligations (only to find, amusingly, that they are unhappier now than they were then), while men would still fulfill all of their traditional obligations, particularly as bankrollers of women and protectors of women. Needless to say, despite the chivalry ground into men, eventually, they will feel that chivalry requires a level of gratitude that is not forthcoming.


Patriarchy works because it induces men and women to cooperate under their complementary strengths. 'Feminism' does not work, because it encourages immoral behavior in women, which eventually wears down even the durable chivalry of beta men, making both genders worse off. It is no secret that single motherhood is heavily subsidized, but it is less understood that single spinsterhood is also heavily subsidized through a variety of unsustainable and unreciprocated means. The default natural solution is for the misandric society to be outcompeted and displaced.

Population Displacement : So we have arrived at a society where 'feminists' feel that they are 'empowered', 'independent', and 'confident', despite being heavily dependent on taxes paid mostly by men, an unconstitutional shadow state that extracts alimony and 'child support' from men, an infrastructure maintained by men, technologies invented by men, and a level of safety that men agree to maintain. So exactly what has society received from this population of women who are the most privileged class of humans ever to have lived?

Now, let me be clear; I believe a woman should get to decide how many children she bears, or even whether or not to have any children at all. However, a childless old woman should not then be able to extract resources from the children of other women. Fair is fair, and the obligation of working-age people to support the elderly should not be socialized in order to subsidize women who chose not to reproduce.

Let us take a hypothetical example of three 20- year-old single women, one who is an urban lefto-'feminist', one who is a rural conservative, and one who is a devout Muslim. The following table charts the parallel timelines of their lives as their ages progress in tandem, with realistic estimates of typical life events. When people talk about falling birth rates in the West, they often fail to account for the additional gap caused by having children at age 23 vs. at age 33. As the table shows, a 1:1:1 ratio of three young ladies takes only 40 years to yield a 12:4:0 ratio of grandchildren. Consider, also, that we are already 20 years into this 40-year process, so each of these women are 40 years old today.

So how do we estimate the value society will ultimately receive from organizing itself in a manner that young women could choose a life of bar-hopping, shopping for $300 purses, and working as government bureaucrats to make the government a more complete husband substitute? If the sight of a pitiful 60-year-old Code Pink harpy lecturing 12 Muslim adolescents that 'gender is a social construct' seems amusing, then let us move on to the macro chart. This world map(click to enlarge) shows how many children under the age of 15 existed in the major countries of the world in 2005 (i.e. born between 1990 and 2005), in proportion to the country with the most children. Notably, Mexico and the US have the same number of children, while Pakistan and Bangladesh each have about as many as all of Western Europe. While developing countries are seeing their fertility rates converge to Western levels, the 1990-2005 births already seal certain realities. Needless to say, if we move time forward just 15 years, the proportions in this chart reflect what the proportions of adults aged 20-35 (the female reproductive years) will be per nation in the year 2025. Even the near future belongs to those who show up.

Lefto-'feminists' will be outbred and replaced very quickly, and rural American conservatives will be the only resiliently youthful population among all the world's white ethnicities. The state that lefto- 'feminists' so admire will quickly turn on them once the state calculates that these women are neither producing new taxpayers nor new technologies, and will find a way to demote them from their present 'empowered' position of entitlement. If they thought having obligations to a husband was such an awful prospect, wait until they have obligations to the husband-substitute state.


Post Information
Title The Misandry Bubble
Author redpillschool
Upvotes 99
Comments 24
Date 22 April 2016 12:45 AM UTC (5 years ago)
Subreddit TheRedPill
Original Link
Similar Posts

Red Pill terms found in post:
puerarchyentitlementMAPbetamisandry bubblemisandrythe red pillfeministfeminism

[–]sir_wankalot_here12 points13 points  (15 children) | Copy

Read carefully what I am about to say, don't let your reptile brain kick in, there is no patriarchy and there probably never was. Except for physical strength, the mental skills of men and woman averaged are probably the same. But men have greater variance. The implications of this are there will be a lot more smarter men, but at the same time a lot more stupider men as opposed to women.

Evolution is essentially market forces, you can temporarily change market forces with subsidies for example but it can't be continued forever.

The evolutionary explanation is simple, 8000 years ago only 1 man reproduced for every 17 women. More recent times it was about 1 to 5. Even in modern times in western societies, women probably reproduce more then men.

[–]KartagoPill2 points3 points  (5 children) | Copy

So women are safe bet for nature.

[–]Code_Bordeauxx5 points6 points  (3 children) | Copy

Yes, however: even though male offspring was less likely to reproduce, IF they did they did produce huge amounts of offspring. So male offspring would be a riskier bet 'for nature', but a bet worth taking.

In any (human) population the amount of offspring by men is the same as the amount of offspring by women, simply because you need exactly one man and one woman for each child born.

This is why equal numbers of boys and girls are born: as soon as this ratio shifts towards, say, more girls being born, it would be more favourable to produce male offspring as you would see more offspring per male on average (and the system autmatically balances out). This holds true even if, for example, only one in 10 men reproduce.

A good comparison would be poker: if you can bet 10 dollar to have a 20% chance to win 100 dollar you should always play, even though the odds of winning that round are small. The stakes affect whether it's worth betting on.

[–]IAMAwhitecismaleAMA2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy

I think it's like 51 out of 100 babies are female. So there is a 2 percent favorability towards women.

[–]Code_Bordeauxx1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

Even though that may be statistically significant, that could just as well be attributed to an imperfection in nature's ability to find the perfect balance. Either way, it's such a small difference that for all intents and purposes it's a 50/50 divide. But you are right of course.

[–]IAMAwhitecismaleAMA0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Trust me, it would be trivial for evolution to acquire a perfect 50 percent split. There must be some reason why mammals with 2 percent more females than males out breed mammals with even split.

[–]garlicextract1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

It's well known that geniuses can oftentimes have trouble integrating into society. Long ago, there may have been equal numbers of women who were genius-level (and conversely, mentally retarded level) as men. However nature quickly selected against those genius level women, as their greater intellect didn't help them integrate into society better and have more offspring.

The same thing happened to the men (i.e. the genius-level men were, in general, selected against) however as we know, it only took one guy who was able to integrate into society to impregnate many individuals. So if only 1 out of 10 geniuses (just for example) are able to integrate into society and start families, then the one male genius could have children with many women, while the one female genius would only have a few children at most. It's also proven that more educated women tend to have less children.

This explains the greater IQ variance of men (more geniuses, and more retarded men) compared to women.

[–]RedSugarPill2 points3 points  (4 children) | Copy

there is no patriarchy and there probably never was

I like where your head's at, sir. This is a great example of why these issues should be continually reviewed and discussed in an open forum.

[–]sir_wankalot_here0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy

Did you understand what a flattened bellcurve vs a narrowcurve is ? If men have flattened bellcurve vs women have a narrow bellcurve but the same average IQ, what would this mean ?

[–]Dollar_thief1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

The logic follows that he highest earning jobs, the tops jobs in all industries, would go to men as there are more extremely smart men. At the same time, the most homeless people who can't get jobs are men, because they also tend to be the least smart (controversial since this doesn't factor in how the government protects more valuable beings - those who can produce babies - better than penis-people.

There is no patriarchy, just men are at the top mainly because there are more of them that are in the top 1-5% IQ levels.

[–]Dollar_thief1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

The logic follows that he highest earning jobs, the tops jobs in all industries, would go to men as there are more extremely smart men. At the same time, the most homeless people who can't get jobs are men, because they also tend to be the least smart (controversial since this doesn't factor in how the government protects more valuable beings - those who can produce babies - better than penis-people.

There is no patriarchy, just men are at the top mainly because there are more of them that are in the top 1-5% IQ levels.

[–]Kingoffistycuffs0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

I might answer it for him but, a flattened bell curve represents more variation and a smaller amount of basic middle ground people. Where as a narrow bell curve would mean less variation and a larger middle group.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy

I mean, there was a patriarchy. Patriarchy is simply just a successful functioning society. We do need to restore the patriarchy in order for civilization to succeed. Or just enjoy the decline.

[–]sir_wankalot_here1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Read the answer I gave to redsugarpill. There was a society which was largely decided by merit.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

1 man reproduced for every 17 women

Wow, source for that? That's pretty crazy. I've heard the 1 in 5 but 1 in 17 seems a little ridiculous.

[–]sir_wankalot_here0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

It is "averaged" since humans existed. So 8000 years ago, 17 females reproduced for ever male. Wilson Sayres says. In more recent history, as a global average, about four or five women reproduced for every one man.

[–]SafeWordIsCommitment12 points13 points  (6 children) | Copy

The bubble won't pop. Even in places with no feminism, there is hypergamy run amok as a result of the changes on demographics.

What will simply happen is that indoctrination moves from college into high school. So long as SOMEBODY is breeding, the state will take those children and turn them into plantation workers.

If the thirsty male population were reduced by 20-30% by world war 3, I'd expect bitches fight over men like it's a Black Friday Sale. But barring that, I think we've reached a point of no return. The state would sooner burn the male candle at both ends than be able to extract anything of value from the feminists.

[–]Code_Bordeauxx6 points7 points  (2 children) | Copy

You're wrong though

The state would sooner try to burn the male candle at both ends than be able to extract anything of value from the feminists

Because at a certain point the state will have no other means of coercion left but to resort to violence oppression of men. And who are supposed to carry out this violence? Indeed: men. And so it is not going to happen. I don't know to what degree men will fight and hold back the changes to law and society that feminists are trying to bring about, but I do know for a fact that if they push it too far, men will collectively decide to not follow their rules anymore. We may never retain the (protective) control men once had over women, but we will never be their slaves. And women still lose the most in that scenario. The bubble will burst for the simple reason that at the end of the day, women need men more than men need women.

[–]SafeWordIsCommitment8 points9 points  (0 children) | Copy

I want you to be correct. That somehow a brotherhood between fellow men will form. Nope. We'll have empowered white knights who would gladly fight and kill anyone so demonised by their television.

Men did not collectively rise up against evil. They joined in the persecution of their fellows with smug satisfaction and self righteousness.

[–]FreeRadical54 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy

I don't know what world you're living in but men already are women's slaves for all intent and purposes. They also happily carry out violence against other men on behalf of the government. Men have no collective self preservation instincts.

[–]sir_wankalot_here0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

there is hypergamy run amok as a result of the changes on demographics.

This is where most of TRP has their head up their ass.

Hypergamy (colloquially referred to as "marrying up") is a term used in social science for the act or practice of marrying someone who is wealthier or of higher caste or social status than oneself.

Yes, this is why poorer families perfered traditionally preferred daughters instead of sons.

Knowing that until recent times, that only 25% of males reproduced as opposed to 75% of females what would be the explanation for this ?

[–]TheReformist940 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

im gonna have to agree with you. the way things are going theyll carry on for the worst, especially because of modern birth control and technology. the only way there will be a hard reset is with WW3, or a massive financial crisis. when the shit hits the fan and civilisation stops function, AF:BB is gonna run so fuckin wild. only unless ww3 and culls about 30% of the male population will the ball be in our court. even after ww2 where a shit tonne of men got killed, humanity still carried on no fucks given, youre either a top 20% winner or an outright loser.

Misandry bubble says the bubble will pop in 2020. what exactly would happen when the bubble pops though? do things get worse or better?

[–]Jigsus0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Or a plague

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

A much simpler explanation is that almost everyone has been oppressed for most of human history, both male and female. The rich and powerful have always and probably will always exploit the poor and weak.

It was just a different type of oppression based on the way in which you were useful to those in power. Women had to stay home and make babies. Men had to go off and fight wars. Men did the dangerous stuff because they were simply more expendable due to how procreation works.

You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2021. All rights reserved.

created by /u/dream-hunter