Radical feminist Andrea Dworkin is credited with coining the phrase “war on women” in 1989, when she first used the phrase in a book introduction. Perhaps sensing she had something useful, she later used it in a book title. Democrat politicians have used it ever since to gaslight single female voters. Given the life of Mx. Dworkin, it is no surprise that the phrase is one of those fine examples of the Opposite Rule of Liberalism. The actual war on women has always been from the cult-Marx radicals of feminism.
In other words, just because the war on women, as described by slovenly feminists like Mx. Dworkin, is a fiction, it does not mean there is not a war on women. In fact, the main thrust of the cult-Marx war on white society has been a war on white women, convincing them that their role in society is illegitimate. Not only is the role of wife and mother immoral, it is a tool used by the patriarchy, by which they mean white culture, to prevent women from reaching their full potential. Feminism was called women’s liberation for a reason.
Sex roles in a society are never about one sex. The roles of men and women are complimentary. When one changes even a tiny a bit, the other much change. It’s why the Saudis are so cautious about changing their rules on women. It’s not because they hate women, as loony feminist would have you believe. It is because they fear setting off a chain reaction that would destroy men and women. After all, generations of enforcing a set of rules on the sexes has shaped how men see themselves and each other too.
An example of this in our society is in this story about a pornographer in Florida, who is accused of being sexist. The idea of a pornographer being accused of exploiting women, in the context of modern feminism, strikes most people as an amusing bit of irony. Every day we are being treated to increasingly absurd claims by overwrought females, about how they were done wrong by some mean man. Until the Kavanaugh fiasco, the idea of doing this to a pornographer probably struck most people as the limit of the absurd.
Put that aside and consider the morality at play here though. According to feminist dogma, being a pornographer is fine, as long as he respects the choices made by the women he films having sex. Similarly, a woman degrading herself on camera, for the amusement of desperate men, is a celebration of feminism, as long as the “sex worker” does so of her own free will and has “control of her body”, whatever that means. In other words, morality has been so deformed it now champions prostitution as a celebration of female liberation.
Pornography, of course, is as old as human society, most certainly older than human settlement. Prostitution is cheekily called the world’s oldest profession, because it has existed wherever settled people existed. Human societies everywhere have had to find a way to both accept the permanence of this reality, but also curtail it in order to maintain the social conditions necessary for the people to flourish. The balance struck is slightly different in all cultures, but the practice always falls outside of what is considered moral.
The thing that is stunning, though, about that story of the Florida pornographer, is the shameless way he goes about his business. He agreed to have a documentary done about him, believing it was good for his image. He is more than happy to talk with the media and let the world know his name and location. Within my lifetime, people in the pornography business tried to conceal their activity and hide from public view, because the public would not tolerate it. The pornographer lived in fear of men.
That’s an important point deliberately erased from the record. Laws governing things like pornography were not imposed on the public by puritanical rulers. They were in response to the threat by men to hang the sorts of people who preyed on young girls, grooming them for lives of prostitution and pornography. By relegating this stuff to a protected fringe, it satisfied the demands of men to protect their women, but also kept the streets from being littered with the corpses of degenerates. It’s that balance that must always be struck.
Today, “porn king” Riley Reynolds is not only free to go about his business in the public square, he is celebrated for it. Feminism was a war on women to emasculate men, so that they would be indifferent to degenerates like Riley Reynolds. As much as modern white men complain about modern white women, a big part of why women are acting as they do is that men are no longer willing to guard their women. If a group of guys dragged Riley Reynolds out of his house and hung him from a tree, more than a few women would cheer.
This is where the men’s rights crowd and the pickup artists got it all wrong. The answer to the degeneracy of feminism is not sullen indifference or craven opportunism. The solution to feminism is for men to get back to policing their own ranks, by enforcing codes of conduct that leave women no choice but to fulfill their natural roles. If white people are going to survive, it will be in a world in which guys like Riley Reynolds are found dead in a ditch. It’s a world where Roosh V lives in fear of men, not in fear of women.
That was always the insidiousness of feminism. It was never really about women. It was always about undermining Western societies by emasculating the men. A society where the men are unwilling to protect their daughters from pornographers, too timid to fight back against Pakistani rape gangs, is a defeated society. Men who wait for someone else to protect their women will never find the courage to fight against their masters. When men on our side get that and begin to enforce a moral code on other men, the revolution begins.