The problem is these moves are female driven but ultimately being made by men that own these entities & women as a group are the mascots for the change.
Which makes women the scapegoat for the failure & the infractions:
- ergo: "See ? See?! When you make it female, it fails."
Which is as much a red herring as the forced changes.
Thus the illusion is women are the face of the issue but women aren't driving this entirely, even less so the average woman, because all the men in charge need to do is say "No" & if women are in charge, it still wouldn't have gotten this far if men didn't cave and lower standards.
If women pushed for Girls to be in the Boy Scouts & the answer was "no, period". Women would complain, there would be articles and women would get over it, no choice but to. that's the energy that needs to be had here. This isn't about rights or inclusion, it's about conquest.
*But the gap is the average man can't control that, the men in charge of these IPs do.*
- If there's been one million men that did something more impressive for over 100 years and a women does the same thing but mediocre:
- She's celebrated because she's the first woman or girl that did it.
- Mediocrity is a woman's peak, all she has to do is participate & that's all it takes to be a pioneer now.
- Being useful is not required, & the women actually pioneering are swept under the rug. (Emmanuelle Charpentier and Jennifer Doudna)
That's the level of stagnation girls are brainwashed to believe is their "modern" destiny, a figurehead, a protestor, a nobody. Why? Because it the work for the most part has been done already by people who actually suffered & took risks to get it done.
But the useful women that actually earned their accolades are damn near myths, not because some Patriarchal enclave of old white men are afraid to get the word out that women did something useful beside make meatloaf in human history; if that's the case, those hypothetical "they" would just wipe the internet of their names, because who reads books anymore.
TL;DR Those women are myths because everyday modern women don't care what women do until some plain jane gets a "breaking boundaries" headline for signing up & being the first girl to do it.
Everything women do is a statement, because they're bored & there's next to nothing to do in their first world countries. Adopting struggles from other countires because you have little to any in your own. Burden of privilege.
The illusion of being exceptional vs the exceptional are almost illusions after their 15 minutes run out.
The loudest ones doing the least, standards lowered, not held accountable as much if at all.
Whatever women want, they eventually get, the world revolves around them, meanwhile they're not building or producing parallel to what they inherit and are given.
Despite how much even the women of merit "contribute" they're still not building much of anything still, they usually repurpose what's been founded already, which is why the hard labor field gender ratio statistics are brutal. Women have pioneered but the vast majority come along after the hard work's been done already & are held up as if they're pioneers.
AI's usual excuses is Historically, women were held back from laying down those foundations. But the truth is, women simply do not think like men. They lack the testosterone to be pioneers to the same extent that men are, that testosterone extremity is why males dominate violent crime statistics, and women dont.
Women simply do not have the drive that men do. And thats not a bad thing, the issue arrives is when women are attributed accolades that they don't deserve and the reality that everything they know and society. And civilization, as a tangible reality, is not because of women and girls are not taught to acknowledge that, but mediocrity is worth praise, that's the problem.
Otherwise: what's womens excuse now? There's no excuses now, we're not in the 1600s. Plenty of women are dwveloping breathroughs via tech, bio-medicine, etc. but what are they building thats equivalent to what they're handed constantly? There's zero excuse.
Gender roles dont require women burn themselves out trying to be something they are not; women can contribute what they can at their own pace without having to be an extremity like males are.
But when we gaslight men that they're falling behind women in some way, the natural inversion of that claim needs to be a question: What exactly are women building equivalent to What men have done? And are still doing without womens help?
When the standard of success is a feminized Lens (therapy, soft skill fields, education), we can selectively paint a tailored reality where women are always ahead and men are always behind. But what women aren't doing is never part of the equation because life isn't just about the comfy luxury of therapy, degrees vs a certification and never getting your hands dirty so the country's lights stay on another 2 days.
That's not healthy.That's not sane, that's not fair to women or men.And it's not functional, and it 's not sustainable. Its a rigid norm.
That is the threshold where women become a blatant weaklink--- when there's no accountability or boundaries, when women aren't ever told "No", and they ignore how much they're not doing in society but they're told they're ahead by selectively chosen statistics, aka bold faced lying by the media.
That is the turning point when women become a liability. And when that's your norm from psychology, to broad academia, to pop culture, to the damn Boy Scouts? You're cooked.
Feminization by itself isn't a bad thing, your mother did it in everyday of your childhood, it's what made you feel safe since infancy, that maternal presence, taking behavioral cues from your mother is feminization.
But the cultural exploitation of it or the lack of the masculine to balance it out, all of which without boundaries is why it's an antagonistic force, same could be said about feminisms current flavor.
Masculinization without parameters is equally smothering, but the masculine builds, the feminine exploits what's already built. One builds, the other mainly consumes and "repurposes".
It's just more acceptable to say men are behind based on selective statistics, than admit women are a blatant societal liability because they're allowed to be.
And girls are shielded from that reality: they genuinely think theft of boys spaces is inclusion but preservation of women's spaces while absorbing everything men have- isn't a double standard. Thus that's a liability, blatantly a burden.
TL;DR A bratty little sister that always gets her way, everything she that goes wrong in her experience is the brothers fault. But while the brother comes to resent the little sister, the actual source of the problem is the people allowing the entire situation & telling her she's an empowered "princess": The parents are the problem.*
*the problem, truly, are the people "allow-"ing it in the first place, & after 15 years+ of decline, profit and efficiency is clearly not the reason.
A female dominated field is progress, anything male dominated is something that needs to change*
It's pure warfare. Women are being set up to be the ultimate weaklink of civilization or at minimum: the face & mascot of decline, when that's not their cosmic design.
It's pure evil, not because of a change to a stupid fictional universe, I could care less.
The good movies we like already exist, just go watch those, just go play those older games, read those comics, watch the good shows that we have already.
So more importantly, the predictable resentment these changes brew in men is as much a calculated outcome as the "mankeeping" term is for womens reactions, it's pure propaganda, it's science. It's machiavellian probing.
- People's reactions are the chemical outcome that these changes depend on, and people keep feeding into the formula.
Men's scorn is exactly what these agents want by taking something from men & boys or sharing it with girls & women aka repurposing it for women & girls; and men & boys just have to deal with it. And that's "equality".
But again: who's allowing them to do it, who's allowing women to think that's right? A group? A Political party? An ideology? It's definitely not just women allowing this because women aren't the vast majority of elites that control everything.
Why aren't the men in charge saying "No"? which is my point. Liberalism is not Leftism, Leftism is the radical feather of the liberal wing, it's important to know the difference.
There's a reason why this has been permitted, no boardroom fails their industry on purpose because "progress".
The warning, there are some women that advocate for cultural invasions, but they can't do anything they're not allowed to.
So demonizing "feminization/ Fem" eventually leads to resentment of the association of "fem" to Women. I already see it through what feminism did via "patriarchal/patri" / Father/ Men.
- Despite feminisms resources are plentiful because of the father system, feminism has the luxury to poke the bear & not get it's head bitten off.
But that luxury extends to women invading spaces they have no business touching, at least to this extent. (example: girls don't belong in boy scouts, boy scouts should be for boys. What women allegedly were after beit a badge or funding, they should've done the work vs taking a shortcut via invading Boys spaces. But a franchise wanting to shake up a formula by appealing to girls too is not a bad thing. the issue is how you're doing it.)
Speaking out, keeping your kids away from these hypocritical organizations, boycotts, replacement organizations are the best chances you have against this.
Cultural Distancing, put on your mask by not feeding into it with your energy every single time you feel the urge to speak.
You might even have a better response than what would've been your gut reaction if you just wait at least 2 hours to 24 hours before posting your reply.
Because speaking on it alone won't do anything, these organizations can afford & have afforded decades of this: or will collapse trying, because in the end: that's the gambit-
A normal business model takes a chance to change it's target audience if the previous one fails to fund product, to betray the previous audience that never left to actively replace them for a new audience is an ideological decision. And over a decade of failure without admission of mistake or changes to the approach shows it's not about money.
It's collapse for a statement for a gaslight for a red herring, all for no one.
No comments:
Post a Comment