https://www.tumblr.com/shoppinghauer/803776875094753280/saw-a-post-about-how-straight-feminists-alienate
What do you think of the idea that hetfems are led away from organizing for political power by chasing romantic love, an artificial and bourgeois liberal ideal that doesn't exist? I mean it makes sense to me.
Marriage in the past (within patriarchal societies) was explicitly for patriarchal ownership of women, alongside their ownership of children and animals and property. These people and animals are dehumanized and objectified (thus like a horse thay breaks its legs is killed due to lack of utility, a woman who cheats or is raped is discarded or killed due to her loss of virginity).
And the ideal of romantic love is one of the the latest iterations of liberal patriarchal brainwashing, alongside the sexual revolution and pornography, to make women chase patriarchy and enforce it among themselves as a "choice" rather than explicitly acting like women are men's property.
Blackpilled feminists seem to view it as inherent to female biology, but it being biological seems to play into the ideal of romantic love being this super natural thing and not a new and artificial construct to lead women to their own destruction in ways they didn't before.
Romantic love is fake but it was built on top of the existing biological incentives and realities. Romance—social aspect. arousal, pleasure—natural aspect of The System of Coercion.
Right now you are focused on the how oppression is done rather than why, you’re getting lost in the details.
What is inherent to female biology is vulnerability (the why) which means women don’t have much agency in this world so they will be whatever the system wants them to be. So in a way, it is due to their biology even if romance (the how) is not exactly biological. They basically fell for the sham because they had no choice. We live in a material world, women not having physical leverage is exactly why they are oppressed, people like to overcomplicate it and cope with “oh but we’ve moved past physical force being a factor we are a civilised society its not about strength anymore we’re not cavemen” yeah yeah, sure buddy. Material conditions have nothing to do with anything anymore.
Women won’t be liberated for as long as their biology puts them into a vulnerable position. Vulnerabilities get exploited and the strong rule over the weak, that’s just how the world works. The strong impose their will on the weak.
Men impose their will, whatever it may be, on women, that’s why women are seen as objects. Objects have no leverage, just like women, they are something to be used, pushed around, bought and sold. Objects cannot object (ha, pun intended) to what is being done to them, objects cannot fight back. Even if an object has a will, since it cannot impose it, the will is irrelevant. That is the misery of the female condition—to live in a material world, with no material leverage. Vulnerability is the root of female oppression. And because it is inherent to their biology, they will always be oppressed.
You wanna liberate women? Focus on fixing the why, not the how. But you can’t, because the why is baked into every aspect of female biology.
The how (social aspect) can change across cultures and time periods, the why (biology) will always be there.
What do you think an equal society would look like anyways? What would hetfems achieve if they organised for political power? Because women are still exploited and fucked by nature itself, the only path to female liberation is anti natalism and men would never allow that. Women are only free before and after they exist.
Even Marx said communism is impossible until material conditions are inevitable,so tell me when will female liberation be inevitable since the material conditions that cause their oppression will never change?
blakekathryn
andulkaphoto
tangentwithtanner
theartofmadeline
dailybridgerton
janainaart
