Hello guys,

This is something I've been preparing for some time following my discovery of the Nairaland Red Pill thread. I don't know if everyone knows what the redpill is but here is the urban dictionary definition:

Signifies the recognition of the true nature of female behavior, including her attraction to traits of dominance, preference for men with status, attraction to men who have been pre-selected by other women, and hypergamous nature. Red Pill men are aware that women are strongly influenced by the culture and that their attraction cues are often outside of their conscious awareness. Increasingly, modern women, and especially Western women, indulge in one-night stands and short-term relationship in their 20s with alpha males, followed by seeking out a beta male provider in their late 20s and early 30s. Red Pill men are aware of this phenomenon and develop a sexual strategy to benefit from a woman's promiscuity as well as avoid the financial peril of marriage. Married men can also be Red Pill, as their awareness helps them handle female shit tests and maintain attraction with their partner.

A man who has taken the Red Pill is committed to self-improvement and adapting to the reality of female behavior whether that be through the application of game in his relationships and/or withdrawing from long term relationships.

Taking the Red Pill is typically followed by more success in relationships and interactions with women.

From what I've seen of the Red Pill on Nairaland, it's nothing but a bastion of misogyny, entitlement, misinformation, and confirmation bias. What solutions do they provide? The paradigm they lay out causes further distrust and animosity between the sexes (let alone being extremely heteronormative). Instead of trying to transcend, question, and go against gendered stereotypes, they seek to reinforce it. Yes, I understand why people would be drawn to that line of thinking, but it's not necessarily a line of thinking that leads to fruitful results to my estimation

At best, the Red Pill is mostly just distrust and a ton of pseudoscience being thrown around. Some of the tips given by these acclaimed redpill authors really just point to being more charismatic though, so it may be useful if stuck more to that general idea. Sometimes people do play games and this might reveal it. One of my friends claims to see through things that girls do. I have no concept of what we do, we probably do absolutely nothing to me anyway. But it sounds like misogyny. Entitlement is a word nobody should use without examining themselves. Sexual entitlement based on being a dominant male is usually flinged at those men who read this kind of stuff because they fail with women. But, most people I've seen on this forum are entitled. They can't admit that "no means no" or "yes means yes." They take it to be contextual and I find that to be appalling. Most people think they deserve to get what they want, because they define their wants as needs. Sexual needs. Sex is not a need.

I see it as a modern expression of a type of masculinity, that I would wonder how many who are prone to such things are primarily middle classish. That I wonder if Nairaland Red Pill primarily espouses a type of masculinity somewhat different from conservative masculinity in which both emphasize traditional gender beliefs as founded on biological determinism but reject the prescribed responsibilities of a conservative masculinity.

ETA: I know that most of you reading this thread might be wondering how any of my next few posts relate to redpill stuff. Well its just something to press against their assumptions that lead to their particular assessment of the sexes. That I implore them to look more into biological determinism, the many philosophical and practical debates within feminism, to move beyond any vulgar materialism and reductionist empiricism they're prone to. To Be able to distinguish how we project meaning onto empirical things in such as way that we socially construct things that are inherent to things themselves and then confusingly assert them as essential to the thing in order to legitimize our presumptions. To see the historical nature of gender relations, gender ideology, how ideology/culture rests over the material base and how they might interact in a vague sense and correspond. To note the social system that maintains such social relations not only through beliefs but in ideological practice. That really this is all just things to question the view but one really have to become conscious of their world view, its assumptions and implications and then try and consider those things from the side in relation to alternative views. I'm sure middle class kids who lay claim to pursue truth could be probed to consider such things. But then I don't think I'm interest in propagandizing reactionaries, and just accept the opposition and tension between our ideological positions.

Also, you'll have to forgive me that I might make many assertions that I realize are unsubstantiated, but just have to go with it, suspend disbelief if you don't believe. Because it'd be even more painful a read if I got into the many different subjects that could expand out to defend things like what ideology is, what consciousness is like, how some men are like this within this class position and thus contradict an asserted trend or some women contradict it here. Theres a lot of nuance on things that are glossed over, which is part of my difficulty in having a sensitivity to the nature of the superstructure/culture in relation to the base. In part because things are obscured as certain things are projected with greater power to assert their own view onto people, and so get in a mess of wondering what is considered consciousness, what is a tendency inherent to a class positions and how much is a result of obscurism and effective propaganda. I had a whirlwind of thoughts in regards to trying to consider class position and masculinity somewhere on here in relation to the earlier links about Masculinity in colonial Australia.

To be continued.

For the Australian context I associate it with the historical example of urban writers who projected their own life onto the bush:

Linzi Murrie (1998) The Australian legend: Writing Australian masculinity/writing ‘Australian’ masculine

In the defence of men's interests, the bushman masculinity was a powerful image. A man existing among men and without broader social ties, the bushman's freedom - his drinking, his gambling, his 'independence', and his sexual indulgence - could be celebrated in a spirit of nationalism as an 'Australian' freedom, thereby legitimizing men's social practices, and masking the gender politics of the conflict.16

The relationship of the 'bohemian' writers of the Bulletin to the bushman, however, was complex: more than just a celebration of an Australian nationalist or masculinist spirit, the writing of the bushman as exemplary masculinity also enacted the anxieties over masculinity which affected urban middle-class men in the late nineteenth century, particularly men pursuing cultural and intellectual activities. The bohemians were far from the masculine identity they so constantly lauded as 'Australian'. Part of an urban intellectual and artist class that might well be found in cafes, studios and salons in Melbourne or Sydney, the bohemians were hedonistic and exclusivist, professional and elitist - dedicated to art and to protecting their status as 'home-grown' writers against the 'foreign' English. Their bohemia' was Francophile: a love of Paris, and a celebration of French food, art and literature. Their romanticisation of 'the Bush' did not imply a desire for close contact, and few were tempted far from the metropolis.17

The bohemians' celebration of the bushman and the bush was partly professional. Writing about the bush gave native-born writers the opportunity to mark their work as 'authentically' Australian, and to distinguish it from the imported ltierary product, which could be then described as 'foreign', as 'derivative', and as 'feminised'. It was also partly a response to their situation in the city: an 'imaginative refuge' from urbanisation, indsturalisation and the poverty whcih many of them experienced during the nineties' depression18. That this romanticisation was dependent on them maintaining a distance from the bush itself - where the pvoerty could even be bleaker than the urban slums - is illustrated by Lawson's disillusionment on his trip through drought-ravaged New South Wales to Hungerford on the Queensland border.

Certain qualities of the bushman masculinity, however, found a pronounced resonance in the bohemians' own masculine identities. The separatism of mateship was expressed in their (more or less) male-exclusive Dawn and Dusk Club, as well as in their ltierary pursuits, where women were dismissed as 'amateurs'.19 They fancied themselves as 'nomads' like the bushmen, they promoted drinking and sexual indulgence, and seriously avoided marriage. Where marriage did occur, it was often with the sisters of fellow bohemians, suggesting something of an act of exchange between the men.20 Celebrating certain aspects of the bushman, they could join in a masculinist defence against feminist campaigns for social equality, and protect their own 'bohemian' freedoms from the constraints which a feminised social order would impose on their own urban, and potentially domestic, masculinities.

The exemplary masculinity of the bushman also appealed tot he bohemians - and to other urbanised men - at a more profound level: it functioned as a response to the fears of the late nineteenth century manhood, that society was inherently 'feminising', and that the late opportunities for expressing masculinity were becoming increasingly limited. The bushman, echoing similar constructions in Kipling's Empire masculinity and the frontier masculinity of the American West,21 symbolised a masculine freedom and 'naturalness', which the Bulletin constructed as nationalist and Australian in opposition to the decadence of an Old World civilisation. The same anxieties over 'naturalness' and 'decadence', however, were being enacted within Britain itself.

[url=https://go.skimresources.com/?id=130832X1595854&isjs=1&jv=15.2.4-stackpath&sref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.personalitycafe.com%2Fthreads%2Fthe-red-pill-yep-this-can-of-worms.1000986%2Fpage-2&url=http%3A%2F%2Fsci-hub.cc%2F10.1080%2F10314618608595739&xs=1&xtz=-60&xuuid=ded922f37fe6af51d8a96603c80408f0&xjsf=other_click__contextmenu%20%5B0%5D]Marilyn Lake (1986) Historical reconsiderations IV: The politics of respectability: Identifying the masculinist context[/url]

J.F. Archibald was part of a self-styled Bohemia which flourished in Sydney and Melbourne in the late nineteenth century. In Sydney the Bohemians gathered around the Bulletin and in Melbourne, for a brief time, around the Bull-Ant. They valued masculine camaraderie - the 'mateship' they projected onto the bushworkers - and indulged in the pleasures of drinking, smoking, gambling. They are together in city cafes or lodging houses and attended all-male Smoke Nights. As Sarah Stephen has observed, the values and economic necessities of marriage were the antithesis of the bohemian creed of 'wine, women and son' and 'art for art's sake'14. Many bohemians were in fact married, but their relationships with their families were often strained. Rudel O'Dowd. son of poet Bernard O'Dowd, wrote of the bitterness felt by his family at their fathers desertion. He claimed that his mother's (necessary) devotion to the home had given rise to the unwarranted charge that she was unintelligent and uncultured.15

So it could be that they wish to be like the bohemian in the previous quotes above, they wish to be independent of women, unhinged to such expectations of the family man as expected by conservative masculinity. They see women primarily in their sexual utility, they perhaps wish to present themselves in terms of a man who can provide, which I suspect relates to their conception of the 'alpha male' but they don't intend to fulfill the expected role. They like the advantages of being such a man, but they wish to avoid the perceived costs that have intensified in areas where women's rights formally and substantially have advanced and changed the distribution of power between the sexes. A difference being that post-'sexual revolution' sexuality has become commodified and subjectified where fantasies are presented with women as sexual agents but sexual agents willing to fulfill the sexual desires of any man who is wealthy enough. I would associate the redpill with those that present themselves as progressive in the sense of 'we can notice the costs of masculinity for men' which they detest, but rather than transcend it in a substantial form, they tend towards reactionary gender politics. Though I think even with stronger patriarchal social relations within one's social context, that one still detests the expectations of conservative masculinity as it stops one from being an independent free man who doesn't have responsibilities to a woman or offspring. It's a masculinity that I suspect has sets it archetype as a type of womanizing bachelor where status is associated with being so thoroughly desired by women yet not 'trapped' to any one woman. Though it seems some that have issues with the opposite sex may in themselves value monogamy but wish to find some sort of 'truth' in the advice of such online communities. Though I would be skeptical to the way that they present their 'truth', that finding something that in practice seems to work doesn't in itself suggest that the way one theorizes about the pattern is correct. Different theories can still account for certain facts and thus one needs to go more in depth to consider the theoretical assumptions that underpin one's view.

So for example, in my OP, whilst I understand is a very brief summary, it emphasizes culture but I would wonder if redpillers lack a materialist emphasis, like how the economy has played a significant role in social relations, particularly gender ones. And whether they have a historical grasp of how gender relations have changed over such economic development. That the sort of worldview that lends itself to a biological determinism view of any group of people I would find questionable and I would say is one sided at an extreme. I am also suspect to what extent people in the community aren't able to adequately defend a position of biology, since in my experience people seem to observe a pattern and merely assert a biological/sociological foundation. Which is typically an unsupported assertion a lot of the time. Not that there isn't possible evidence but that people simply make a leap to one or the other without arguing how the pattern itself is clearly based in one or the other. I personally suspect even the dualistic tendency of social versus biological misconstrues human nature which is typical to the sort of empiricism we inherited from the British as I would assert that man's nature is inherently social. And people sense this when they make the vague but correct assertion that biology and environment can't be separated from one another and so mans nature is inherently social and this is where we can see how humanity changes so radically based on its material conditions.

This is all tangential but thats because i think the foundations of those that are prone to red pill might have a lot of questionable views about human beings, about society, about gender relations, biology and maybe even how they understand the development and maintenance of status. Not that they don't through practice have a grasp of something true of reality, that they haven't correctly noticed certain patterns. But its questionable to what extent they characterize the reality accurately and that some perhaps assert too strongly certain beliefs beyond what their experience or evidence validates.

Don't know how well it'll come out because I've tried to connect some ideas together but I haven't really created an extensive synthesis of the thoughts and ideas I have in a conscious/explicit manner and I doubt it'd take longer to create such a view with clarity than this post would have.


- Thought of economic base and culture working simultaneously
Probably note that I try to use the framework of base and superstructure. Though i'm still struggling to come to terms with the nature of the superstructure and ideology as it's harder to concieve of than a empirical reality. Though I take the position that relations between things are concrete in the sense that they are objective and exist 'externally' to the mind in the same way a object does, (do note that i'm using the subjective/self objective/reality divide to help explain my thoughts but dialectical materialism complicates this view). Hence we can have social sciences like sociology that assert links based on a materialist view of the world where we don't look at society in terms of what people express verbally but by the concrete actions they perform. Though I have criticisms to the limitations of modern sociology lacking the dialectical view of Marx's social science. From such a view human consciousness can't be reduced to unspoken language inherent in the person themselves, because human consciousness is expressed in humanity's activity and that we inherit the entire history of mankinds development.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/mikhailov/works/riddle/riddle3b.htm

Academician N. P. Dubinin writes: “The possibilities of human cultural growth are endless. This growth is not imprinted in the genes. It is quite obvious that if the children of contemporary parents were deprived from birth of the conditions of contemporary culture, they would remain at the level of our most remote ancestors who lived tens of thousands of years ago. Whereas the children of such “primitive people” placed in the conditions of contemporary culture would rise to the heights of contemporary man.” [2]

To state it crudely, a child raised by animals isn't likely to go further than the mindset of the animals themselves. A child's development for language, culture and thought is quite a social process. For a more elaborate explanation of child development and language I suggest checking out Vygotsky who critiques Piaget's individualist sense of the child's development in a interesting way. This relevant for considering the human subject in the mix between the material reality and external world. And this interacting with the base and it giving rise to a subjectivity that isn't just in the individual but collective. That we as individuals are but particular forms of the universal consciousness of humanity through history as established through the creation and retained knowledge in the form of our structures, technologies and recorded knowledge.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/ilyenkov/works/positive/positi.htm

Of course, the thinking of people is formed first of all not by teachers and philosophers, but by the real conditions of their lives.

As Fichte said, the kind of philosophy you choose depends upon the type of person you are. Everyone is attracted to a philosophy which corresponds to the already formed image of his own thinking. He finds in it a mirror which fully presents everything that earlier existed in the form of a vague tendency, an indistinctly expressed allusion. A philosophical system arms the thinking (consciousness) of the individual with self-consciousness, i.e. with a critical look at oneself as if it were from the side, or from the point of view of the experience common to all mankind, of the experience of the history of thinking.

[url=https://go.skimresources.com/?id=130832X1595854&isjs=1&jv=15.2.4-stackpath&sref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.personalitycafe.com%2Fthreads%2Fthe-red-pill-yep-this-can-of-worms.1000986%2Fpage-9&url=http%3A%2F%2Fhome.mira.net%2F%7Eandy%2Fworks%2Ffichte.htm&xs=1&xtz=-60&xuuid=855eb9ec80deacf8a57ce6b694ff5cd2&xjsf=other_click__contextmenu%20%5B0%5D]The Subject. Johann Fichte: The Subject as Activity, by Andy Blunden 2005/6[/url]

Fichte insisted that it was necessary to found science on a single principle, but held that such a first principle cannot be derived by philosophical means. Whether you choose a given principle to be the founding principle of your theory of knowledge or not “depends on what sort of person you are” he said. The choice of a theory of knowledge is therefore also an ethical act.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/johann-fichte/#3

It must be granted that the truth of the Wissenschaftslehre's starting point cannot be established by any philosophical means, including its utility as a philosophical first principle. On the contrary—and this is one of Fichte's most characteristic and controversial claims—one already has to be convinced, on wholly extra-philosophical grounds, of the reality of one's own freedom before one can enter into the chain of deductions and arguments that constitute the Wissenschaftslehre. This is the meaning of Fichte's oft-cited assertion that “the kind of philosophy one chooses depends upon the kind of person one is.”

That those with the most objective view of reality are generally those that are the underclass who sustains the wealth of the ruling class, they're the ones who have to live through labour in the material world. They are the ones that actually progress history, its always something udner the ruling class that overcomes it and transforms society. Because a ruling class inevitabily stagnates and merely wishes to retain its power rather than to change relations beyond it. Often because the transformation cuts out the foundations of their power and authority.

http://www.richardcurtisphd.com/pdf/academic/Process Via Marx.pdf

However, this difference is an illusion. People have come to accept it because of the emphasis Whitehead gave to the role of ideas, but what he was really saying is much closer to the Hegelian version than is generally acknowledged. And not just to Hegel, the really important similarity is with Karl Marx and his theory of class struggle and social revolution, which developed out of Hegel's "Master/Slave Dialectic." Hegel wrote: "Through this rediscovery of himself by himself, the bondsman [the slave] realizes that it is precisely in his work wherein he seemed to have only an alienated existence that he acquires a mind of his own" (Phenomenology 118-119). Hegel's insight (Whitehead’s as well) was that it is the nature of consciousness to be free and self-knowing. In this dynamic of master and slave only one can be free and ultimately that will be the one who has self-knowledge. The argument is that because the slave actually produces, or more properly reproduces, the means of her/his and the master’s existences the slave comes to realize his/her role as productive human being, conscious of being free (in thought at least). But living a life of oppression contradicts this sense of being a productive person, and further as this oppression is at the hands of those who are not productive and enforced through violence and fear, the oppression becomes all the more intolerable and the slave must revolt (at least intellectually if not actually). The slave thus develops a sense of self out of this contradiction; and through the struggle to be free, a sense of freedom. Conversely, by virtue of the master’s dependence on the slave for the reproduction of her/his existence, the master actually looses his/her self as a free and self-conscious person. Now, to be clear the point here is that this dynamic is true for classes of people acting in history, not (necessarily) individuals acting in their own lives.

This seems at first glance to be counter-intuitive. But masters actually do live in and through their slaves, and slaves live in spite of their masters. The interesting fact, pointed out by Marx, that the dominant ideas of any culture are those of its ruling class helps us to understand why this seems counter-intuitive (and why Whitehead's own speculations ended up with the wrong emphasis). Hegel was telling us that fully realized self-consciousness comes from the underside of history, not from the ruling side. Marx then suggested that this is in spite of the sense of itself the ruling class wishes to project. The masters tell themselves and the slaves that the masters are superior. But in fact the slaves are superior by virtue of their attaining selfconsciousness, and it is thus the oppressed who drive history forward as they struggle to actualize their sense of themselves, qua free human beings.

This notion that one's position reveals certain world views generally can be found in history which owes a large bit to Marx who is sort of a father to modern social science. Though I'd say it has often distorted the essence of his thought. SO for example, my brief stint with some Australian history we did exercises in examining texts asking "Who is speaking for whom?". The idea being that one's background like being a upper class white man leads to a different view of reality because one experiences it fundamentally different from that of a native man in colonial Australia or from a woman and so on. And there are some great example to reveal such biases like upper class toffs asserting convict women were whores, when they cohabited but weren't married. That they by today standards are fine because they were monogamous but couldn't marry their partners because they were sometimes married to men back in England and couldn't be divorced and so on. So the offended sensibilities of such men of such a time can't be taken at face value in projecting our notions of what that word means or even their description of events as it can provided knowledge but needs to be qualified and critically examined. This question of who is talking for who should be useful in considering that one's position dictates one's their subjectivity and view of reality.

Moving on, in the whole base structure thing, there isn't a single starting point. Before I grasped some parts of dialectical thinking (which I'm by no means that great at), I remember being utterly baffled by the cycle between base and superstructure. Because my mind was prone to linear causalities and I had a felt tendency to emphasize a primary causal factor. This is where many end up misinterpreting Marxism as advocating a form of determinism and misunderstanding his propaganda as suggesting the inevitability of things rather than tendencies and possibilities as things are approximate in such complexity, no guarantees. But Marx emphasizes a relationship between man who is an active agent in shaping the material reality, this has been the history of humanity.

Critique of Pure Interest: Between materialism and idealism: Marx on “sensuous activity”

Praxis as the interaction of subject and object
But, of course, Marx is neither a humanist idealist nor a postmodernist avant la lettre. For the point of his first Thesis on Feuerbach is exactly that the truth lies in the middle: between idealism and materialism, between humanism and postmodernism. That elusive middle is captured by Marx’s claim that the external object, on which humanity depends, is in turn dependent on the formative power of human activity. In other words: nature determines (causes, affects) man, who in turn determines (works upon) nature. Thus man is indirectly self-determining, mediated by nature. This reciprocal determination of man and nature is what Marx means by “praxis". In the first Thesis, therefore, Marx reproaches traditional materialism for not seeing this fundamental importance of praxis, since it (materialism) sees man one-sidedly as subjected to nature and thus it forgets man’s active intervention in nature – a point repeated by Marx in the third Thesis, where he focuses on the consequences of materialism for social theory: “The materialist doctrine concerning the changing of circumstances and upbringing [by which men are changed, PS] forgets that circumstances are changed by men and that it is essential to educate the educator himself.”

But what humanity can do is limited by one's material conditions, otherwise we're ignoring reality and simply conjuring up ideals we hope will simply work, but our perfect ideas need to be put into practice in an imperfect reality.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/18th-brumaire/ch01.htm

Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past.

So for example, whilst I might not like sweatshop labor making all my clothes and products, it means Bleep all unless I radically change the economics that create and sustain that situation. That one has to look to the nature of the concrete world or one ends up with Utopian analysis where one treats one's wishes without relating it to a approximate understanding of the reality. And so need to understand the base to see its limits as to what is actually possible or what is even sustainable. Otherwise end up getting bleeped up like naive idealists do when they think they can just roll in and change the world. One might want women to not be subjected to sexual violence and to have justice done for them, but one can't effectively dismantled the superstructure without a corresponding shift in the material conditions that give rise to such views. And this is hows its been in many places the dialectical relationship where ideology has changed and been struggled for as conditions changed and brought new tensions that make people accutely aware of certain things in their reality. I'm not exactly sure the nature of subjectivity to give a clear around of how 1 to 1 ones concrete experiences translate to certain subjective views, and I think that's fine because such a complex task can only be approximate.
https://www.marxist.com/science-old/chaostheory.html

But given the almost limitless complexity of human society and economics, it is inconceivable that major events like wars would not disrupt these patterns. Marxists would argue that society does lend itself to scientific study. In contrast to those who see only formlessness, Marxists see human development from the starting point of material forces, and a scientific description of social categories like classes, and so on. If the development of chaos science leads to an acceptance that the scientific method is valid in politics and economics, then it is a valuable plus. However, as Marx and Engels have always understood, theirs is an inexact science, meaning that broad trends and developments could be traced, but detailed and intimate knowledge of all influences and conditions is not possible.

So this is where we can see a tension between men and women in their view of things, why there is a disparity in their approach to some issues, with some overlapping with others because of the strength of material conditions to legitimize certain perspectives (like womens submissiveness) and effective propaganda. Which I don't limit to one ideology or the other, because propaganda is used for every end with the mass communications that exist today. And feminists did a bloody good job of it back in the day. It is the tool of anyone in the modern age and is a massive subject in itself, so moving on.

For a nice explanation for base and superstructure, though it doesn't explicitly mention such terms but is a clear case of examining how there isn't a 1 to 1 relation between the material reality and the culture/ideologies. http://www.nyu.edu/classes/jackson/future.of.gender/Readings/DownSoLong--WhyIsItSoHard.pdf (crtl+F 'status Inequality and Positional Inequality.' for more reading on it.

Not all inequality works the same. Gender inequality is an instance of status inequality. As such, it must be embedded in systems of positional inequality. Positional inequality and status inequality refer to two different kinds of inequality, one dividing social roles and the other dividing recognizable groups. Positional inequality divides locations within social structures. For example, organizational authority divides managerial positions from staff or wage labor positions. Positional inequality distinguishes people by the structural positions they occupy and the amount of inequality between people reflects the resources and rights characterizing their structural positions. In contrast, exclusionary status inequality separates types of people. For example, racial discrimination preserves whites' advantages over blacks. Similarly, sex inequality is an instance of status inequality. Status inequality distinguishes people by their personal attributes and the degree of inequality between people reflects the differences in opportunities available to the status groups to which they belong. The conditions needed to sustain or to change these two types of inequality differ. In particularly, inequality defined by personal characteristics, such as gender, can only persist if it is consistently associated with institutionalized inequality between positions, most importantly economic and political inequality.

The two types of inequality link differently to the present and the past. Positional inequality largely represents the demands and possibity of current social structures. Status inequality sustains historical relationships more likely to have arisen under earlier, different conditions.

So, in some places even whilst the conditions have changed, there is a hangover, though i would emphasize that part of this I believe is not simply a hangover effect in many cases but uneven economic development. Certain ideas around gender hang around because the economic situation hasn't really worked in conjunction with people's active efforts to improve it to change the base relations. And even when things have changed people have different positions in relation to that economic development. And this is where I assert that despite the evolution of gender ideology in many places, which has made a tension between gender egalitarianism and gender traditionalists, that it hasn't radically changed gender relations in a revolutionary way.

Gender has changed in a matter of degrees mostly, though perhaps ideology gender egalitarianism is revolutionary if it could be actualized relative to gender traditionalists. But look into things like the stalled revolution, how women are still predominately doing housework and child rearing, that men have improved in this regard but still lag behind comparatively to the amount of women who've moved into the workforce. This is where there's the stated double burden (both houseworker and paid worker), the tension being that women have moved from primary houseworkers and mothers to an identity of worker just like men are but still retain a identity of primary carers which has in fact intensified more as a role. Because the ideas around childhood has intensified around the needs of the economy for children who aren't just factory workers but do mass amounts of intellectual labour and so require more intensive education to meet the needs of an advanced economy. So expectations on mothers are lot stronger than they ever were for mothers in the past.

As much as people might want to be egalitarian, men generally have been brought up in a way that even if they're amicable to egalitarianism where they do housework and work as much as a woman, they generally lag (ideological reasons around gender, associations of effeminacy and thus emasculation) in conjunction with the base which is that economically, there isn't much to resolve child rearing which hasn't been effectively socialized as its expensive as Bleep and support for families to care for their own kids has been limited. Maternity and paternity leave aren't available to the working classes, in fact many middle to upper class men have been able to get leave to be with their kids more than a lot of women because a lot of mothers are in shitty jobs with shitty benefits, often causal workers. So this is a case where even in spite of peoples ideals, it matters Bleep all because the base society doesn't allow it to be an actuality unless one is probably one of the wealthier types who can balance their lives. Though its complicated as because working class women can't afford care they generally care for children themselves and are destitute as often their partners can't provide for them with shitty jobs or they've left them and in the bleeped up child care system that isn't always enforced and when it is done poorly and is a result of the states reluctance to support children. So here is basically a modern tension, where women are being worked harder than they ever were in being mothers with added workload of being casual workers with shit pay. Women prioritize one or the other, those who try to sustain both eventually burn out in large part because they typically don't have a partner that will pick up the slack for child care simultaneously. So shes meant to be a reliable worker whilst a full time mother. And the reaction from many is simply to reject women entering the workforce upon middle class ideals of stay at home mothers, which has hardly been a reality for the working class as working class women always damn well worked or starved. So her career suffers because her being a woman is a proxy for being a other for getting pregnant, where other than the concrete limitations of getting pregnant on one's career, the lower status of it actually impairs womens financial and career opportunities. Whilst a man it boosts its not just in terms of actually productive work but in status as a father who works hard for his family.

Now in the whole base and superstructure, I think material changes occur because of not just tendencies of technology to allow new opportunities, because for all the technology in the world it hasn't given more leisure time to people and never will despite the technocrats wishing it would. But because of the action of masses of people.
[url=https://go.skimresources.com/?id=130832X1595854&isjs=1&jv=15.2.4-stackpath&sref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.personalitycafe.com%2Fthreads%2Fthe-red-pill-yep-this-can-of-worms.1000986%2Fpage-9&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.oberlin.edu%2Fexternal%2FEOG%2FBlackHistoryMonth%2FMLK%2FCommAddress.html&xs=1&xtz=-60&xuuid=97f287d373c57cfcc42e1f17b9d848d4&xjsf=other_click__contextmenu%20%5B0%5D]"Remaining Awake Through a Great Revolution"[/url]

Let nobody give you the impression that the problem of racial injustice will work itself out. Let nobody give you the impression that only time will solve the problem. That is a myth, and it is a myth because time is neutral. It can be used either constructively or destructively. And I'm absolutely convinced that the people of ill will in our nation - the extreme rightists - the forces committed to negative ends - have used time much more effectively than the people of good will. It may well be that we will have to repent in this generation, not merely for the vitriolic works and violent actions of the bad people who bomb a church in Birmingham, Alabama, or shoot down a civil rights worker in Selma, but for the appalling silence and indifference of the good people who sit around and say, "Wait on time." Somewhere we must come to see that human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability. It comes through the tireless efforts and the persistent work of dedicated individuals. Without this hard work, time becomes an ally of the primitive forces of social stagnation. So we must help time and realize that the time is always right to do right

- Martin Luther King Jr

Technology didn't reduce the work week, it didn't get workers their rights, that came through struggle, technology only helps to prompt the conditions of possibility for things but it doesn't inevitably lead to progressively transformed social relations. That technology should be viewed dialectically where one can simultaneously hold a thing as having good and bad implications, as with all things, change comes with new problems and benefits. So for example the pill which was one but part of what comes to be considered the sexual revolution inhibited the link between sex and pregnancy, and was a benefit to women to avoid being tied down to their role as mothers which isn't inherently bad but in context of certain relations can be a disadvantage to other things. Similarly it also played part of a shift where women aren't just sexual objects but are sexual subjects where men project desire onto women as if it originates from them so that they rationalize that the woman wanted them as expressed through her clothes and what ever. Women with the advent of the people became open season because it was expected she was on the pill and neednt worry about pregnancy, they're all down for a root now the mentality. A great example of technology not emancipating one from the patriarchal conditions but helping some women to lessen somethings, but with new costs of sexual aggressiveness given greater legitimacy and with added responsibilities on women for sexual health.

So when it comes to emphasizing a link between an arising worldview, ideology as a result of new conditions I think industrialization serves as the prime example of how new tensions that emerge from the material conditions also give rise to people to being active due to the conditions and incite for change. That material conditions should be viewed as what allows for the conditions of whats possible, and not in a yes no sense but in a matter of degrees, in a concrete sense. Not in the abstract everyone can be president of the United States sense but more concrete like, only those who come from backgrounds are actually likely to become president, because only those from the elite backgrounds can actualize such a theoretical potential.

So for the suffragettes, they inherited tactics from Abolitionists, they emphasized how mens actions harmed women at a time when women were formally dependent on mens resources. So for example, a working class woman and her children go without because her husband pissed all his money on alcohol leaving them starved. And they also emphasized the mistreatment of men towards women as laws previously made it difficult, for a woman to get justice if she was abused, there were high barriers to getting a divorce on such grounds formally. Though they didn't really get that far and thought that they need to get the vote to get political representation in order to enact their desired policies through the state. So the vote became their target and then 2nd wave fems were split into womens lib of a socialist type and femocrats, liberal feminists who wanted to use the state to further goals for women. Why did these things occur? because prior to industrialization the family was the basic unit of production. People supported one another labouring to make the basics to survive. Then comes technology that harnesses the power of machines and natural laws, based on a mechanistic materialism and british empiricism. The family unit broke, as farmers were often forced off their land and pushed into the urban centers as labourers. Their class position of peasants to proletariat/urban workers came and the peasantry were dissolved as class as the new means of production took over the society.This still happens in industrialization, peasants get kicked off land by paramilitary or they are out competed by the larger productive capacities of capitalist companies. So skilled tradesmen become obsolete because they can't support themselves in competition to mass production. So men go to work in factories, but women need to stay home and raise kids. And so began a split in the family unit and its relation to the world and simultaneously in England the cult of domesticity arises. The ideology of motherhood and the child comes about, women are seen as warm safe harbours from the scary world, so men shield women from the harshness of the world confining them to their homes whilst they go out and face the competitiveness of it in politics, in factory work and so on. The gender ideology seems to arise in conjunction with material trends. Social relations had men pursue factory work and women stay home with the kids and then such relations are romanticized because from a functionalist perspective they probably served functional ends. But typical to functionalism, it generally is a conservative viewpoint that isn't critical to the tensions and contradictions within such arrangements, that quantitative changes that build up to qualitative changes. Like more and more women being subjected to harsher treatment by mens disregard to their responsibilities to them and abuse of them brought on by such radical change of concrete conditions.

But of course women work in relation to capital too, they start sewing from home and sending it in for sale. Soon more and more women to get by becacuse they can't rely on men or they're both so poor they need the money, begin working in factories themselves. Textile industrry arise, women along with children make for cheap labour. Typical response from men is that we can't compete with women who are cheap labour, if we let them into our industries they'll take our jobs, men feel threatened just like they do with foreigners who work for cheap. So they work to exclude them and repress their efforts to enter the workforce but of course it fails because the economics favors those who are most exploited, if one successfully excludes them in the modern day capitalists simply move countries which they've done n the case of NAFTA moving to Mexico, or in China with the special economic zones and the many sweat shops around the world as they now industrialize other countries as wages are too pricey to be competitive in industrialized nations.

It gave rise from a cultural notion to legal notions like the family wage where women were legally paid less than men (formal wage gap) so that women wouldn't overtake men as providers for the family which was the mans role, it affirmed his masculinity and kept women in their respectful place as not workers but mothers. No social support for them to work because they should simply find a good many to provide for them and be a good housewife, forget any consideration of terrible men and how they leave women destitute, or domestic violence, that is absent in the conservative and romanticized view of the family. No considerations of barriers the coerce women to stay in domestic violent circumstances and yet the gall to ask why didn't she leave when she was beaten in front of her children, because its so easy to simply escape, so easy to get by in a society that didn't actively support women financially to be independent to get by with kids to feed.

Women moved into emerging industries (adminstration work as secretaries later on) not already populated by men, they start to organize themselves and their interest, their own unions because men exclude them. They start to communicate outside the home and realize their shared experiences of sexual violence, being dependent on men and they raise female consiousness by sharing their distinctively gendered experiences. In the case of Russia, women like Alexandra Kollantai, Clara Zetkin and in Germany Rosa Luxemborg and Eleanor Marx discuss the woman question around a working class perspective. Mixed with radical politics they consider the experience of women, middle class women also have their own variations of feminism in the form of liberalism, hence their search for the vote and political representation. These things wouldn't have arose if not for the industrialization which amplified problems within patriarchal relations for the family where women no longer wished to endure a patriarchal rule of the home. Seeing how they were being bleeped over, industrialization created the tension and also gave them the means to seek some independence and organize themselves and advocate for womens interests. Even though they were more harshly exploited than men in terms of being paid less for just as hard work and as always womens unpaid housework that is simply expected in creating the new labourers of the world for no cost. Because we want women to be baby making machines, dont abort the child, but no Bleep your kid we shouldn't support babies with socialized universal supports for the well being of children because raising kids in good conditions is socialist and you're a shitty mother if you can't provide for them. Women were able to organize themselves as the new conditions made all the clearer their shared experiences and interest and gave rise to their ability to further develop their consciousness in such conditions. As their rights improved the better positioned they were, more educated the more they better theorized the woman question, the more career opportunities the better women were able to challenge the barriers that gave legitimacy to ideas like a woman couldn't be a leader and contradict beliefs about what women could do. Though I would say in terms of confirmation bias men can totally ignore the contradictions in the way they perceive causality.
http://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1960&context=sulr

It goes beyond stereotyping, however, because in believing men are stronger, we both train them to be stronger, and we create a military designed around their abilities—in other words, we make the belief real. Epistemologist Sally Haslanger has termed this cognitive mechanism “assumed objectivity.”207 Members of a powerful group ascribe characteristics to a weak group in a way that makes the differences real, and in a vicious cycle, the ascribed characteristics help make the weak group weak.208 For example, slave owners might ascribe a lack of intelligence to slaves, claim that this characteristic is innate, use this professed belief to justify a lack of education, and in this way make real a difference that keeps the slave owners in power.209

The base and superstructure work in conjunction, neither is the clear starting point because they are simultaneously acting on one another in a dialectical relationship. The material relations give rise to new ideas and views to issues in such social relations as well as culture evolving into questioning the relations and seeking answers. So even within gender ideology of the time people began to use sympathetic notions of benevolence towards women in order to argue for women's education. That its effective to use immanent critique, operating within one's own ideological logic for novel conclusions. They were able to use white supremacy to compare say the use of corsets tot he barbarity of Chinese foot binding to make a shared white identity to advocate for women's improved circumstance from restriction of such fashion fads. Which often resembles modern discussions of the way women restrict their bodies for aesthetic appeal and thus lose their more athletic and practical capacities. Fads that are often painful and normalized and thus endured willingly, if chinese foot binding where they break the bones and wrap up the foot is barbaric it is only a matter of degrees in contrast to many practices we expect of women to put themselves through pain for ideals of beauty. And with the rise of feminism which wasn't yet called feminism because it was a mix of different political positions with an emphasis on relations between the sexes, came a reaction. As you might've seen in earlier post about conservative masculinity and a non-conservative masculinity of the middle class bohemian who likes all the benefits of being a man but doesn't wish to endure the responsibilities that weigh upon a man that justify such benefits of power, because power entials responsbilities. Genreally those who want power and not the responsibilities make for bad rulers, many would be content with their elite rulers if they merely performed a paternalistic role and provided but they get their hand bitten because they don't look after their people. This is representative of many men today I would say though its thought to be amplified as a backlash with the successes of feminism but such men always existed, here in Australia the historical version of MRA's and so on are seen in the ideas of The Bulletin. They're not exacrly the same but they are a strange reflection of history for present trends. Because much of history shows itself in new modern variations, often because of similar conditions and thus similar tendencies and trends. They reacted against womens efforts to open up work opportunities for themselves, their place was in the home as a dutiful mother for the conservative or they weren't to destabilize mens power over women by punishing men if they should fail to live up to the duties of a benevolent patriarch.

For the conservative, they were able to replenish their ideological ranks through the Church which still hold sway over peoples lives to express mans god given right to power over women. That the church was merely an expression of past relations and ideology that emerged from those relations as shaped by the means of production. Young boys don't simply have an innate sense of superiority they have to be socialized which is in how differently they are treated from women, leading to their divergence on the nature of reality in respect to topics like womens victimization of sexual violence. These same tendencies persist because there hasn't been an actual revolution of gender roles and overturn of the conditions in many places that put women are a disadvantaged. For radical feminists it was the biology of women that was the source of their oppression, their capacity to have children and mens interest to have sexual power over women to whom he resents from the perspective of being inferior yet having the social power to reject his sexual desires. And before people cry me a river, understand that saying the word men doesn't in itself generalize to every one of ya, it should be obvious that its qualified with a description, if you don't satisfy the description than you're not the type of men in consideration (avoid the whole not all wo/men hoo hah from shitty reading comprehension). That rad fems tend to, incorrectly I'd assert, reject Marxism because they see patriarchy as existing prior to capitalism. That they arent sensitive to the accepted relation between base and superstructure and think when methodologically emphasizing the base that we ontologically reject the superstructure, one sided analysis.

Space booked...

Now I haven't given a very good synthesis of the history of gender relations but in all this hooblah hope can at least see some sort of relation to material conditions altering concrete relations and then leading to different consciousness about reality. Which I probably can't explain all that well because I haven't the philosophical finesse nor knowledge, not have I really looked into much detail some explanations for the material basis of human consciousness through activity and intercourse with the world. Now to consider more extensively the gender relations of the modern day and how they are able to keep women in their place and obscure their ability to overcome things through conscious awareness of their concrete relations and conditions within the context of a society. A very simplified framing that I think helps to concieve of how social relations and ideology is maintained is in how these two are defined.
http://www.katemanne.net/uploads/7/3/8/4/73843037/what_is_misogyny_a_feminist_analysis__2_.pdf

Hence, I suggest that:
Sexism is the species of patriarchal ideology which functions to theoretically justify patriarchal social relations by, e.g., naturalizing and idealizing women‘s subordination and men‘s dominance.

Whereas:
Misogyny is the system within a patriarchal order which functions to practically enforce patriarchal social relations by, e.g., directly enacting, as well as policing and upholding women‘s subordination and men‘s dominance.

It's stick and carrot, here sexism is the romanticization of the gender role, to have a person internalize the social norms so much that they are in fact a part of their self concept. Hence why mothers dutifully take on the role of mother even if they're being screwed, they strongly identify with the task because they've been raised in such a social milieu.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/sit...chments/153068/ogolsky-dennison-monk-2014.pdf

Although contemporary men may be performing more household labor than their ancestors (Lachance-Grzela and Bouchard 2010), our analysis of the effect of discrepancies in couples’ behavioral egalitarianism highlights the fact that husbands and wives view male contributions differently. Behavioral egalitarianism alone did not have a direct effect on couples’ marital quality in this study, but husbands tended to have lower marital quality when there were discrepancies in the couples’ behavioral egalitarianism. Additionally, wives’ perceptions of marital quality decreased when spouses were more discrepant in behavioral egalitarianism, which has several possible explanations. It is possible that some couples do gender (as a routine; West and Zimmerman 1987), yet society holds them responsible or accountable for their role, which influences their perceptions of how much they do, and subsequently their perceptions of marital quality. For example, wives are generally responsible for managing and performing most of the household tasks (Mederer 1993), whereas husbands are held responsible for the role of “the good provider” (Bernard 1981; Perry-Jenkins and Crouter 1990). As such, men often characterize household tasks and related work as leisure, whereas many women see it as work (Erickson 2005; Shaw 1988).

Although more and more men are contributing to household and family responsibilities, many continue “to hold the ‘psychological responsibility’ for the financial stability of the family even when the wife is employed” (Perry-Jenkins and Crouter 1990, p. 140). Thus, husbands may consider any amount of household labor they do a contribution, characterizing it as “helping” their wives. When husbands believe that they are helping their wives, especially when they compare themselves favorably to their peers (Greenstein 1996a, 2009), they can easily feel disappointment or frustration when perceptions of the division are not viewed as such by wives with lower behavioral egalitarianism. Husbands may see their labor as ending when they return home from work, whereas wives may see themselves as having to then start a “second shift” of housework (e.g., ‘9 to 5’ work day for husbands vs. ‘24 hour’ work for wife and mother; see Hochschild and Machung 2003). This disconnect may be reflected in perceptions of marital quality by both parties. If trends in higher cognitive and behavioral egalitarianism continue, yet women are not held accountable for the provider role and men for household tasks, discrepancies in husbands’ and wives’ behavioral egalitarianism may persist. To gain a better understanding of couples’ affect regarding the actual division of labor, studies should examine the influence of accountability to provide explanations for the influence of discrepancies in behavioral egalitarianism on marital quality

The differences we found in the effects of behavioral egalitarianism on marital quality for women with children parallel research that shows that life cycle stages do matter, and women are least satisfied during periods where demands are high and more is expected of them (e.g., Suitor 1991), such as when they are raising children. Examining this issue longitudinally would provide more insight into the role of changing demands for husbands and wives. Nonetheless, the discrepancies in both cognitive and behavioral egalitarianism and the different ways they influence relationship quality for husbands and wives highlight the importance of including both in analyses.

And I won't get into my vague sense of the self here which is relevant in understanding how ideology is inherent part of consciousness. Though I would say that I reject an essential self, that i see conscious as a sort of exaggerated maker of meaning. That I haven't yet clarified what notion of self I have, but I get the sense that I'd really enjoy the Lacanian sense of self that Zizek likes to use. Where suspect Kierkagaards take on the self might be something to illuminate my view of self though I haven't read his work well enough to grasp it, but about a self that is a relation that relates to itself, like some ongoing process, that one is a human becoming and not a static human being.

Misogyny is the actual practice of coercing/pressuring people from something as not being warm/supportive of the behaviour up to active violence where one is warned that their lack of conformity was the reason for them being targeted thus to scare them into compliance. These sames means to different ideological ends are employed no matter the ideology, it is the maintenance of any social order for stability. So for example, gender traditionalists don't like being on the ass end of those who have gender egalitarianism as an ideology because their norms and values are denigrated and when its dominant they become the subjugated minority. Where the gender egalitarian in other cases is in that position as the minority that is resisted and rejected for their lack of conformity to the normalcy of such social relations and values. And in some places the new gender ideology has acquired dominance in the collective mindset over that of the traditional gender roles, often in large part because the material conditions make them obsolete.

And I think this points to a stupidity in those who merely criticize cultures that are seen as backwards but don't consider their material conditions, like the case of sweat shop workers, moralizing without thinking of how to create the conditions that allow ones ideals to be actualize makes ones words a waste. Hence those that only challenge the culture/superstructure without considering it in conjunction of radically altering the material relations in a sustainable way are idiots. Going into some culture with rife poverty and peasantry aren't going to be repetitive tot he moralizing of some toff from an industrialized nation saying that their gender views are better if they don't consider how it can be put into practice on a social level. Though of course there is no one way to things, sometimes material conditions precede change in attitude and for others their attitude change precedes the change in the material conditions, some are slow to the shift whilst others actively create the new conditions. And so when people criticize other cultures and position the west as enlightened, I think they dont see how much those cultures reflect the same trends in our own societies, that we aren't radically different but at best are only a matter of degrees different.

Now I think beyond just this, gender ideology is incredibly brilliant in maintaining itself, its genius, something that I suspect came about naturally rather than some intentional creation as people just moved through the times. But the brilliance of sexism has been the framing of its benevolence, which I'd say some conscious women can see through it easily but its been able to keep support from a great deal of women. And this system i liken to a sort of mafia extortion racket, where men parternalistically keep women confined to the home, reliant on mens money and work so that if they try to leave they'll be destitute and in poverty in a society (capitalist) that money is the primary social relation. That it's not just a case that gender roles are romanticized and idealized, oh you're a beautiful mother, not that being a mother is bad for feminists but the specific manner it is conceived in has women at a disadvantage. This paternalism was captured in the [url=https://go.skimresources.com/?id=130832X1595854&isjs=1&jv=15.2.4-stackpath&sref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.personalitycafe.com%2Fthreads%2Fthe-red-pill-yep-this-can-of-worms.1000986%2Fpage-9&url=http%3A%2F%2Fciteseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.470.9865%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&xs=1&xtz=-60&xuuid=8f63b66322db7d3d7742c98e16b1133d&xjsf=other_click__contextmenu%20%5B0%5D]ambivalent sexism scale[/url]

In common discourse, paternalism and sexism are often used synonymously, yet the former term, surprisingly, is not indexed in PsycLit, despite many references to the latter. Paternalism literally means relating to others"in the manner of a father dealing with his children" (Random House College Dictionary,1973). This definition meshes well with the view that sexism is a form of ambivalence, for it includes connotations of both domination (dominative paternalism) as well as affection and protection (protective paternalism).

Advocates of dominative paternalism justify patriarchy by viewing women as not being fully competent adults, legitimizing the need for a superordinate male figure. Yet protective paternalism may coexist with its dominative counterpart because men are dyadically dependent on women (because of heterosexual reproduction) as wives, mothers, and romantic objects; thus, women are to beloved, cherished, and protected (their "weaknesses" require that men fulfill the protector-and-provider role).

Research on power in heterosexual romantic relationships confirms that dominative paternalism is the norm (see Brehm, 1992, Chapter9; Peplau, 1983). In its most extreme form, the traditional marriage(see Peplau, 1983 ), both partners agree that the husband should wield greater authority, to which the wife should defer.Protective paternalism is evident in the traditional male gender role of provider and protector of the home, with the wife dependent on the husband to maintain her economic and social status(Peplau, 1983; Tavris & Wade, 1984).

This seems historically clear even in symbolic gestures of the father passing the daughter over the husband in marriage ceremonies because historically women were under the protection and control of the men in their family. And how is such paternalism justified on rational moral agents such as women? Well through hostile sexism, when society is hostile to women, men can position themselves as benevolent protectors of women. And no doubt this is a good thing, it is good to protect women from harm. But it just so happens that many men who want to protect women may simultaneously hold attitudes where she is on a pedestal of femininity, should she fail to adhere to her gender expectations of being sexually pure, domestic worker who listens to her authority figure husband or father, well she is under threat of hostile sexism because she won't be protected. Hell she might even been actively attacked by her partner because she might be undermining his authority over her, which is where feminists see gender beliefs underpinning great deal of domestic violence because its characterized by severe control of a woman and when she starts to try and escape that control she is beaten to instill fear in her. And if she tries to escape well she is often murdered because they can't handle her escaping his patriarchal control. This is where victim blaming stems from, biases agaisnt women not being lady like, women who have sex freely, who dress non-conservatively (she wanted it look at how she dressed). Women in societies with higher levels of hostile sexism are strong supporters of benevolent sexism, basically treating women like children: https://orbi.ulg.ac.be/bitstream/2268/28641/1/glickfiske et al_jpsp_00.pdf

People find this difficult to understand whats bad about it to which I say what justifies paternalist protection, restricting the movement of a person? Well it rests on the legitimacy of there being possible harms that befall a woman not under protection? Why is she protected, as long as she adheres to her feminine role as submissive servant who does as she's told and when she doesn't she'll cop it. Well then, shouldn't we address the sources of such hostility in the workplace, in civil society? Well no, this isn't a goal, men don't want to improve gender relations for women so that they can freely walk in society without fear of being sexually harassed, don't want them to be economically independent so that they won't be economically coerced to the wishes of men who want to purchase them for sexual use or to be afraid to leave them due to poverty for a lack of financial opportunities.

Instead, when a woman is harmed, the problem is seen as inevitable and the only response is an individualized one where women have to restrict themselves, don't drink, don't dress that way, don't go there, the world is dangerous so you need to be kept in your cage, i'm trying to protect you don't you understand, the world is nasty to women. Any attempts to address these problems by putting consequences on those that perpetuate hostile actions against women is mirred in gender ideology where women are positioned a sunworthy of protection because they weren't 'good' girls, they were sluts, they are LovePeddler, they are those that are hated because the ideal image of a feminie woman is shattered, they do not see women, they see the image in their mind which is projected onto to woman and then it is broken she is the target of his frustrations with the confrontation of reality where women aren't virgin mary or something. If the hostility is undermined, workplaces don't harass women who pursue career opportunities, if they aren't subject to such various degrees of violence, actively positioned as things whose value is primarily their sexual appeal and use in context where sexuality should be irrelevant, then one can't jstufiy the paternalistic restrictions imposed onto women for their own good. The threat is gone, its the difference between someone keeping you in their bunker because nukes were dropped and outside is radiated and someone who lied to you about the nukes and kept you imprisoned in their bunker, the legitimacy of the threat is the pivotal point to maintain womens restricted mobility and opportunities.

And men intimidated by women not restricted by the hostility of society because they have power of their own dislike changes that would empower women, they react by position themselves as the real victims of feminism and political correctness and then advocate like a reactionary a return to the traditional gender roles for women, because feminism ruined women, made them bitches who have too much attitude.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.454.3637&rep=rep1&type=pdf

......

Google MGTOW and you'll get more material.
The truth is that laws and customs in Western societies like US favor women too much.
What you see are men's reactions to that

...........

............

PoliteActivist:
Google MGTOW and you'll get more material.
The truth is that laws and customs in Western societies like US favor women too much.
What you see are men's reactions to that

Doesn't make any sense...

Feminism is good... Feminism practiced by Nigerian women on twitter isn't...

Mgtow means men going their own way... The desire is a society without women because we are all bad... But since that's not achievable, they usually aspire to become celibate (monks)...

How is that good?

And give me one instance the laws of the west favours women?

Also... Why do African men see the need to swallow a digital pill intended for western men? Does your society put women first?

Datboredberri:
Doesn't make any sense...

Feminism is good... Feminism practiced by Nigerian women on twitter isn't...

Mgtow means men going their own way... The desire is a society without women because we are all bad... But since that's not achievable, they usually aspire to become celibate (monk)...

How is that good?

And give me one instance the laws of the west favours women?

Also... Why do African men see the need to swallow a digital pill intended for western men? Does your society put women first?

Google Incel.
Yeah African Patriacal system favors RICH men and muslim men

Datboredberri:
Doesn't make any sense...

Feminism is good... Feminism practiced by Nigerian women on twitter isn't...

Mgtow means men going their own way... The desire is a society without women because we are all bad... But since that's not achievable, they usually aspire to become celibate (monk)...

How is that good?

And give me one instance the laws of the west favours women?

Also... Why do African men see the need to swallow a digital pill intended for western men? Does your society put women first?

Stop arguing ignorantly

Call a spade a spade.

Any emotional rethoric won't be replied. Quote me with sense

Nonsensical Nonsense.

Small Nyash want to shake

SweetBuns:

Stop arguing ignorantly

Call a spade a spade.

Any emotional rethoric won't be replied. Quote me with sense

Some one's story on reddit? That's your fact? Lol...

Reddit? You're smart...

You know how many fake stories I've posted there? I've been trans... Do better please

Women aren't payed the same as men... For doing the same job...

PoliteActivist:


Google Incel.
Yeah African Patriacal system favors RICH men and muslim men

So your enemies are the rich? I don't see how muslim men are your problem... Many African nations are predominantly Christian...

So why are you swallowing the pill? Your problems include corruption, terrorism, etc... Not women... Unless it's dating... And that's your priority?

I know what incel means... How does this relate?

................

Datboredberri:
So your enemies are the rich? I don't see how muslim men are your problem... Many African nations are predominantly Christian...

So why are you swallowing the pill? Your problems include corruption, terrorism, etc... Not women... Unless it's dating... And that's your priority?

I know what incel means... How does this relate?

My enemies what? What are you talking about?
I didn't swallow any pill.
BTW how about men who ENJOY being simps, even being submissive to women??

Datboredberri:
Some one's story on reddit? That's your fact? Lol...

Reddit? You're smart...

You know how many fake stories I've posted there? I've been trans... Do better please

Women aren't payed the same as men... For doing the same job...

Most rich people do not care about people,like Nestle employing slaves or Disney filming Mulan next to a concentration camp. What they care about is profit. If you want to check. By next year June or any year June check Disney or any other corporation Western social media account, you will see rainbow flag but their counterpart in places like Saudi Arabia you will not see rainbow flag.
So my point is that if women are actually paid less than men, women will be more employed than men. The reason there is a gender wage gap is because for the same job a man is more likely to work more hours and take less holidays. It is just biology,it doesn't mean women are weaker or useless,it just is
Honestly feminism has done it's work in the Western world, the feminist we have are mostly entitled b*tches who didn't fight for women rights but take all the credit and privileges.
We need feminist in places like middle east, China Africa to fight for women not to be honour killed in Muslims areas,stop being taught at age 8 or being married as a child which can lead to VVF not fighting for the right of walking naked on the streets.
Thank you,take it or leave it,it is just my two cents

PoliteActivist:


My enemies what? What are you talking about?
I didn't swallow any pill.
BTW how about men who ENJOY being simps, even being submissive to women??

Mgtow is a solution to a Western problem... Here in Africa, men are privileged... So why do we have redpillers? It's not necessary...

Men who enjoy being simps... What's your definition of the word? Who's a simp to you? A man who is easily manipulated? A man who spends on women? A man who's submissive?

I just want to understand what problems you have with other men doing their own sh**... It's their choice... Personal life that doesn't really concern you...

I think it's weird that redpillers aren't concerned about men who are being abused... Or raped... Those who are depressed...

It's another man's wallet your eyes are fixated on... Poverty mentality? The need to normalize your lifestyle? You can't afford to spend so you accuse those who can of being simps...

And who cares if a man is submissive? A couple, their power dynamics... Many men are dominant... Why are you still obsessed with those who are different? Do you see men cooking for their wives? Washing their underwears? Being full time house-husbands?

Ifyken2:

Most rich people do not care about people,like Nestle employing slaves or Disney filming Mulan next to a concentration camp. What they care about is profit. If you want to check. By next year June or any year June check Disney or any other corporation Western social media account, you will see rainbow flag but their counterpart in places like Saudi Arabia you will not see rainbow flag.
So my point is that if women are actually paid less than men, women will be more employed than men. The reason there is a gender wage gap is because for the same job a man is more likely to work more hours and take less holidays. It is just biology,it doesn't mean women are weaker or useless,it just is
Honestly feminism has done it's work in the Western world, the feminist we have are mostly entitled b*tches who didn't fight for women rights but take all the credit and privileges.
We need feminist in places like middle east, China Africa to fight for women not to be honour killed in Muslims areas,stop being taught at age 8 or being married as a child which can lead to VVF not fighting for the right of walking naked on the streets.
Thank you,take it or leave it,it is just my two cents

Okay... I kinda agree... This has always been my belief... But I don't see how the redpill changes anything... We just have a group of men who condemn women regardless of whether they are genuine or not... And all feminists to them are evil... Women want to manipulate them and gold-dig their...nothing! Cause most aren't even rich...

In Africa esp, the gap between the rich and poor is a huge problem... Nigeria, over 40% of the population live below the poverty line... Our politicians and tribal/religious leaders are corrupt... They steal from the masses and just let the country rot...

Do redpillers address this? Teach men life coping skills? No...

I know how some modern day feminists are... I'm not a hypocrite... But I don't think these bad eggs should be used to bring down a movement that has made women more than the dumb fu**-holes they were once made out to be... Women have contributed so much, esp in the West where they are allowed to prove their worth... In Africa, girls are still being circumcised... What about sex slavery? Nigerian feminists rarely talk about these but we need to address them... When redpillers act like feminism has done it's part and is no longer needed, we forget that 1 out of 3 girls have been sexually abused...

Africa still needs help... And feminism isn't anti-men... I'm all for teaching women to be self-sufficent and independent, to say no to gender norms... That's true empowerment not ranting on twitter...

It's not just the middle east... Though they are still so many years back... I feel for the women there...

You know what feminism is more than most Africam feminists...

Men are feminists too... As long as you believe that everyone's human rights should be respected...

Bump

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.454.3637&rep=rep1&type=pdf

The rhetorical attacks were deployed under the discursive banner of ‘political correctness’. This discourse positioned those who supported various forms of social justice as oppressors, while those making accusations of ‘political correctness’ positioned themselves as champions of free speech and mainstream values. This constituted a discursive counter-strategy aimed at attempts to empower the socially and structurally disadvantaged, and formed the crux of what became known as backlash literature. In turn, the powerful and privileged were repositioned as themselves victims of the political strategies of ‘special interests’. It was somewhat ironic, therefore, that this discourse promulgated the idea of ‘victimhood’ as a negative identity which embodied a number of assumptions: that claims of victimisation by ‘minority’ groups were exaggerated and supporting evidence largely fabricated (Iannone 2000/2001; Williamson 1996, 115; Dench 2000, 47), and that the ‘cult of victimhood’ was adopted as a deliberate political strategy designed to obtain ‘special treatment’ and institutional advantage through cynical manipulation of public sympathy (Hollander 1994, 41-2, and 1996, 60-1; Richardson 1991).

And I post that sexual violence is a systemic means of keeping women afraid, not that I necessarily see it as something people are consiously aware of but the function of the system sociologically plays out in this way where violence against women serves to restrict women from seeking to improve their position in society.
https://aifs.gov.au/publications/co...evalence-sexual-harassment-and-street-harassm

However, all of these forms of sexual harassment are interconnected, regardless of intent or the way they are experienced by the recipient, as "the remarks serve multiple functions of social control" (Kissling, 1991, p. 455). Kissling denoted this harassment as a form of "sexual terrorism", which serves to remind women of their status as sexual objects, and "of their vulnerability to these and other violations" (p. 455). It is here that the interconnections between sexual harassment and more severe forms of sexual violence are most apparent. Firstly, sexual harassment functions as a reminder to women of the threat or possibility of something "more serious" occurring, therefore rendering women as sexually vulnerable (Crouch, 2009; Kissling, 1991; Laniya, 2005; Macmillan et al., 2000; Tuerkheimer, 1997). Secondly, both sexual harassment and sexual violence remove women's sexual and bodily autonomy (MacKinnon, 1979), curtail women's behaviour, and are used to threaten, intimidate, and harm women.

https://aifs.gov.au/publications/conceptual-understandinThe continuum model of sexual violence is based largely upon the work and conceptual arguments of Liz Kelly (1987). Kelly's model viewed all forms of sexual violence and harassment as interlinked, and as occurring along the same continuum of behaviours. That is, it is inclusive of any and all behaviour that women experience as being sexual violence, ranging from what are often considered "minor" forms of violation (or are not acknowledged as a form of violation in other definitions of sexual violence at all (Kelly & Radford, 1996)), through to behaviours that fall within official/legal definitions of sexual assault and rape. Kelly purported that these different forms of sexual violence are connected by "the basic common character … that men use a variety of forms of abuse, coercion and force in order to control women" (1987, p. 48). This broad and inclusive definition of sexual violence also permits us to document and name "the range of abuse, coercion and force that women experience" (p. 48). Kelly argued that the continuum model allows us to account for the pervasive nature of sexual violence, which impacts most if not all women, while also recognising that "the form it takes, how women define events and its impact on them at the time and over time varies" (1987, p. 48).gs-and-prevalence-sexual-harassment-and-street-harassm

Back to the paper that gives the definition of misogyny, a large part of it discusses that misognyistic acts are actively directed towards women in power. Basically women who haven't stayed in their place and have defied the gender norms, they are to be attacked for not conforming with the natural order of things.
And I think there are great assessments of the sort of ideological position men take in order to refuse to acknowledge the reality in which women experience, just as many women who I'd say lack of feminist consciousness may internalize the very same gender ideology as they exist within the same society so they of course are under the thumb of the same ruling views.
Things like projecting intention onto a woman's clothing in order to ignore any communicated signs from the woman herself. Which a lot of men reject, they get themselves in a knot over feminists talking about how there is a culture that legitimizes or diminishes sexual violence and so when one criticizes street harassment they strawman the position as being opposed to men and women interacted. To which I think this paper touches on the distinction mentally that there is a crucial difference to someone who ignores social cues because they don't care about them and wishes to act upon you and someone who is in a mutual interaction, sensitive to your body language and what you say.
https://rebeccarc.com/2014/04/10/whats-the-difference-between-flirting-and-harassment/

As a couple of recent articles have perfectly illustrated, whenever feminists try to talk about the issue of sexual harassment – be it the catcalls and leers that women commonly experience while minding their own business walking down the street, or just good old-fashioned workplace sexual harassment – they are inevitably met with the supposedly killer objection: “but isn’t a lot of this just harmless flirtation? What’s your problem with people trying to flirt with you?”
...
The key feature of flirting, that makes it flirting, is that the person doing the flirting – The Flirt – is acutely sensitive to the desires and motivations of the person with whom they are flirting. Flirting is a process of sending out careful, subtle, micro-behaviours signalling one’s attraction: slightly prolonged eye-contact, a quick touch of the arm, an exaggerated laugh at a joke that was really not that funny. And, crucially, flirting also involves having a heightened awareness to the micro-behaviours being displayed by the other, to try to interpret their signals about whether this attraction is welcome. Does he maintain the prolonged eye-contact, or he does he quickly look away? Does she return the playful arm touch, or does she subtly inch further away to discourage further touching? Of course, this can all be done badly, with comic, embarrassing, or even distressing consequences. Some Flirts are terrible at reading other people’s body language, and blunder on, oblivious to the discomfort and awkwardness of their target. This is unfortunate, and it would be better for everyone if the useless Flirt would desist. But nonetheless, we can all recognise that this behaviour is largely harmless, causing not much more than some mild irritation or social embarrassment. When someone proceeds in flirting with us, despite our trying to make it clear that this is not welcome, we feel awkward and embarrassed, but not usually threatened or intimidated.

Harassment is different, predominantly due to the intentions of the Harasser. The Harasser, unlike the Flirt, is not sensitive to the desires and motivations of the person he is harassing.
Usually, he is not sensitive to these, because he does not care about them. He is going to proceed with his sexual advances, regardless of whether these are welcome or desired by the object of his attentions.

And I would add that it's not impossible for men to be conscious of a woman's experience, that I would argue that their personal experience and pressures of masculinity diminish men's tendency to empathize with women.
[url=https://go.skimresources.com/?id=130832X1595854&isjs=1&jv=15.2.4-stackpath&sref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.personalitycafe.com%2Fthreads%2Fthe-red-pill-yep-this-can-of-worms.1000986%2Fpage-9&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjournals.sagepub.com%2Fdoi%2Fpdf%2F10.1177%2F0891243202016003007&xs=1&xtz=-60&xuuid=84d93febf4c374a345b65d3207267fd2&xjsf=other_click__contextmenu%20%5B0%5D]SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND MASCULINITY The Power and Meaning of “Girl Watching”[/url]

CONCLUSION
In this analysis, I have sought to unravel the social logic of girl watching and its relationship to the question of gender differences in the interpretation of sexual harassment. In the form analyzed here, girl watching functions simultaneously as only play and as a potent site where power is played. Through the objectification on which it is premised and in the nonempathetic masculinity it supports, this form of girl watching simultaneously produces both the harassment and the barriers to men’s acknowledgment of its potential harm.

The implications these findings have for anti–sexual harassment training are profound. If we understand harassment to be the result of a simple lack of knowledge (of ignorance), then straightforward informational sexual harassment training may be effective. The present analysis suggests, however, that the etiology of some harassment lies elsewhere. While they might have quarreled with it, most of the men I interviewed had fairly good abstract understandings of the behaviors their companies’sexual harassment policies prohibited. At the same time, in relatingstories of social relations in their workplaces, most failed to identify specific behaviors as sexual harassment when they matched the abstract definition. As I have argued, the source of this contradiction lies not so much in ignorance but in acts of ignoring. Traditional sexual harassment trainingprograms address the former rather than the later. As such, their effectiveness against sexually harassing behaviors born out of social practices of masculinity like girl watching is questionable.

Ultimately, the project of challenging sexual harassment will be frustrated and our understandingdistorted unless we interrogate hegemonic, patriarchal forms of masculinity and the practices by which they are (re)produced. We must continue to research the processes by which sexual harassment is produced and the gendered identities and subjectivities on which it poaches (Wood 1998). My study provides a first step toward a more process-oriented understandingof sexual harassment, the ways the social meanings of harassment are constructed, and ultimately, the potential success of antiharassment trainingprograms.

What this woman found that when thought experiments were set up so that men were to be in the position of woman being looked up and down in the workplace when they're trying to be taken seriously, they totally understood how it must be like for some women. Lecherous staring, not quick glances that we all get away with (another case of trying to conflate feminist positions with things that any reasonable person accepts in order to position feminists as crazies.

When asked to envision himself as a woman in his workplace, like many of the individuals I interviewed, Karl believed that he did not “know how to be a woman.”
Nonetheless, he produced an account that mirrored the stories of some of the women I interviewed. He knew the experience of girl watching could be quite different—in fact, threatening and potentially disempowering—for the woman who is its object. As such, the game was something to be avoided. In imagining themselves as women, the men remembered the practice of girl watching. None, however, were able to comfortably describe the game of girl watching from the perspective of a woman and maintain its (masculine) meaning as play

That men aren't ignorant, or incapable of understanding but they actively ignored these things. And to street harassment I like to mention this quote that really epitomizes that sexual harassment has to make the woman aware that she is being viewed as a sexual object, its not enough to glance at a woman, its to have the power to humiliate and without fear of consequence.

One can sexually objectify a woman simply by thinking about her in a certain way; the woman need not be aware that she has been objectified for it to be the case that she has been. If this were all objectification amounted to, it would not be nearly as problematic. But Bartky points out that this is not usually the way things go. She describes an experience of sexual harassment not unlike Native Companion's, that of enduring the catcalls and whistles of strange men:

While it is true that for these men I am nothing but, let us say, a "nice piece of ass," there is more involved in this encounter than their mere fragmented perception of me. They could, after all, have enjoyed me in silence. Blissfully unaware, breasts bouncing, eyes on the birds in the trees, I could have passed by without having been turned to stone. But I made be made to know that I am a "nice piece of ass": I must be made to see myself as they see me. .. It is unclear what the role is played by sexual arousal or even spontaneous connoisseurship in encounters like these. What I describe seems less the spontaneous expression of a healthy eroticism than a ritual of subjugation. 10

And not that in the vast definitions of objectification, feminists don't oppose all forms but only those that they can argue are morally problematic. Hence another point in which people exaggerate the feminist position and strawman it in order to position themselves as enlightened opponents.

Because what are you going to do if men harass you in the street? Maybe some women have the gusto to stand up to them and many men can't handle that but what if they're in a group of men, what if they're a bit dangerous looking and look like they'd hurt you and could do so easily? Power relations clearly designate when one feels comfortable to act on others in such a way, knowing that it's not so innocent because if there was threat of consequence they wouldn't dare behave as such, like saying it to their female employer.

And whats interesting in this awareness that one is being viewed in this sense seems related to Louis Althussers idea of ideology, that seems to see even the basic acts of identifying ones self in this way part of a social process where one is within the ideology with the other. That ideology creeps into our subjectivity by acknowledging us as subjects. Simple summary of the idea:

According to Althusser, the obviousness that people (you and I) are subjects is an effect of ideology. Althusser believes that there are two functions of interpellation. One function of ideology is “recognition” and the other function, its inverse, is “misrecognition”. Below are a few concrete illustrations that Althusser provides to further explain the two functions:

When a friend of yours knocks on your door, you ask “Who’s there?” The answer, since it is obvious, is “ it’s me”. Once you recognize that “it is him or her”, you open to the door. After opening the door, you see that it truly is he or she who is there.
Another illustration reflects Althusser’s idea of reconnaissance. When recognizing a familiar face on the street in France, for example, you show him that you have recognized him and that he has recognized you by saying “Hello, my friend”. You also shake his hand when speaking. The hand-shake represents a material ritual practice of ideological recognition in every-day life of France. Other locations across the world may have different rituals.

Althusser uses the term "interpellation" to describe the process by which ideology constitutes individual persons as subjects. The ideological social and political institutions - the family, the media, religious organisations, the education system and the discourses they propagate - 'hail' the individual in social interactions, giving him his identity. Althusser compares ideology to a policeman shouting "hey you" to a person walking in the street. The person responds to the call and in doing so is transformed into a subject - a self-conscious, responsible agent whose actions can be explained by his or her thoughts. Althusser thus goes against the classical definition of the subject as cause and substance, emphasising instead how the situation always precedes the (individual or collective) subject. Concrete individual persons are the carriers of ideology - they are "always-already interpellated" as subjects. Individual subjects are presented principally as produced by social forces, rather than acting as powerful independent agents with self-produced identities. Althusser's argument here strongly draws from Jacques Lacan's concept of the mirror stage[SUP][3][/SUP][SUP]:162[/SUP] — we acquire our identities by seeing ourselves somehow mirrored in ideologies.

Women have to be reminded of their place, to be kept in place, to not achieve power. And there are many men who are a lot more supportive of women, though I'd say that because we're very unconscious to our habits and internalized views, we aren't often able to necessarily see how even with the best of intentions we replicate the practice of such ideologies even if we consciously reject them. Because being aware of behaviour isn't enough to change a habit, only the most radical of people are prepared to go against the grain and put into practice their ideals in such a way because one will be pushed around for attempting to enact as such.
[url=https://go.skimresources.com/?id=130832X1595854&isjs=1&jv=15.2.4-stackpath&sref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.personalitycafe.com%2Fthreads%2Fthe-red-pill-yep-this-can-of-worms.1000986%2Fpage-9&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lacan.com%2Fzizrobes.htm&xs=1&xtz=-60&xuuid=f889db064e1500249418bab16fad55fa&xjsf=other_click__contextmenu%20%5B0%5D]Slavoj Zizek - Robespierre or the "Divine Violence" of Terror[/url]

Another "inhuman" dimension of the couple Virtue-Terror promoted by Robespierre is the rejection of habit (in the sense of the agency of realistic compromises). Every legal order (or every order of explicit normativity) has to rely on a complex "reflexive" network of informal rules which tells us how are we to relate to the explicit norms, how are we to apply them: to what extent are we to take them literally, how and when are we allowed, solicited even, to disregard them, etc. - and this is the domain of habit. To know the habits of a society is to know the meta-rules of how to apply its explicit norms: when to use them or not use them; when to violate them; when not to use a choice which is offered; when we are effectively obliged to do something, but have to pretend that we are doing it as a free choice (like in the case of potlatch). Recall the polite offer-meant-to-be-refused: it is a "habit" to refuse such an offer, and anyone who accepts such an offer commits a vulgar blunder. The same goes for many political situations in which a choice is given on condition that we make the right choice: we are solemnly reminded that we can say no - but we are expected to we reject this offer and enthusiastically say yes. With many sexual prohibitions, the situation is the opposite one: the explicit "no" effectively functions as the implicit injunction "do it, but in a discreet way!" Measured against this background, revolutionary-egalitarian figures from Robespierre to John Brown are (potentially, at least) figures without habits: they refuse to take into account the habits that qualify the functioning of a universal rule:

Such is the natural dominion of habit that we regard the most arbitrary conventions, sometimes indeed the most defective institutions, as absolute measures of truth or falsehood, justice or injustice. It does not even occur to us that most are inevitably still connected with the prejudices on which despotism fed us. We have been so long stooped under its yoke that we have some difficulty in raising ourselves to the eternal principles of reason; anything that refers to the sacred source of all law seems to us to take on an illegal character, and the very order of nature seems to us a disorder. The majestic movements of a great people, the sublime fervors of virtue often appear to our timid eyes as something like an erupting volcano or the overthrow of political society; and it is certainly not the least of the troubles bothering us, this contradiction between the weakness of our morals, the depravity of our minds, and the purity of principle and energy of character demanded by the free government to which we have dared aspire.

To break the yoke of habits means: if all men are equal, than all men are to be effectively treated as equal; if blacks are also human, they should be immediately treated as such. Recall the early stages of the struggle against slavery in the US, which, even prior to the Civil War, culminated in the armed conflict between the gradualism of compassionate liberals and the unique figure of John Brown:

African Americans were caricatures of people, they were characterized as buffoons and minstrels, they were the butt-end of jokes in American society. And even the abolitionists, as antislavery as they were, the majority of them did not see African Americans as equals. The majority of them, and this was something that African Americans complained about all the time, were willing to work for the end of slavery in the South but they were not willing to work to end discrimination in the North. /.../ John Brown wasn't like that. For him, practicing egalitarianism was a first step toward ending slavery. And African Americans who came in contact with him knew this immediately. He made it very clear that he saw no difference, and he didn't make this clear by saying it, he made it clear by what he did. [11]

So the radical response is to try and break habit with the material form of ideology which is a person's actions/practice, which is often organized by the established social relations that legitimized themselves as natural with ideologies like gender where women are to accept their position. This ideology is reproduced not only in the social relations but through different instituions, through our mass media where we come to recognize messages within it. Historically the church was the primary means of ideological maintaince, for the whole divine right of kings, but now our modern preparation for fitting within society's roles and rules is the education system. Follow this link ==> https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/althusser/1970/ideology.htm to see more detail of how Althusser believes education replaced the Church. Because it's not enough to simply forcefully take control of the state, one has to actively instill one's own ideology so that it is reproduced throughout the society. And whilst Althusser is talking about capitalist society, school is clearly part of the gender ideology process and hence the struggle over what is taught in sex ed, how girls dress.

https://jenseyatvajameh.files./2008/07/sakhtareejtemaiejenseyat.pdf

For Society, Gender Means Difference
The pervasiveness of gender as a way of structuring social life demands that gender statuses be clearly differentiated. Varied talents, sexual preferences, identities, personalities, interests, and ways of interacting fragment the individual's bodily and social experiences. Nonetheless, these are organized in Western cultures into two and only two socially and legally recognized gender statuses, "man" and "woman."11 In the social construction of gender, it does not matter what men and women actually do; it does not even matter if they do exactly the same thing. The social institution of gender insists only that what they do is perceived as different.

If men and women are doing the same tasks, they are usually spatially segregated to maintain gender separation, and often the tasks are given different job titles as well, such as executive secretary and administrative assistant (Reskin 1988). If the differences between women and men begin to blur, society's "sameness taboo" goes into action (Rubin 1975, 178). At a rock and roll dance at West Point in 1976, the year women were admitted to the prestigious military academy for the first time, the school's administrators "were reportedly perturbed by the sight of mirror-image couples dancing in short hair and dress gray trousers," and a rule was established that women cadets could dance at these events only if they wore skirts (Barkalow and Raab 1990, 53).12 Women recruits in the U.S. Marine Corps are required to wear makeup - at a minimum, lipstick and eye shadow - and they have to take classes in makeup, hair care, poise, and etiquette. This feminization is part of a deliberate policy of making them clearly distinguishable from men Marines. Christine Williams quotes a twenty-five-year-old woman drill instructor as saying, “A lot of the recruits who come here don't wear makeup; they're tomboyish or athletic. A lot of them have the preconceived idea that going into the military means they can still be a tomboy. They don't realize that you are a Woman Marine" (1989, 76-77). 13

If gender differences were genetic, physiological, or hormonal, gender bending and gender ambiguity would occur only in hermaphrodites, who are born with chromosomes and Instruments that are not clearly female or male. Since gender differences are socially constructed, all men and all women can enact the behavior of the other, because they know the other's social script: “‘Man’ and ‘woman’ are at once empty and overflowing categories. Empty because they have no ultimate, transcendental meaning. Overflowing because even when they appear to be fixed, they still contain within them alternative, denied, or suppressed definitions” (Scott 1988a, 49). Nonetheless, though individuals may be able to shift gender statuses, the gender boundaries have to hold, or the whole gendered social order will come crashing down…

Hence tensions around boys dressing like girls and historically girls dressing like boys because it blurs the exclusivity between man and woman in the abstract which is man and non-man, because a woman doesn't exist as a definition in her own right but only in relation to men who are the primary definition. Derrida illuminates how words don't have meaning in isolation and tries to subvert the hierarchy in language. Because it's not only the actual relations, but visual distinctions, which have been exaggerated for clear effect that a woman is a woman and a man is a man. Because whilst we have our sexually dimorphic bodies, we also exaggerate differences through our clothes, our behaviour our perceived essential natures exaggerated to a strong degree under the guise that its simply nature and not the social relations pressuring people to certain ends. The need for exclusivity is particularly hard on men because they have to enforce onto themselves and others a dissociation with femininity otherwise their masculine identity endures crisis, like those bohemians mentioned earlier who likely had a anxiety about their 'feminine' roles. Once ideology is internalized one polices ones self and simply avoids such things, that one could intellectually be okay with feminine things but ideology is so thoroughly part of his self concept and sense of self that even when aware they can't overcome their aversion to certain things that are seen as feminine.

And I think this is why men respond to crisis of identity with trying to affirm their masculinity, rather than to disrupt gender as a category so that it breaks down and men and women have a broader range of behaviour they can do as a people. The category collapses unto itself, where people get all iffy thinking it means we're all going to wear the same grey unisex clothes, but that doesn't make sense. It's more people will wear broader range of things and it won't conceptually make sense to speak of cross dressers, drag queens and so on because clothing won't be gendered, certain tasks won't be feminine or masculine because it's seen as a task of responsible adult to look after ones kids. Men need to be shown that the reaction isn't to simply affirm traditional gender roles and be reactionary, but to see the positives in breaking down the gender restrictions imposed upon them. That breaking the concept doesn't mean the material content of men being sweet, doing sexy things or wearing sexy clothes suddenly poofs out of existence and I think it's a confusion on the manner in which we give meaning to the empirical reality and how somethings simply cease to exist in human consciousness because the conditions have radically altered. In fact people talking about masculinity and feminity are obscurists in that they don't specify what they're talking about.

If being assertive or aggressive is masculine, and a man and woman both behave aggressively or assertively, it makes more sense to Bleep off the whole its masculine and say what one actually means. That gender is but an added layer to the core concepts that already exist and have normative overtones where the attrituvev it related to one's sex and then if their is a dis junction between masculine or feminine one might disapprove. Though im aware one can not have a evaluative judgement about a woman being masculine in some way and its used to communciate concepts in a broad way but it still seems to be shitty communication because the concept of masculine and feminine is vauge and based on the social relations one was brought up in that give the content to the word.

Example of how our real world gives meaning to words
https://www.marxists.org/archive/mikhailov/works/riddle/riddle3a.htm

In full accord with the long tradition of empiricism Bertrand Russell held that the social (universal) significance of the word “rain” was the result of abstraction (induction, building of inference) from the individual particulars of perception. For him it is social “depersonalised” language that strips rain of its individual perceptual peculiarities and keeps in the meaning of the word only that which is repeated in an autumn drizzle and a tropical downpour. But we see that a word contains the universal (our Something) in its meaning because it serves us as a means of intercourse, “doing things” in relation to rain, when we shelter together from the rain, pray for rain, study the possibility of preventing it or making it by artificial means. In all these cases the ways and means of our intercourse and activity (particularly language) establish not the mere sensations that are personally unique or the same as everyone else’s, but the meaning of real rain for our life-activity, its objective role in our social and personal lives, the role it plays precisely because it is rain, because this is its objective essence that does not depend on us. And it is for this reason that our “initial”, apparently direct perception which Russell took as the sensuous individual basis of all human experience, is itself guided and filled out by the universal meaning of the ways and means of intercourse and activity that we have learned (this is the idea behind Marx’s thesis that our senses become theoreticians).

I also want to raise suspicion on the concept of toxic masculinity because it originates from those that wish to restore what they see as a positive sense of masculinity rather than to break the concept down. Basically its not something that originates within feminist thought and so its problematic for anyone who wishes to take it from its origins and place it within it. Such a use of words is reckless and can be destructive to other concepts by interjecting thoughts that don't fit within their logic and result in contradictions that people struggle with because they don't realize it has no place in such thought and needs to be discarded as it confuses things in being an ill fit. That i'm of the sentiment that the construction of a word could perhaps bring with it certain associations that when placed in a new context of meaning, confuse things. Something typical to fascists, with their tendency for eclecticism to broaden their appeal but also confuse peoples thought as its not necessarily that coherent and unified as its a crap shoot for ideas and terms to legitimize its core interests.