Feminism Comes Full Circle Into Embracing Aristotle’s “Natural Slavery”

“The woman follows the man. In her youth she follows her father and elder brother; when married, she follows her husband; when her husband is dead, she follows her son.” – Confucius

Aristotle made a cruel observation regarding human nature in his treatise on politics that continues to offend sensibilities to this day. He argued that some people were slaves by nature, and the proper course for such individuals was to subject themselves to the rule of their superiors. Aristotle argued that “natural slaves” lacked the reason to think properly and thus slavery was as beneficial to them as captivity was to cattle (to protect them from wild predators).

He believed that slavery was a perfectly natural condition since too many managers and too few workers would halt productivity, to invoke a modern metaphor. Who are natural slaves? We see them all around us every day. They are accountants, doctors, engineers, construction workers, and all those who possess enough reason to excel at their work without questioning the status quo. They are individuals who want a cushy job while surrendering difficult decisions to the nanny state.


Aristotle understood the limitations of his theory, as some that possessed the souls of free men became enslaved while those that were slaves by nature became free. It is my belief, however, that those that are slaves by nature will choose slavery if given free choice and those that are masters will rise given the same environment of freedom.

A couple of years ago I asked a middle aged female co-worker what she would do if she had a million dollars. She informed me that she would spend the money on repairs and renovation of her house in addition to paying off her mortgage. She had spent the money in a matter of seconds and informed me that a million dollars wasn’t enough to gain financial independence. She concluded the conversation by stating that she would be back at her desk even if she won a million dollars at the casino. This individual is a natural slave. But what does all of this have to do with feminism? We shall examine the connection below.

The first feminist


Mary Wollstonecraft has the dubious honor of being recognized as the first liberal feminist in History. Her major endeavor was “vindication for the rights of women.” One of the central arguments that the work advocates is that society should respect the rational autonomy of women. She formulated this argument in the broader context of women’s education, which was a widely debated topic during her lifetime.

Wollstonecraft believed that women had the same capacity to grow as men did and that a well rounded education could aid women in becoming contributing members of society. Her arguments seem tinged with Kantian ethics, which were quite the rage during the enlightenment. Contemporary feminists are still divided on whether Wollstonecraft should be considered a true feminist or not given that she did not challenge the primacy of gender roles.

Wollstonecraft’s works provided a tremendous ideological thrust for the suffragists, but this nascent feminist movement still lacked a central ideology until the rise of gender feminism in the 60s. Much of the Marxist rot that saturates society today has its origins in the gender feminist movement of the 60s. The suffragists still saw themselves as members of a particular ethnic group and preoccupied themselves with the interests of those groups.

For example, an Irish suffragist was still proud to be Irish just as a German suffragist was proud to be German. Gender feminists would eventually tell women that nationalism was “masculinized history” and that women mustn’t take pride in their ethnicity and culture, but rather from their Marxist class identity: “women.” Unsurprisingly, the average North American feminist is concerned more with the education opportunities of Afghan women than she is with the plight of the homeless man down the street.

The path continues


Betty Friedan — three guesses why she became a feminist


Betty Friedan famously argued that a woman had no identity outside of a few roles that society had forcefully assigned her, such as wife and mother. To Friedan, these roles were wrongly at the core of a woman’s identity instead of her inner characteristics (such as her intellect) and achievements. So far both Friedan and Wollstonecraft seem to agree that women need to develop their characters and inner faculties independently of the limited roles that society has accorded them.

Where they seem to differ lies in their attitudes toward culture and society. Wollstonecraft never attacked gender roles and saw the education of women as a means to an end: producing a better society. Friedan and later feminists weren’t concerned with the well-being of society so much as they were with re-constructing culture on their own terms. For the sake of brevity let us just say that Wollstonecraft and the suffragists had a holistic objective in mind (the interests of society as a whole), whereas second wave feminists had a solipsistic objective in mind: the interests of women (as a Marxist class) at the expense of society.

The third wave

Third wave Feminism saw the loosening of social expectations aimed at policing women’s behavior. Expectations pertaining to responsible alcohol consumption, sexual behavior, and even appearance were all summarily carpet bombed by feminists under the banner of “choice.” The case of Hamilton and Hylton is worth mentioning, as it sends out a clear signal that women are simply not accountable for their actions.

Put another way, women are treated like children and feminists actually prefer it that way. The modern feminist mantra “Don’t teach me to do x, teach men not to do y” reeks of narcissistic entitlement. Fat acceptance feminist Lindy West illustrates this childish mindset perfectly. To West, it is more logical for society to alter its aesthetic taste than for obese women to go on a diet.

The sentiment “Why should I change? Everybody else should change to accommodate me!” is the thinking of one whose mental faculties have not reached maturity. This is sort of immature mindset that Schopenhauer prophetically criticized as thus:


“Women are suited to being the nurses and teachers of our earliest childhood precisely because they themselves are childish, silly and short-sighted, in a word big children, their whole lives long…”

Third wave feminism has vindicated Aristotle’s views on human nature. That when given unfettered freedom, women choose to yield to their inner nature and become big children. Children, as we all know, need a guardian and that role is fulfilled by the nanny state. It is worthwhile to note that old fashioned liberals like John Locke (Life, Liberty, Property) argued in favour of individual freedom by limiting the powers of government. Contrast classical liberalism with female infested modern liberalism where “oppressed groups” tilt the resources of the majority toward themselves using a bloated nanny state as their lever.


John Locke — perhaps more handsome than Betty Friedan


Strong willed men have historically desired small government whereas “strong and independent” women desire the very opposite. It is clear that women subscribe to a very different definition of freedom compared to men. Men desire freedom from government whereas women desire freedom from sociocultural obligations where the cost of their impropriety is borne by society and enabled by the state. Can you guess which definition of freedom would be agreeable to the overlords of the encroaching police state?

Third wave feminism brings the feminist enterprise full circle, as it liberates the very shortcomings of female nature that the earliest feminists believed were the product of patriarchal subjugation. The dementia of the feminist movement extends well beyond the vapid dogmas that comprise its ideological core. The root of its dementia lies in the movement’s belief that women can be free of their nature; that somehow feminism can undo thousands of years of female evolution.

Ironically, the case against feminism is best made by feminism itself.

Read More: Another Whiny Feminist Reveals The Hypocrisy Of Feminism And Social Justice Warriors

102 thoughts on “Feminism Comes Full Circle Into Embracing Aristotle’s “Natural Slavery””

  1. Good analysis. Very astute. Thank the forces that be that I don’t hear much of feminism where I live, but I’ve seen its decadence hit the modern cities. How long this lasts depends on the babysitter government. When it falls, feminism has no more corrupt regime collecting tax dollars from what is left of the nuclear families footing the bill for the femicunt’s own cock-gobbling self-destructive path, and will be bereft of funding. In this world, it’s amazing how little something lasts where there is no funding. Once that happens, the ‘law’ has little meaning to those who complain of being violated when they are just attention-seeking.

  2. Excellent article. I pretty much agree with all of it.

    Unsurprisingly, the average North American feminist is concerned more with the education opportunities of Afghan women than she is with the plight of the homeless man down the street.


    Betty Friedan — three guesses why she became a feminist

    She looks like Steve Buscemi in drag.

    Strong willed men have historically desired small government whereas “strong and independent” women desire the very opposite.

    Women see men as nothing more than resource providers. They think it’s the job of men to provide them “free” things. It’s all rationalized as “equality” and “progress.” Modern feminism is nothing more than a Marxism in disguise, a trojan horse.
    What’s funny is that even the Ancient Greeks knew how women were. Read Women in Parliament, written in 390 BC. It’s a comedy (quite raunchy and funny!) about a female-led government, and the ridiculous form of Communism they try to establish.

  3. Everybody’s little narcissistic ideas of what “freedom” is.
    I know what real freedom is: it’s not needing permission or acceptance from anybody. Compare that to the “freedom” of the others, that freedom that constantly seeks validation, having it’s reasons and excuses accepted.
    And I think that infestation comes from feminism. It’s stink has gotten into everything so that even people calling themselves patriots are making excuses for their liberties.
    Real freedom has no excuse and needs no justification.
    Shallow fake freedom needs a “system” (read: Cathedral) behind it to justify, validate, and ENFORCE it.
    We will be seeing the return of the real nature of women if they manage to collapse society.
    And if that happens, it will be up to men to MAINTAIN their nature and weigh every woman (literally) for her worth for saving from starvation and rape gangs.
    Meaning if he wants a wife and she’s not wife material, then move on. If he wants a mother for progeny and she is infertile, unhealthy (from a lifetime of ice cream and wine while watching reality TV), or too old – a life wasted on being an office troll, move on.
    Give them shovels so it can be handy to bury them with. Saves the time having to look for one.

    1. Your comment is spot on – women will bend (like even most men), to accommodate their new social external environment. The only issue I have is that when feminism collapses in ten years or so, it will be because the banksters achieved their objective in alienating men-women from each other and atomising the family unit. Both genders will fall for this, and will waste their time fighting each other as their living standard falls to that found within a third world nation.
      Goodbye the west, hello Brazilification (or worse).

      1. You’ve sent out your defeatism as readily as news without fact checking. This website is devoted to spreading the truth of modern culture and inciting discussions on the optimal path to changing the state of affairs for the future of humanity.

      2. You think turning off money from academia will make feminism go away now? That’s wishful thinking at best, the ideology is embedded into the minds of most women and many men now as natural and a part of “how things always were”. It does not require funding any longer, it simply “is”.
        I do see what you’re saying about “divide and conquer” however, are you entirely certain that it’s applicable in this case? Men here don’t hate women, they despise feminism. In other words, they despise *the divider*, not the divided. Crucial difference that may well stop us from falling into your dystopian future communist dictatorship.

        1. I disagree. Feminism is so at odds with reality and everyday experience, that it would quickly disintegrate without constant reinforcement by “powers that be”. Squash the quackademia and MSM, and I give it five years until it reaches the same level of respect that National Socialism has today. No actual effort needed.

        2. I meant in regards to propaganda. But then, I don’t see the welfare state going away at all, it appeals to a broader segment of society than just feminists.
          In reality I do hope you’re right though.

        3. The propaganda needs to be focused and orchestrated to be effective, and the bench of focusers and orchestrators is pretty short. Do you really think anybody would listen to that drivel without the quackademic faux-respectability behind it?
          I agree about the “welfare” state, though. Sad times we are living in :-(.

        4. Even those of us that realize women are nothing more than voids to be filled still love them.

    2. “We will be seeing the return of the real nature of women if they manage to collapse society.”
      Don’t worry… The system will collapse itself without need of the assistance of women.
      Feminism is a symptom, not a disease.

  4. The resistance is mounting, one man at a time with women in tow… looking to be taken in hand. Convert those who are worthy at first then the message will spread. Down with feminism: up with humanity!

    1. Ugh… I don’t deny feminism is bad, but sinking so low as to think that men are fighting women when the issue goes much deeper – conquering women is easy; conquering much deeper entrenched social issues backed by big money is hard. If i was a dictator, you (and the majority of society who believe in this shit) would be a great slave as I got you and the other group to fight each other. The true enemy is not women. And talking about ‘resistance’ is a limp dick word – are you really so low as to need to ‘resist’ against women and feminism – are western men really that weak? Feminism WILL GO DOWN in the next 10 years – but you won’t be the winner. There will simply be no need for the bankers to fund it any more, as it achieved its objective, which was to atomise society. It’ll just be back to the days of good old Communism, but on more of a global scale. And we know how that turned out for the USSR – 100 million white Christians killed alone. The current issues are much bigger than feminism; women’s ideologies are just a nuisance and they are given power by either male attention or external funding from moneyed interests.

      1. Women are never my enemy. You will never be my master. I love the ladies and will continue to guide them to fulfilling lives. GoJ… read his posts. We rise against the prevailing negivity to the social antagonist of traditional biological norms. Good luck in your dictatorship man, I’ll be the first to attack your headquarters.
        EDIT: you’ve put words in my mouth. Examine again.

        1. “Good luck in your dictatorship man, I’ll be the first to attack your headquarters.”
          Don’t know where you live, but odds are that you’re probably under a country with sham democracy right now. Yet, you’re not attacking them. Why then take arms against a leader, honest enough to call himself a “dictator,” for replacing, say Obama, a “President” who can have you imprisoned, tortured, and/or murdered at his whim?

        2. LOL indeed. No piece of toilet paper in history has been shat upon so much as this one.

      2. Best comment for this year.
        But it seems to me that people behind RoK have no interest (or even curiosity) to expose the forces behind feminism.

        1. The secret is there are NO forces ‘behind’ feminism. It is the inevitable result of a creature designed by evolution to resolve problems.
          We have resolved all the real problems. So we have to keep inventing new problems to solve. High-technology and too much ease of existence has made us bored… so we have to keep inventing new shit to fix.
          Fortunately, the problem always eventually fixes itself by making survival challenging again. Usually by people ‘fixing’ our high technology world of ease into nonexistence.

  5. “Ironically, the case against feminism is best made by feminism itself.”
    That’s it. Nice piece and thank you WK.

  6. Good God! Look at those ugly women. It has been said that feminists become so because they can’t get men. Is the solution that we have to force alphas to fuck these pigs so they have something else to occupy their minds. A cock ration for the infortunate or something?

    1. Haha. A cock ration of alphas for ugly women. That’s hilarious but might actually work! Think of how many Betty Freidans would NOT have become feminists if a young Brad Pitt was forced to hump her once a month!

      1. This is covered under O- care. Cockrationing is noted on page 8,889,333 of the act. look it up.

      1. Don’t laugh, this will be the next “benefit” mandatory on Obamacare-compliant insurance plans…

  7. Yup. The last bit summed it up perfectly, the best answer for feminism, is feminism itself.
    But we have to speed it up.
    They want warrior women. No hesitation. There are like 2500-3000 Abrams tanks. Get 200 for a female only battalion, basic training (like all young men only get before being shipped otu to war, whatever basic means in actuality), and ship them out to the enemy. If caught, and videoed being brutally raped, and beheaded, we all mourn. Like we do for men. But only the others in her femme-fattalion are allowed to go get her. And we will ensure a draft happens to gather the required women in the tanks. Then we get them in infantry…when that “works out.”
    They want 40% of women on their boards? Ok, ensure forty percent of men are placed on all boards of privately owned business of women.
    They want equity in IT fields, fine. We want the same equity in the legal positions, and in education.
    Basically, make everything equal. Including, being fired for failure. Without pay, or benefits.
    And then, refuse them access back to the kitchen. You know?
    If they need it.

    1. the problem with ‘starship troopers’ was all the fucking girls.
      Not that I didn’t appreciate the tits, but it was more lampshading than spaceship laser noises and brain-suckers combined.

    1. Most liberals who lead that movement are of a certain ethnicity. I’m waiting for the hate to pour in from paid shills and the brainwashed useful idiots. Their opinions count for shit.

      1. Thanks. No discussion is complete without somebody blaming the jay-oh-ohs for everything. Now we’re only waiting for the lizardmen guy to chime in…

        1. What a surprise: someone who calls himself “cynical realist” makes a smarmy comment without refuting what the person he’s mocking is actually saying. Real edgy MAAAAN!

    2. Classical liberals are now known as Libertarians. Modern liberals are nothing more than Marxists.

    3. Absolutely. I’ve eluded to this in another post but it’s completely strange how “liberals” espouse neo-Marxist Statism and are entirely against classical liberalism…Yet, we still consider them Liberals. On the other hand, after the Occupy Wall Street fiasco, it’s doubtful most “liberals” even understand there’s a difference between things like ideology and social stratification.
      Either way, Statists vs. Diffuse-Power advocates would be a more accurate terminology than the canned liberals and conservatives or as they like to call each other “libtards” and racists.

    4. What we call Liberals today were Progressives in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. During the 20s and 30s, many of the far-left progressives began to
      support fascism, with H.G. Wells, one of the most influential progressives, calling for progressives to become “liberal fascists” and “enlightened Nazis”. Many looked to Mussolini’s fascism as the way of the future.
      During this whole time, Liberals were what we call today “Classic Liberals” and to some degree “Libertarians” – government is a necessary evil that should be limited as much as possible. It was a term in high standing.
      After WWII, the term “progressive” was considered almost un-American and tied to both fascism and communism*. So, what did they do? The hijacked the term Liberal as their own, first using the term “Modern Liberal.” Over the years, they destroyed the name through their poor policies, and in the 2000s, Liberals started adopting “Progressive” again.
      * Both fascism and communism are leftist philosophy, even though the media and leftist say fascism is right leaning. Fascism was started by leftist Benito Mussolini. Adolph Hitler was a leftist who adopted a similar policy to Fascism called Nazism. Nazi stands for National Socialism. Socialism – not in the least bit right leaning. The reason that fascism is tied to the right is because communism is pure leftism, so since fascism is not as far to the left, it’s to the right of communism. And that’s how we have this bastardization of terminology.

      1. Unfortunately, it’s really difficult to distill everything down into “right” and “left.” It’s like trying to chart a 3D world with 2D coordinates. The term “fascist” has itself been muddied over the years. Few people can describe it, and simply use the word as a synonym for “evil.”

      2. Actually, the original fascism was a “third way” ideology. It borrowed equally from “right” and “left” ideas. While Mussolini honestly tried to implement it this way, the inherent contradictions and conflicts caused by fascism pushed the state to resolve them by progressive centralization and nationalization – moving the de facto organization of society firmly to the left.
        Later fascist movements (like Hitler’s) have all skipped this initial phase and went straight for far-left socialism.

      3. Anyone who can’t remember the man’s name is spelled Adolf and not Adolph doesn’t know shit about 20th century history.

        1. Very interesting comment,
          i was about to say that by liberal definition of feminism is a luciferian organization it the catholic sens : an idea that we refute the role we have been given by birth for the right to choose and do without the consequences on other. Liberty in that sens is the extreme of individuality. Same thing also for the LBGT. That is why they stick together: destroy the patriarchy/civilization (the Marxist agenda).
          They should be enemy since Feminism say that the gender role is cultural while the LBGT say they are born that way and they cannot not do nothing about it.
          Crowley said : Do what that will shalt be the whole of the law. Sound a lot like the 60’s and the feminist of today
          Btw Mussolini trow Crowley out of Italy as there was rumors that he was doing human sacrifices.

    5. People that self identify as a libertarian today have no idea about what classic libertarians (anti state and anti government socialists) had to say.

  8. I really wish the men vs women articles would stop; this just allows us to fight each other whilst banksters and their brethren feed off the flesh from the corpses after both sides have exhausted each other. There was some poster on another article recently who had cartoon after cartoon prepared in like 30+ posts, where it was obvious they are a paid shill for generating dissent between both genders as the banksters make off with all the REAL assets, not our worthless paper money. Unfortunately, since most people don’t have time or the inclination to post, and because most people are easily led down bad paths, if a paid shill can get their post up voted 20 times by associates/a software hack, their vote counts more than yours. The inter webs are not as bad as political vote rigging, but they are almost as bad as content deemed ‘inappropriate’ frequently gets deleted, especially if it is concerning a certain ethnicity that acts like a mafia, owning the think tanks and banks that make up our real governing bodies in the west.
    I’m not saying women and manginas aren’t part of the problem – but if the funding disappeared, these groups would do a rapid 180 and suck it from whatever other group(s) gave the directions. The real problem is global communism from a group determined to have it all, whilst others suffer; and this group is keen to murder and enslave on their way towards this goal. To be honest, the human race was always shit and needed God badly, but seeing many of the comments here makes me feel that the west is beyond fucked (although many of such poor commentators may be paid agents, I give you that). Using sites like this is a great way to corral people in their open air prisons, rather than providing real direction and innovation, which needs to be done locally through strong local networks. I guesstimate accurately enough that most/all real ‘men’ will avoid using the internet for debate in the next 2-3 years as its the same tired old memes designed to brainwash us, as the innovative stuff is too individualist for the ‘elite’ (haha) and so it will receive no funding or be shut down as it threatens the moneyed group. I’m going to start taking my own advice here, as I can see far too often that the internet is a great way to control debate and disseminate lies, but free speech and debate is limited online too – it’s a waste of time and resources to keep preaching the same things when people prove far too often, just like men are hooked by cheap pussy, they are hooked by cheap and tired talking points that get them waylaid for their own destruction.

    1. Moreover, everything you say on the internet is recorded for all eternity, and your anonymity is at most a comforting illusion. NSA knows who you are. Hell, the whole alphabet soup of federal bureaucracies knows who you are. And who I am.
      As for putting the ship right, reclaiming our freedoms and reforming society, that might be a really great idea . . . if this were 1995.
      As for me, I wholeheartedly support the endeavors of whatever Isreali or American or Chinese or whatever government agency or contractor or bank is reading this post right now. I think you’re doing a great job! Keep up the good work 🙂

  9. Brilliant piece
    “Men desire freedom from government whereas women desire freedom from sociocultural obligations where the cost of their impropriety is borne by society and enabled by the state. Can you guess which definition of freedom would be agreeable to the overlords of the encroaching police state?” is a perfect summary of the culture wars

  10. That woman who would pay off her mortgage with the $1 million is a keeper.
    Most women don’t have that degree of future time orientation.
    Besides, $1 million, after greedy Uncle Sam gets his cut, is $600k. That’s not enough to raise a kid outiside of the ghetto.

    1. actually, depending on how you get that million, Uncle Sam can choose to keep up to 96% of it… as many many lottery winners have learned to their dismay.

  11. The whole history of feminism can be summed up as this:
    Greedy entitled bitches (riding on the backs and support of their mangina husbands) wanting more and more to fill that gaping abyss of a hole in her psyche – a hole which in a man is filled by his adaptability and intelligence – while being granted more and more free rides and privilege simply for having a vagina while contributing nothing to society but disorder and a means for proliferation of STDs.
    Your average women today is a complete tool, a know-it-all with no applicable knowledge who squawks at her superiors for their “privilege” while in reality its just plain jealousy.
    She isn’t worth the handful of nickels tossed at her by a john for her only real utility – a vagina. Feminism can be congratulated for producing an entire generation of useless complaining bitches, sorry welfare states and fatherless men with no direction in life.
    And the progressive type wants us to think this is a good thing?

    1. TL/DR version:
      Women are, always will be, and always have been, gaping holes to be filled by a man.
      Congratulations, you have just nutshelled the entire study of evolution, anthropology, and psychology as it applies to women.
      They exist only to create a creature with an absolutely enormous brain, and the vast majority of their bodies and brains are hardwired to do exactly that. Everything else they do they fuck up monumentally.
      Feminism- the belief that women are men too.

  12. “Who are natural slaves?”
    See that guy in the power suit getting onto the train? No, not that guy. The one next to the guy in the power suit, next to the guy in the power suit next to the guy in the power suit, all trying get onto the same train so they can get to the office at the same time so they don’t get in trouble for being late.
    Yeah, that guy. Poor bastard thinks he’s a big shot alpha male, because he’s got a good job which landed him a gold digging trophy wife who started planning the divorce rape before he even proposed.
    Yeah, I know; you can see pretty much the same scene at any abattoir.

    1. I know a Guy who made money and married a 9. After they got married she turned out to be a crazy bitch. She’s a 4 in my eyes just because she’s so rotted.

  13. Amazing article, clear, concise and on point. You know exactly what feminism is, a wealth transfer by the Marxists class of women from men. Wit is enhanced when you go on a paleo-diet, you’re advertising that greatly.

  14. Great article until the end.. Locke was not a liberal.. Far from it.. Locke was a libertarian…. Hobbes, Marx, Rousseau, where huge liberals… Liberals don’t believe in freedom, they just use it to push there ideologies… Liberals take up the “we’re right everyone else is wrong approach”.. Liberalism goes side by side with totalitarianism..

    1. Liberal used to mean “libertarian” or it was so close to it that the difference is niggling at best. When the Left arrived in force in the 1920’s they absconded with the word “Liberal” because people had learned to fear “socialist” and “progressive”. In short, they hijacked the word. Jefferson and the rest of the men of the Enlightenment considered themselves Liberals, and in the sense of “libertarian” they were correct.

      1. True. It’s only in America that ‘liberal’ means ‘leftist / socialist / progressive etc’

  15. I was at that pic of Betty Friedan and am awestruck by how much she resembles The Count from Sesame Street.

      1. Puppets teach us a lot of things. Most importantly,is they are being controlled by a greater force.
        Humans can be puppets too. Most of our presidents are.

        1. yeah, but if you have a sock puppet of Obama it looks too much like a monkey and is called ‘racist’.

  16. I think that is Lindy West on the right. Lindy West one the harpy skanks from Jezebel. She is now a staff writer for GQ magazine a supposed magazine for men.

  17. Thoughtful.
    The enslavement-by-choice folks, of course, far outnumber those who choose freedom. Freedom is hard and requires discipline, sacrifice, and self-responsibility.
    The anecdote about your female co-worker exactly illustrates the slave mentality, particularly of American ma-terialist culture. Enough money to live lifelong without want . . . and all she can think is to re-feather her nest endlessly, and buy all new furniture, truly a typical Treadmill Hamster. Because ME ME ME and the rest of creation can rot. The U.S. non-economy in a nut/shell.

    1. …or a monumental success, depending on which side of the bankster-slave divide you are on.

    1. That poster only proves me correct how Anglo white female feminism only hurts literally everybody, even non-Angles, let alone non-Europeans.

  18. I believe Wollstoncraft was bi; she ran off with her lover(somehow one of the two inherited some money) with the intent of forming their own fem utopia. They scrapped the idea when the money ran out…

  19. Strong willed men have historically desired small government whereas “strong and independent” women desire the very opposite.
    A small government but a strong government. An education system that promotes national, sex and class harmony. National service for all men with an army of elite fighters and a strong rule of law. There would be a few other little stipulations but I think that those are the governments three main areas of interest in creating a viable state and a confident populous.

      1. I think that at a certain age men need discipline and a sense of belonging. If the state grants men true liberty then it should be the duty of every man to defend those privileges.

  20. Excellent stuff. More historical articles on this theme are appreciated. Especially with the pervasiveness of feminist’s ‘slightly inaccurate’ version of history. Hopefully this comment gets through as comments on this site tend to get eaten up faster than a twinkie that comes within one orbit of lindy west.

    1. ‘slightly inaccurate’.
      I like that. It’s like saying a man is ‘slightly restrained’ by being hanged, or ‘slightly injured’ when caught at ground zero by a tactical nuclear device.

  21. It is clear that women subscribe to a very different definition of freedom compared to men.
    Great article.
    Women do not desire freedom. Freedom is supposed to “have many definitions” but I’ve never subscribed to that theory. Defining anything one wants in the political realm as “freedom” has always seemed to me to be an exercise in sophistry. Freedom means and has always meant, at its core, the ability of the individual to act in certain ways without the constraints of authority being required, either to consult for permission or to practice.
    All other forms of “freedom” are French Revolution nonsense or its descendants “Freedom from want, freedom to elect people to dictate over you, etc”.
    Ergo, when women want “Freedom from reality and consequences” they do not want freedom at all, they want instead, as noted in the article, natural slavery and are *very* happy to accept that as their station in life, no matter how much they protest to the contrary.

    1. Freedom is such a nebulous word that it’s stupid to enshrine it as a concept. It’s like ‘love’, or ‘liberty’. In very real terms it means absolutely nothing.
      Frankly, the only real ‘freedom’, or ‘right’, a man has or should have is the freedom to walk away if he doesn’t like the rules, to someplace that either has different rules or no rules.
      Until we find a way to ‘walk away’ from this now thoroughly owned and settled planet, freedom is utterly impossible.

  22. I wholeheartedly support small, unintrusive government that keeps its grubby hands out our business. That being said, I question if its the system of Governance we need right now. Freedom of speech and assembly are important but they are double edged swords. Why does Marxism resonate in our societies? Because we allow it to speak and we allow it to take on a shape. Our current failing models of big government all toe the progressive line which is why they have fucked us over ad nauseum. But what if we had a form of big government that was pro masculinity, pro-nuclear family and pro- everything else we believe in? Could a dictatorship under a guy like Roosh not work?
    Then theres the issue of the Marxist problem that already exists within our key institutions. Under a small government and its moral inflexibility, would we be able to carry out violent purges that liquidate the people and groups that espouse these ideas? Roosh sanctioned paramilitary, antileftist death squads sound like a good idea to me. Marxism is a cancerous growth in our societies and it needs to be surgically removed. I understand that human nature lends itself to corruption and my ideas could be unfeasible but Ive become disillusioned with forms of government that nurture total individualism.

    1. I have no desire to live under a dictatorship run by anyone.
      The problem is not that we have freedom of speech or freedom of assembly, the problem is we have allowed our federal government to outgrow it’s Constitutional constraints in general, and in many particular instances cater to women specifically.
      If part of this country secedes, and sets up a government based on the Constitution again, it will be a small government once more with all of our freedoms, and feminism will disappear when all the welfare checks, rent subsidies, food stamps, WIC crap, EBT cards, etc, etc disappear.

      1. Feminism needs socialism to thrive, socialism need feminism to make headway in a society. They are in a symbiotic relationship in the West. Eliminate one and the other disappears with it.

        1. The question is how do we eliminate them? Lets say you secede and set up a government that considers the Constitution sacrosanct, the issue is that socialist ideas will return time and time again because this form of government will allow them to. To eliminate progressivism we need to eradicate it from the public consciousness. To do this we need to eradicate those who spread its teachings. Then there’s the issue of who will run these governments. If we go down the democracy route, it is pretty self explanatory what will happen. What does that leave then? Don’t get me wrong, what your proposing is ideal but it can only come about after modern leftist discourse has been ruthlessly dealt with and hammered out.

        2. I actually wasn’t proposing anything, just making an observation.
          They toppled centuries of combined Classical Liberalism in less than a century without firing a shot within our borders. They did so by strategic placement of politicians AND through a long, long process of propaganda. They made small “rebellion” against liberty seem cool then progressed from there through the decades to the point that now it’s assumed that any sign of freedom is somehow tainted with “teh eeeeeebils”.
          The counter strategy is to do the same thing, in reverse. The manosphere is a good start in that direction, in fact, the PUA movements from the late 1990’s were the actual seed, we’re the growth under the grow lights, and our grandsons will be the full fruition of our cause. There’s no denying our message is starting to get out AND it is causing the same bellicose reaction people used to have in the 1940’s against Communism, from the “establishment”. We are counter-culture, which by definition is cool and edgy even if people are scared of it. Keep up the work and we’ll make a better day for our progeny, but I doubt we’ll live to see it come to full term, just as socialists in 1925 aren’t alive now to witness their monster lumbering across the world.

        3. Feminism needs socialism more than the other way around. Before the rise of modern feminism, socialists rode the wave of economic class warfare. Later they exploited racial divisions. The artificially created war of sexes is only one in a string of social divisions wedged and widened by progressive socialists in their quest to find the best “proletariat” to carry their revolution. It wasn’t the first one, and won’t be the last one.

        4. Cheap corn and soy are the basis of the current socialist malaise. No subsidized corn and soy, no prole mob to leverage. Centralized agriculture creates centralized government. Duh, and or, hello!

        5. more accurately, you cannot kill one without killing the other FIRST.
          progressivism stands on three, powerful legs… Humanism, socialism, and feminism. Without any of these three, the whole thing would fail, but every time you cut off one of the legs the other two immediately ‘fill in the gap’, introducing a host of new, powerful lies to reinforce the failing member.
          Unfortunately, at this point, I think that the only thing that COULD break this evil stool is classical tyranny… absolute monarchy with essentially NO wiggle room for people to claim any rights that are not the will of the despot.
          Without a single, strong man… one who can command the loyalty and LOVE of other men, one who is relentlessly realist and nearly endlessly ruthless, one who is utterly willing to take the sins of good governance on his back, and who is willing to consider America and all of her people his PERSONAL property, this government will fall into total anarchy and centuries of warlordism.
          No such man exists, so I suggest you start hoarding ammunition… maybe you can be the next warlord.

        6. It’s not about who ‘needs’ whom. Feminism is the INEVITABLE result of socialism, every time socialism takes hold.
          Females are hard wired to consider themselves more important than anyone else. Humility is not part of their genetic profile… and Men, unfortunately, are also hard wired to agree with this fact.
          Thus, any government which claims to be ‘of the people’ will inevitably decide that ‘women are people too’, and the moment that happens, women immediately start leveraging themselves as the superior creature, with the help of willing men.
          EVERY society that claims that ‘all men are created equal’ will inevitably decide that they OWE the ones that can make a claim to having been treated unequally a superior lot in life.
          Socialism inevitably destroys merit. God forbid one groundhog lift it’s head above the others, it MUST be chopped off to make ‘everyone equal’

        7. Eliminate every constitutional amendment not ratified at the original time of the constitution’s creation, namely, every amendment passed AFTER 1789.
          and THIS line has to be changed or eliminated:
          Article I, Section 8, Clause 3
          [The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.
          One of the founding father’s few mistakes, they massively overlooked the power greedy individuals would evoke from exploiting, warping, and overreaching this simple phrase.

  23. “One of the central arguments that the work advocates is that society should respect the rational autonomy of women.”
    It’s hard to imagine a lie more destructive than this one.

  24. The “Natural Slave,” in Aristotle, is not so much “somebody who doesn’t want to make hard choices,” but someone who, through some defect (whether of nature, such as low intelligence, or of character, such as laziness) is not able to provide a living for himself. A man who could provide for himself, even if he was a political nitwit, would not be considered a “natural slave” (hence, I would hesitate to call a left-wing doctor a “natural slave,” provided the doctor was professionally competent – always an open question with a left-wing “professional”). Natural Slaves thus engage in menial tasks – all they are fit for – and essentially live as the wards of their masters. Aristotle says that the slave is an integral part of any household, citing an ox as “the poor man’s slave.”
    For Aristotle, the household is the fundamental building block of a political society. Women would not have been considered slaves but, as you note in your article, their typical categorization has been something analogous to children: they are under the authority and protection of the husband. They differ from slaves insofar as they are considered free-born members of an household, and would receive more civil respect and protection, but certainly the idea that women would be granted an autonomous existence or equality with men, seemed as absurd to the great men of yore as it does to thinking men today. I think your article did well, to point out the fact that women have now embraced a hopeless mess of contradictions, which actually reinforces all the negative “stereotypes” about women, and, if anything, has paved the way for us to reintroduce them to their position as subordinates to men – men, who will actually do the thinking for them, and take care of them better than they know how to care for themselves.

  25. As many things change, some will stay the same. We see this in the past when civilizations died out from many things, but I wonder if they became so civilized that they forgot the basic rules of life.
    Case in point- When feminism runs it’s course through life and deprives many young women of the ability to have a happy marriage, career as a homemaker and children… who will be left to carry on it’s harpy message? Their cats?
    Men age far better and our ability to have children carries on for many years to make sure that genes are passed to potentially many generations. This feminism thing will explode, get out of control, become a disaster and many will be confused and angry at the outcome.
    Only men will be able as always to build a new generation from the ashes. And teach women what is truly important… in the meantime I am content making myself more of a man and learning important skills.

  26. Maybe it’s just the kind of women I attract. Maybe I have a Daddy persona. But I find when I treat beautiful women like children, they love it …

  27. As a female I initially bought into the feminist ideology, after not much time I saw it was a total farce. The leftist style of thinking sickens me but to voice your opinion in the current climate would have you entirely alienated .

Comments are closed.