In our day and age, there exists one very important red-pill truth which most people sub-consciously accept but which is unmentionable in polite society: namely, that women, ultimately, are entirely dependent on men. Indeed, it is arguably the greatest irony of the entire feminist movement that that movement is an undertaking which is fundamentally at the mercy of the very patriarchy that it despises, and it always will be. And so, all the women in Western society demanding equality, protesting about sexism, and screaming about the patriarchy, are only able to do so because they are tacitly permitted to engage in such behavior by the very men that they rail against.
First, note the obvious fact that men are naturally stronger, more aggressive, and more capable of serious violence than women. And lest you disagree, note that prisons are filled with a hell-of-a-lot more men than women; also note that an average male UFC fighter, for example, could easily beat even the very best female fighter in a one-on-one contest. So the fact that men, on average, are physically stronger and more proficient in the realm of violence and war is not really in dispute. And this is the first point to note.
Second, from a philosophical perspective, note that while we in the West talk quaintly about the idea of human rights, the fact is that while ‘might does not make right’, might does, in fact, make the rules. Indeed, human “rights” only have force because men with guns stand ready to enforce those rights. But without those men, it would take no more than a moment for those rights to be suppressed by whoever had the power to do so.
Indeed, just look at some third-world hell-holes to see who makes the rules there: warlords and other men with guns, who readily kill anyone who does not follow their rules, human rights be damned. Thus, the fact is that, in reality, might does indeed make the rules, regardless of whether we want it to or not.
So, with the two aforementioned points in mind, now note the obvious conclusion that those points lead to: since men, on average, have more physical power and might than women do, and since might makes the rules, then men could, if desired, easily take the reins of power and thus make the rules for Western society once again. Indeed, since Western men have previously used their power in society to give women some power—think female suffrage, for example—then there is nothing theoretically preventing men from using force to take that power back on a whim.
What this means is that the freedoms, the rights, and the “equality” that Western women enjoy today only exist because Western men have permitted Western women to have these things. Thus, without either the tacit or overt the permission of men, women would, in practice, have none of the freedoms and rights that they currently enjoy.
Furthermore, even in today’s modern society, where the disparity in physical power between the sexes has somewhat diminished due to the advent of technological equalizers, women are still dependent on men in an ultimate sense. After all, when some strapping 250-pound man starts beating his wife, the only thing, in the end, that will stop him is either another man or a women with a weapon most likely invented by a man. So again, women, in this respect, are still dependent on men.
Even when women can defend themselves against men through the use of technology, the fact is that the very technologies that women are using to give themselves physical parity with men were nevertheless largely invented by men, meaning that even in this respect, women’s safety and freedom is still directly dependent on the will and knowledge of men. So even the technology that women can use to escape the need for men shows their ultimate dependence on the male gender.
In contradistinction to the main thrust of this essay, a woman might object that a man is utterly dependent on a woman in the sense that only a woman can give birth to a man and give him life. And in this respect, women are entirely correct. But even here, the value of women is dependent on the kindness of men.
For make no mistake, if men, as a collective, wished to do so—and, obviously, no one is condoning this, but the point is to make clear that it could theoretically be done—men could enslave all women in such a manner that they could do nothing but give birth at the whim of men. Indeed, a society where reproduction was achieved through near total female subjugation would be an abhorrent one, but the fact is that such a society could survive and even thrive to some degree, as it does in Afghanistan, for example.
Might makes the rules, and the only reason that such an absolute female oppressing society has not been created in the West—as it has in other parts of the world—is because Western men do not allow it, not because women could stop it. After all, men still make up most the ‘fighting’ professions, such as the police and the military, and so even with modern technology, women would not stand a chance in Western society if men ever decided to rise up as a collective against female freedoms and “equality”. And while this truth may be harsh to hear for women, it is the truth nonetheless.
Both now and in the future, the only reason that Western women enjoy any rights is because, ultimately, men have tacitly allowed women to enjoy those rights. And while certain men readily allow women to have these rights because doing so grants those men greater power in other areas—think politicians and the female vote—the fact remains that, in the end, the gains of Western feminism only exist because Western men have implicitly granted permission for those gains to exist.
If men, collectively, decided to change their minds about feminism tomorrow, and forcibly remove all the rights from women on a whim, there is, in fact, little that women could do to stop them. And Western women should not forget this fact. Nor should they forget that their existence in the West is arguably the best that they could ask for, and that to push men too far may ultimately lead to a backlash that women might rather not wish to experience.
Read More: The Power of Feminism