- MBTI
- ENFP
- Enneagram
- 947 sx/sp
Well, that's the feminist story which doesn't strike me as sober representation of affairs.
Indeed, and it was not meant to be.
It's muddled with the fallacy of moral progress and the idea of equality meaning that women should act like men, which is not justifiable from an evolutionary standpoint.
All other things being equal, I tend to think the free exercise of agency and autonomy is a moral good, and by extension, so is increasing the numbers of people that have the opportunity to choose for themselves. That said, the point is the elimination of the should and the supposed to—women will do as they wish, in accordance with their knowledge and gifts, within the limits of their resources, as constrained by their situation. The biology, and the evolutionary processes that led us to where we find ourselves today are not changeable in any substantive sense, and were not the target of desired changes. Culture certainly was. At the same time, I acknowledge that there are different approaches to feminism, and expressed activism certainly differs. Some of this expressed activism suggested women could (and should) be freed from their biology—never explaining how that was to happen.
It's not like these roles have been arbitrarily decided by some cabal of men who just wanted to rule everything forever; it's the necessary consequence of masculine energy manifesting into political systems.
Agreed. For some, the goal was to cultivate a move toward equity in the gender energies witnessed in those political systems.
I don't understand, for example, why is it considered empowerment when women work for a corporate boss, but oppression and injustice when they work for their families. It seems much more influential, therefore powerful, to be able to raise and shape a child who will then go on to do the same outside of the family. The whole idea of empowerment really just seems like enfeeblement in most cases, in that it's trying to maximize what you're allowed to do while minimizing having to deal with the uncomfortable consequences of doing it.
Of course—that’s part of the ever-increasing economic production demanded by the machine, encouraged by a propaganda that has been molded to appeal to a certain feminist marketing zeitgeist—but what is promised and sold is entirely other than what is delivered.
Part of that is the purposeful devaluation and taking for granted of a thing of real worth—to birth and rear a child—because that can’t be easily commoditized in a manner which yields quarterly returns, and because that necessarily reduces the labor pool for other would-be (labor-based) profitable endeavors.
So then we went on to have a sexual revolution, and what of it? All we got is hookup culture, chronic loneliness, awkward consent soliciting and AIDS after we learned that there is no such thing as free sex—and men have suffered just as much from this.
Yes, but we also got sexual pleasure, greater freedom of sexual expression and identification, and increased sexual happiness—for a time anyway. The peak of all this (in America), 1986–1991, was 30+ years ago, and now the pendulum is swinging the other way. Now people are having less sex, and are less sexually happy—or so the data suggests. To be fair, during that time 30+ years ago, it was the peak of unplanned teenage pregnancies, and as the aggregate cohort, Gen-X was setting records for STD transmission.
Hookup culture has always existed—what has changed are the ways and means, and the myths we tell ourselves about it. Chronic loneliness—the human condition.
Awkward solicitation of consent? Ha, better than no solicitation, and no consent! Done on the regular, it becomes a natural part of engagement. Having been raped—both as a child and an adult—I think consent, awkward and cringey as fuck, is the most wonderful of things.
Not to mention the aberration of open relationship, or God forbid, open marriage, which is entirely predicated on the idea that it's okay when you can't satisfy your wife's emotional or sexual needs; no, it's actually a moral virtue that you are allowing her the freedom to cheat as you try to appear nonchalant while getting cucked. And it happens the other way around too obviously.
Different strokes for different folks. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Those things aren’t for me, and beyond that, it’s none of my business.
Do be careful with your verb conjugation—you run the risk of being thought an incel—such is the association of certain words today.

We can say that any relationship where the wife is actually being denied any agency in running a family or abused is wrong, and it's also wrong in violation of the ideal of marriage. Similarly we can say that arranged or forced marriage is a bad idea, for it undermines the opportunity to form a truly loving bond on optimal grounds.
I’m with ya’ on that.
But marriage itself has always been the ultimate ideal of harmonious cooperation between men and women as lovers—a hierophany, if you will.
I will, and I do.

And I don't accept that some men who have failed to secure that harmony should be used as an excuse to dilute that specific meaning.
I’m not sure I followed you here—if you mean gay men seeking to be wed, fair enough. That’s in line with my first-expressed idea. But because the State has stuck its fingers into the pie, and language is lacking, we get a ham-handed effort in the name of secularism and (prepare to cringe!) inclusivity.
Cheers,
Ian