Alt Left: Female Rule Violates the Laws of Nature

In the provocatively titled The Cunts Versus the Men post, perceptive commenter Tyciol writes:

Maybe a better word as opposed to feminism would be equalism or something?

Like it’s relative to position.

Women were certainly downtrodden in the past and lacking rights, so equalism would be feminist in that case.

But in the reverse scenario, if men could not vote, etc., then any resulting equalist movement would have to have a masculinist agenda.

Suffrage to me has never been about focusing on women’s rights but simply more about simple equality, since women are also people and have opinions which should be counted. Similarly, the right to choice (abortion) to me is not about favoring women but rather that people should not be forced to carry parasitic feti for months if they don’t wish to.

I’m pro-choice, and I’m all for equality for women in all of the sane ways. But I wonder if equality ever works. We offered women equality, and instead they took their equality and ran past the 50 yard line heading for our goalposts to try to dominate us and rule us. I guess it’s natural. Neither sex is going to be happy with mere equality. If you give women equality, they’re always going to use that step stool to try to install Female Rule. And I guess we asshole guys will always try to install Male Rule.


Nevertheless, equality is surely something to support. Better than equality: how about this? Rights. Not necessarily equality, but rights. No matter what we think of them, females have basic rights, and in most ways, they have the same basic rights as we do. So do gays, Blacks, lots of folks. It’s not a matter of liking. You don’t have like Black people; a lot of White people don’t. And a lot of straights are not too fond of gays. But how can we deny that gays and surely Blacks have the same set of basic rights that any human does?

I have nothing against Female Rule in principle, assuming they were capable. But I don’t think they are. And I don’t want to live under Female Rule. The chicks will dig it (I guess! Or maybe they won’t?!), but it will suck for the guys. We already have a Matriarchy with the Politically Correct crowd, and honestly, it sucks.

Male Rule sort of sucks for women, but they seem to be happy, and the men surely are happy. Female Rule violates Nature* and seems to make both sexes increasingly miserable.

I don’t think that females ought to be allowed to install their Female Paradigm in society. Think about it. Is there any society that ever let the women rule? I can’t think of one. Why is that? Surely it must have been tried in the past. Not all human males are patriarchal shits, and a lot of us are lazy. Surely there were times in the past when the lazy guys said, “We give up. You do it. You rule. Go for it.” I assume it was tried in many cases in the past, and the result was the same as it is now: chaos. In which case, the sane people realized that either you have Male Rule or you have Chaos.

Allowing the Male Paradigm to rule society works, and most societies work that way, but it also often violates women’s rights at least somewhat most of the time and keeps them down. But in a lot of these societies, like Hispanic ones and many other traditional societies, women seem to like living under Male Rule. You go to these places, and as long as Male Rule isn’t too evil, everyone seems happy. It’s like they know they are Living In Nature.

I don’t hear a lot of complaints from the Hispanic females around here about the Male Rule they live under. Women get to be feminine, men get to be masculine, and everyone is happy. I don’t think Hispanic women want to rule. They want some relative equality, at least in terms of earning power, and around here they are granted that. Hispanic women can make quite a bit of money, and some do here. But they’re still quite feminine.

On the other hand, White women seem to have so much greater freedom than Hispanic women, but they seem to be so much more miserable! It’s like the more freedom you give women, the less happy they are, and the more they complain about Male Rule.

Even when the women are in charge, increasingly the case nowadays, the women keep complaining about the Patriarchy. As Female Rule deepens, the women get angrier and angrier (paradoxically as they get more and more rights and power!) and become more and more masculine. This upsets Nature, and Nature doesn’t tolerate defiance. She demands balance, just like in the forests and jungles.

As the women get increasingly masculine, the males will have to become increasingly feminine to compensate and create the balance that Nature demands. As women become increasingly masculine, they get more and more unhappy, because it violates women’s own nature. On some level, the female organism knows that acting masculine is fucked up, and this throws the organism into disarray.

Of course, as males become increasingly feminine, they get more and more miserable too, because femininity violates man’s own nature. So you end up with Northern California White People, where even the straight people act like queers and dykes.

It follows from this scenario that you would see increasing situational and opportunistic homosexuality in both sexes. As males feminize, they tend to engage in increasing amounts of homosexuality. As females masculinize, they also tend to engage in increasing amounts of homosexuality.

As Female Rule deepens, women will increasingly reject continuous marriage and raise fatherless men. Once again, a violation of Nature. Nature demands that both males and females have fathers. Nature punishes those who defy her. She punishes fatherless males by turning them into criminals who lash out at the world as a surrogate for missing father. She punishes fatherless females by turning them into sluts, trying to screw their way to Daddy’s missing love.

Both criminals and sluts are often unhappy, probably because most men are not supposed to be criminals and most women are not supposed to be sluts. Both criminals and sluts frequently lead at least difficult and often tragic lives.

Women can have power, but only if they either don’t upset Male Rule or at least only try to be equal.

*I am applying Nature in the sense of Natural Law, especially the Catholic or philosophical sense. When I say something violates Nature, I mean it violates Natural Law – that is, it’s unnatural in terms of mankind’s evolution.

Of course violations of Natural Law occur, but as they violate our evolutionary imperative encoded in our genes, there will be ill effects, since humans are not meant to violate Natural Law. Violations of Natural Law will have consequences.

Feminine men and masculine women are miserable. Female Rule (matriarchy) violates Natural Law and results in chaos and even unhappiness for females, since even females dislike Matriarchy deep down inside because it’s unnatural. Fatherless families violate Natural Law and result in criminal boys and slut daughters, both of whom are miserable.

When I say something violates Natural Law, I mean it violates our evolutionary imperatives coded in our genes. The result will be unhappiness and pathology, as our natural and genetic imperatives are violated, thwarted, and twisted.

Please follow and like us:
Tweet 20

27 thoughts on “Alt Left: Female Rule Violates the Laws of Nature”

  1. No, I don’t think there have ever been any matriarchal societies. There have been matrilineal societies, though.

    I don’t know how men would ever go along with a matriarchal society, really. You’ve described our current PC state as a Matriarchy, and if it is, it couldn’t have become that way without the cooperation of men.

    Why would they have cooperated with it? I would love to know.

  2. “Male Rule sort of sucks for women, but they seem to be happy, and the men surely are happy. Female Rule violates Nature and seems to make both sexes increasingly miserable.”

    As long as men can continue to lie to themselves that women are happy under their rule, then it’s all good. Guess what? If most women could prolong the human race without the aid of men, they’d choose that. Most women don’t care for men that much. They TOLERATE men.

    And don’t claim to speak for Hispanic women; you don’t know their plight. You’re not one.

    I suppose women can go back to staying in the homes, dealing with cheating husbands who’ll abandon them when they’re 45 so he can date his 25 yr old secretary and leave his wife with nothing.

    1. “Most women don’t care for men that much. They TOLERATE men.”

      Are you serious? Women don’t care for men that much?

      This is sort of like being a fish and saying you don’t care for water that much.

      Much of the security and convenience most women take for granted was produced by men.

    2. Hey, now, bro…that response (and subsequent ban) WAS a tad harsh- but…was there something else said by “Caares” that we don’t now see?).

      However, in your defense, just think of what people would think if a MALE said that we MEN only TOLERATE females…that we don’t even like them, etc., that we could easily live without them, bla, bla…that person would be labeled in the harshest terms…

      This “Caares” person is a perfect example of how “feminism” has (unfortunately) degenerated into one big MAN-HATE fest!

      Also, to assert that one can NEVER speak for a group (i.e. Hispanic females) without being a member of that group…that is pure ignorance…(this person apparently failed Logic 101).

      Let’s be thankful that not ALL females ascribe to man-hating insanity disguised as feminism.

      By the way, I’m all for sexual equality! Send all war-mongering females to the front lines to get shot-up, for starters. Make them dig ditches and do all the dirty, dangerous jobs men usually do. We’ll stay home and change the diapers!

    3. Hi Ian. The response that got her banned was deleted and you can’t see it. The response above is not bannable at all, of course.

      Thx for your comments, Ian. You’re still full of spunk even after Mott split up, I can see. Go to it, old man.

    4. I suppose women can go back to staying in the homes, dealing with cheating husbands who’ll abandon them when they’re 45, so he can date his 25 yr old secretary and leave his wife with nothing.

      What planet does this utter fool come from??

      Hey chicka, did you ever hear of alimony?

      I don’t know about the country where you came from, but here in the US and A a man is usually forced by the “Family Court” system to provide up to 50% of his income and assets to his ex-wife and kids — for the rest of theirs, or his, life.

      Please, when you go about making emotionally-laden comments like that, at least get your facts straight first. This way, at least you won’t look stupid as well as arrogant.

    5. …so he can date his 25 yr old secretary and leave his wife with nothing.

      BTW, how many average men out there even have a job that requires a secretary???

      Oh yeah, this is one delooosional ‘lady’! 🙁

    6. The comment on “moral scares” is profound. Mr Lindsay, thank you. It is worth hearing and seeing this. It is better to observe dissension between groups than only know one side of the argument. You analyzed this dilemma well. This is important for me to know as an intellectual. If I can suffer through the voices like yours long enough to learn what’s truly going in and out of the minds of discontented men and women, then that’s an unpleasant truth, but better the brutal truth than theoretical platitudes.

  3. Dear Robert:

    Let’s be clear about one thing: a Law of Nature can’t be violated. Whatever happens, unless it is a miracle, is natural. If something is really against Nature, then it won’t happen at all, and no admonishments are necessary to prevent it. It is against Nature for men to get pregnant, and that’s why no parent ever tells their son to avoid getting pregnant. It is unnatural for people to fly like the birds, and therefore children are never told to stop flying.

    To say that something is against God’s will may be unprovable, but it is not inherently nonsensical because God by definition is a volitional being. To say that something is against Nature is always inherently nonsensical because Nature has no will. Nature only shows us what is possible and impossible, not what is desirable or undesirable.

    When somebody tells us that we shouldn’t do this or that because it is against Nature, we should simply reply:

    “Nature never told ME that. How come nature talks to you and not to me?”

    Cheers. James

    1. Delicious!

      Perfectly said…Thank you.

      If I may add…

      We don’t exist in nature without the other. In general, I think most people regardless of gender, age, etc., etc., are mostly empathetic and appreciate the balance that is created by coexisting.

      Entitlement is of the ego and much more individualized than presented above. Even if your belief system sees your POV is logical and acceptable, it is your actions or inactions that will speak the loudest. No one has authority over another person’s thoughts, no one. Not unless you give it to them.

      1. Hey thanks for this, Angel. We need more women coming around here.

        We don’t really hate women here, although it might seem like it. We love women! Or at least I do. Problem is I know them a bit too well, you follow. I think I liked them a whole lot more when I was younger and I thought they were all good and no bad. Now that I’ve seen the bad side of women (a surprisingly common feature), I’m a bit more…shall we say…cynical about them. But I still love em. And I hope they love us back, no matter how much they bitch about us. Just as long as they still love us at the end of the day, that’s all I care about.

    1. I am sorry, Alpha. I don’t understand.

      I have nothing against women in power. The whole damn Congress could be women for all I care, as long as it doesn’t lead to Female Rule. I just don’t want them imposing Female Rule over society and men. Anytime females install Female Rule, it would like a Matriarchy, that is, it would be the installation of a Radical Feminist regime over society. This should not be allowed to happen. This is what I mean by no Female Rule. Females in power? No problem! Female rule? Over my dead body!

      Nature does show us what is desirable and what it not. When we violate Nature, we are punished. Boys and girls raised without fathers are punished by Nature by being turned into criminals and sluts respectively. Feminine men and masculine women are punished by being miserable. Nature will punish Female Rule by creating the chaos that will logically follow.

      Nature shows us what is desriable and what it not by rewarding us when we obey Her and punishing us when we break her Laws.

      Thing is, people think they want to violate Natural Law. They think it’s going to be fun or they think that’s what they want. But it’s not what they want, because it makes them miserable. If it was what they wanted, it would make them happy. People often don’t understand what they really want. They think they want what they don’t REALLY want. People are complicated, and in a lot of cases, in the minds of humans, no one’s really in charge too much.

    2. I get your point completely. James Schipper said that Nature doesn’t show us what is desirable or undesirable. I don’t know why this is necessarily the case.

      I’m no fan of Female Rule, either.

    3. Thank you, AU. I sort of wrote this with you in my mind. You’re sort of up there in head while I write stuff like this. I’m trying to figure out how you would see it and it’s like you’re helping me write it. I also have you up there for the female POV so I make sure not to come down on women too hard. Or, more accurately, it’s like I’m writing this while you’re looking over my shoulder and watching.

  4. Dear Robert

    I doubt that the disadvantages of female-headed families are that great. In any case, there are far more female-headed families among blacks and Hispanics than among whites, even though white males are far more egalitarian than their black and Hispanic counterparts.

    If there are a lot of fatherless families, this is due to male irresponsibility more than to female rule. If an underclass boy has a father who is a criminal or low-life, why would his son stay away from crime if his father were present in the house? An absent father may be preferable to a present father who is a bad apple.

    Let’s do a little though experiment. Paul is raised by his single mother who is a high-IQ, mentally stable, vice-free university professor. Peter is raised by Jack and Jill who have both low IQs, never worked, consume drugs, drink heavily and are neglectful and abusive parents. Who is more likely to grow up to be a criminal? I would bet that it is Peter.

    Correlation is not causation. Single mothers are not the same as married mothers. On average, they have lower IQ’s, less education, more personal problems. The men who impregnated them tend to be similar to themselves. If their children are more likely to stray from the path of righteousness, is it due to the absence of fathers or due to the fact that their genetic endowment and their general life experiences are not the best.

    The more irresponsible people are, the more likely they’ll have children out of wedlocck; and the more irresponsible they are, the more likely they’ll have irresponsible children. Adopted children have more problems on average than those who are not adopted even though they usually grow up in two-parent families. That’s because genetically they are on average less blessed.

    This issue needs more biological and less ideological thinking. We aren’t all born the same. Some people are more likely to become less than ideal citizens for genetic reasons, in the same way that some are more like to become university professors for genetic reasons.

    Regards. James

    1. Your view is that fatherless families are due to male irresponsibility and not Female Rule. But male irresponsibility creates Female Rule, does it not?

    2. Indeed, mass male irresponsibility creates fatherless families.

      Also, let’s face it, feminism did too. Feminism said women can leave a marriage anytime they feel like it. Increasingly, a lot of them do just that. Keep in mind that 80% of divorces are initiated by women. Now, I am all for freedom to divorce, no fault divorce, and all of that, but let’s face it, mass divorce has given rise to the single Mom. And single Moms are not that great at raising kids.

      About high crime rates among Blacks, I am convinced that a lot of is due to 75% of Black boys being raised by single Moms. Before 1960, 80% of Black kids lived with a mother and a father. The Black crime rate was also apparently a lot lower.

      Although genetics surely plays a role in Black crime, I really want to emphasize the environmental aspect. In the last 50 years, we have seen skyrocketing crime rates hand in hand with skyrocketing rates of sociopathy, especially among Black males.

      There are different types of sociopaths. The pure psychopath, is largely genetic and incurable. However, most Black sociopaths are rather sociopaths caused by the environment. It’s generally a tamer breed, and they are curable, but maybe not too much past a certain point. A lot of these Black boys would not have turned sociopath except that they were raised without fathers.

      I think the research is quite clear on single motherhood being partly responsible for environmental sociopathy.

      And yes, AU is correct, of course irresponsible males create de facto Female Rule of a sort. US urban Black societies are increasingly matriarchal. Males are simply not part of the picture. That’s not as bad as it often is, but one thing it seems to create is a lot of boys who turn criminal.

    3. I doubt that the disadvantages of female-headed families are that great. In any case, there are far more female-headed families among blacks and Hispanics than among whites, even though white males are far more egalitarian than their black and Hispanic counterparts.

      If there are a lot of fatherless families, this is due to male irresponsibility more than to female rule. If an underclass boy has a father who is a criminal or low-life, why would his son stay away from crime if his father were present in the house? An absent father may be preferable to a present father who is a bad apple. — James Schipper

      The Myth of the Ghetto Alpha Male

      …But even though they are doing their best to be supernigga, they still do things in a feminine way because feminine influences are most of what they know.

      Most of their role models and involved family members are women, and the few men in their lives were likely raised by only women too.

      And it shows in how they handle conflict: grudges are held forever, they never know how to let anything slide, they think primarily with emotion and are prone to outbursts, drama and confrontation and most importantly, they don’t know how to choose their battles.

      True male behavior isn’t being a drama queen, being highly prone to emotional outbursts and holding onto grudges; true male behavior is picking your battles, knowing when to fight and when to let things slide, analyzing things calmly and logically and having discipline over your moods and emotions and exercising emotional restraint.

      These are things that a true alpha male influence teaches you, and such influences have almost disappeared completely from the hood. …

  5. Hey, just read the first post and the response. Though you are the owner of the blog, I really dont think that that post warranted a ban. It seems a bit extreme even though her post doesn’t really contribute anything useful.

    Change of topic. Data. Is there any data on female depression rates in male-rule societies? Suicide rates and the like (though I’m not very trustworthy of those surveys, which leads me to a question)

    Question to the readers of this blog who travel quite a bit. In what regions of the globe do the people seem the “happiest?” I hope the answers will give a bit of insight.

    1. Hi Karakot, the post that got her banned was deleted. I’m not sure if you saw it. Everyone please read the comments rules. You don’t get to insult me at all on here. You have to be friendly, even if you disagree with me. If you know this female, she may email me and ask to be allowed back on the site, as long as she obeys the rules. Everyone needs to read the comments rules or risk getting banned.

    2. Kakarot – the people of the Nile Delta villages seem to be a happy lot, if they own land, that is. Though they’re Moslem and they speak Arabic they’re very dark-skinned (being descendants of the Ancient Egyptians) and members of the Cairene middle class tend to refer to them as “blacks”. Their way of life hasn’t changed much in six thousand years and they seem truly at peace with themselves. The downside is that the birth rate’s high in the Delta, there isn’t enough land to go round, and the landless young tend to migrate to places like Banha, Zagazig, and worst of all, Cairo itself, where they live in the direst misery imaginable.

  6. Well, I thought the main post started well, but then took some tours through Henry Makow ‘Save the Males‘ sort of stuff, a lot of the emotive bigotry that crops up on the Christian Right. You know the stuff I mean. I was impressed by James Schipper’s response:

    “To say that something is against Nature is always inherently nonsensical because Nature has no will. Nature only shows us what is possible and impossible, not what is desirable or undesirable.”

    This is good shit, but is it true?

    Red berries! They’re red to tell us that though it’s POSSIBLE to eat them, it’s not DESIRABLE because they’ll poison us.

    I suppose there are loads more examples, but can we think of something that correlates in human sexual behavior:

    New Orleans slipping into the sea is a sign that Nature or God won’t tolerate sodomy?

    You can make up your own examples, and the Christian Right do so with great industry.

    Me, I think the ‘liberal’ precept has shown to be a good starting place – do what you like as long as it doesn’t impinge on others’ freedom to do what they like. Or should I say “as long as it doesn’t impinge on CORPORATIONS’ rights” Note that the entire basis of your society has just been altered in the last few days, i.e. the removal of spending limits on corporations in elections.

    But the main point of this post is a good one. No matter how much feminists wish it so, male and female are different – notably physically. Women have a lot to complain about, and there’s a lot of wrongs that need redressing.

    But a solution that denies the male need to feel ‘potent’ IS unnatural. To be blunt, a man needs to get a hard-on; a woman can just lie back and take it. There’s surely a happy medium, but women cloning themselves and men giving up sex as some extreme feminists fantasize sure isn’t it.

  7. I think I understand the point that JS is making, but Nature teaches us what is desirable all the time, in the simplest of ways.

    For example, I’ve learned from working in my garden that it’s desirable for plants to get a certain amount of sun, because if they aren’t getting what they need, they will stretch toward sunlight.

    There are other plants that normally reach a certain height, but if there is competing growth around them, they will extend their normal height in order to get the sun they need.

    (Something mysterious to me is why nasturtium vines always extend northward. I don’t care where I plant them. Once they lengthen, they always stretch north.)

    I realize that “desirable” and “undesirable” are judgements, in a sense.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)