Our thanks to Paolo for this (video, 17:34).
If you’d like email notifications of our new blog pieces, please enter your email address in the box near the top of the right-hand column and click ‘Subscribe’.
We shall shortly be posting this piece on our X channel.
Our YouTube channel is here.
Justice for Men & Boys 
That was a great conversation, if a little depressing.
Over many years, I have observed that when a western man is in a relationship with a western woman, it is as if they are from two very different – and incompatible – cultures. The cultural gap between them is difficult to bridge. I’ve also known men whose partners were from various Far Eastern countries. There was a cultural gap there too, but, with a thoughtful approach and a little work, it was bridgeable. The ones I remember were happy with their dark-eyed partners, and the children always looked well cared for. So, that’s definitely something to consider.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Men and women are from two very different and incompatible cultures.
He requires some form of reassurance that his genes are in all of the kids he is supporting.
She, knowing that her genes are in all of the kids, gains more genetic benefit from a rotating carousel of polyandry. Multiple fathers minimises the possibility of genetic deficiencies being passed on to all of her kids. She always aims for a man with plenty of resources, and has no problem with ‘trading up’.
The former situation was ‘Patriarchy’, a situation which was supported by monogamous marriage, and cultural/social norms enforced by women (‘slut-shaming’, etc). When times are hard, women knew that they had to nail their colours to the mast of one man for their survival. The alternative was to work out in the fields, or down the mines.
The latter situation is ‘Feminism’, which comes about in post-industrial, service economies when women can work in relative comfort. This is when they start bleating about ‘oppression’, ‘independence’ ‘reproductive choice’. When the going is good, women want to ‘trade up’ without penalty (no fault divorce), and have legally-enforceable force fields against lesser men (sexual harassment laws). They want employment advantages (AA, EEO, ESG, DEI), putting them in proximity of high value men, and with an income that allows them to be choosy. They want welfare safety nets and legal abortion. They want educational advantages, so that women become the majority politicians and law-makers.
This has now already happened. The social norms of today are not the social norms of 50 years ago. As ever, they are enforced by women.
Don’t expect principles from them. It’s just whatever happens to be of utilitarian advantage to them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Indeed – Schrödinger’s Feminism:
https://j4mb.org.uk/2024/12/15/schrodingers-feminism/
“A woman is simultaneously a victim and empowered, until something happens. Then she chooses which state benefits her the most.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
There isn’t a single solution to the Schroedinger Equation. It depends on the circumstances extant at the time, and the amount of energy available.
Outcomes which re-favour ‘Patriarchy’, would be associated with economic downturn, a return to hard times.
Rachel Reeves and her cohorts of feminist colleagues (male & female), are blindly working on such outcomes at this very moment! Having Millicent in charge of energy will be particularly effective!
LikeLike