Unfortunately, the illogicality of equality did not bring women up to the level of men, it brought women down from a revered and highly privileged status to the pathetic level of men. If men were so awful, why would woman want to emulate men? Illogic won the day and women now use antidepressants to survive a dreary office life obsessed with a concept of success that involves a desk closer to a window and better parking spot in the company carpark.
These were the very same tricks that were used to make the gullible males competitive in the workplace. Women now reach sixty with a history of dead cats and the recognition that they failed to have a family. As one sixty-five-year-old said: “Why did this have to happen to me?”
This website is designed to re-teach ‘The Secret’ so lost in the clamour of “Equality”. The real ‘Girl Power’ derives from controlling males for the benefit of women. Equality was remarkably successful. It successfully brought women down to the level of males. It destroyed women’s status. It destroyed the woman’s cartel. It fed the women into the corporate workforce.
When I was born, Western women were the most respected being on the earth. One comment is: “Women of the Victorian era were treated with the utmost respect.” They were the most revered beings in the world. They went from the loftiest heights to being described in numerous degrading terms.
In a master-slave relationship, who does all the nasty work? — the slave! Who gives the orders? — the master. It is where the expression: ‘She who must be obeyed’ comes from. The man is allowed to talk freely until she says: “Tut tut!”, whence he goes entirely silent. Sit in a restaurant. If the male says a wrong word, she taps the table two times and he becomes silent like a well-trained dog. Three taps is a major offense and he will be in the dog-house for a week or two. This is code for ‘no sex for a fortnight’. She will control her urges to demonstrate that sex is a controlled availability dependent on his compliance with her wishes. This was stated by one of my ex-apprentices as: “Happy wife. Happy life.” His happiness depends on him keeping her happy.
The male-funded and male-promoted feminists came along with their backing from a complicit male-dominated media with their male-dominated financiers, and changed the definition of ‘patriarchy’ to describe it as a systemic bias against women. There was a bias but it was in favour of women. Patriarchy put immense burdens upon males. Patriarchy demanded that males work their lives and give the wage packet to a wife, to run the whole society for the benefit of women and offspring, and to lay their lives on the line if needed. Patriarchy put no constraints on women and tolerated mild narcissism on the part of females.
Under feminist influence, the definition of patriarchy was adjusted to “a system of society or government controlled by men”. They missed some ingredients: Women did not want to control, so men controlled society for the benefit of women. Men have short fingernails and dress in work-suitable clothes because they were the mechanics of society and women painted their nails and went to the cafés, using money earned by a grovelling male, where they would discuss what their grovelling male slave had bought for them or how he was getting a pay rise. Or rather, she was getting a pay rise because he was getting a better position. She was getting a pay rise because he was working beyond capacity. “Oh, what a wonderful husband you have got. You are so lucky to have found him. Mine cleans drains and has to work seven days to keep my family in food.” Men worked because women had created a cartel where men only got sex if they got on their knees and pledged their undying loyalty and their total income for the rest of their lives. The greater his wage packet, the more beautiful girl he could pledge his life’s earnings to. Unfortunately, in a blitz of illogic, feminism broke the cartel. Women were to be ‘liberated’ from this situation and join the workforce and sex was no longer to be used to control males. Women were to be liberated and have sex with any male. In the prevailing climate of illogic, a woman could not be considered as ‘liberated’ if she was not giving sex away for free. Girls purposely dropped their knickers to prove they were ‘liberated’. Girls have to prove they are not ‘frigid’ or ‘square’ or ‘hung-up’ by having sex with boys when they don’t wish to. Girls have to explain why they don’t wish to be screwed by a male. One girl’s comments:
“The Sexual Revolution tells me that I am abnormal if I don’t desire to make it with every Tom, Dick, of Jane that I see. I am only free to say ‘Yes’.”
Here is another comment:
“Now you have to prove how liberated you are and men use that.”
“All of them had come under intense pressure to have sex: the boys to show they were not ‘batty’, the girls to prove they were not ‘frigid’. Most had caved in – simply because… they could not think of a single reason to say no.”
And one more:
“Most men didn’t give a damn about whether I wanted to have sex with them or not; If I didn’t want to screw them, they would make a moral thing out of it, and try to lecture me into being ‘free’.”
In the flood of illogic, the complaint was made that males were the evil oppressors. If male behaviour was so bad, one would assume then that male behaviour should be brought up to the level of female behaviour but illogic reigned and women were told they needed to behave like the evil males. They were to be equally promiscuous. But, what is strange, before my time, men could not be promiscuous because no girl would give it to them. Men could not get sex in the average village because no girl would give it to them. Males cannot be promiscuous if girls are not promiscuous. Males had to bend to women’s demand for marriage.