Women Have No Power

“Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” – Chairman Mao

Donal wrote a post on patriarchy where he mentioned my previous post. He included graphs on the healthy balance of power between the sexes.

The graph is nonsense though, as it is based on a mistaken presupposition. Donal, and almost everybody, get the same thing wrong:

Women have no power. None.

Women as a class have are powerless. Any ‘power’ they have is simply proxy power given them by a group of men. This is nature, this is reality.

All power is, at base, violence. The iron fist may be wrapped in any number of velvet gloves, but at base the iron fist rules. Violence is power, power is violence.

Men, as a class, are the apex predator, the greatest enactors of violence our planet has ever seen. Women, as a class, are incapable of effective violence,* as women simply do not have the strength capabilities to enact effective violence, and therefore are at the mercy of men. This is reality; any system that doesn’t take into account women’s powerlessness is a denial of such.

Because women are incapable of effective violence, they have no power in their own right**, any power they may display is simply proxy power given them by men.

****

This is important to know, because feminists are not the real enemy. Feminists are not the disease, they’re a symptom that would not have changed society at all if men did not change it for them.

It’s not the female judge or female bureaucrat booting you from your home and kidnapping your children, it’s the male cop (as for female cops, would a 5’4″ really be able to remove you from your home if she didn’t have men to call on?). It wasn’t women who decided Roe vs. Wade or gave women the vote. It wasn’t women who passed the Title IX, the Equal Pay Act, or the VAWA. It’s not feminists who own Jezebel, Gawker, Slate, or Salon. These things only happen because men do them.

We can and should fight against feminists, but feminism is only one aspect of the modern leftist project and subservient to them. (See how readily they are being pushed aside for transexual activists). Feminists are pawns that have been given power by men to serve the long march and destroy the traditional family.

Women only have the power that is given to them by one class of men who are using modern, feminist women as weapons against the rest of society. If they were not being used as tools, feminists would be powerless. If it were not for the men trying to destroy our society by female ’empowerment’, the modern women would be powerless.

There is no power balance between men and women. There is only a power balance between men who desire civilization and men who hate civilization (or at least love the pleasures of the flesh and harems more), the women follow the lead of whichever group of men they choose to follow. Sadly, the men who hate civilization offer temporarily pleasing but ultimately self-destructive gibmedats, while civilization can only offer a life of duty and future for civilization.

****

* If you don’t believe me, try a test: if you are a man, the next time you shake a woman’s hand don’t hold back, if you are a woman, ask a man you know to shake your hand as he would shake a man’s hand (this won’t work with a limp-wristed mangina). There is a .01% of women capable of physically matching the average man. This is not significant.

** Women do have a specific power: women are wonderful. Men like women and will got to great lengths to protect, provide for, and please women they see as being in their care.

36 comments

  1. I would issue one challenge to that:

    Women have the power of supplying willing, enthusiastic sex.

    In a strict male-power sense, men COULD take sex by force. However, only a man who is very damaged emotionally or mentally would find any pleasure in rape.

    The power of a woman’s sexual love, freely and willfully given is potent.

    This is why even legalized prostitution would not really fix the Elliot Rodger type man, because for men like him, it is about the validation of women sexing you without a financial transaction.

    Most men would rather fuck an enthusiastic 5 as a girlfriend than bang a 10 that they paid for.

    Just like I would rather drive my own Ford Mustang than drive the occasional rented Ferrari.

    Only the most psychotic rapist could manage to “keep it up” during coitus with a woman who glared at him with derision.

    So, yes, women have a type of soft power. It is the reason why female shaming language is so effective.

  2. We don’t live in the jungle anymore. Human power over nature is technological. Man’s physical power means jack-shit in today’s day and age. It’s guns and missiles at this point. Who gets to wield this power – the leader of a democracy. Woman have more power because in technological – democratic setup we have now, they work as a group. Men still have outdated notions of personal power, which is not effective in this day and age. We are divided they are united…hence team woman wins.

  3. If you only define power as that which is direct, this post is correct. However, by limiting your thoughts on power only to direct power you limit your view of the world and lose a great deal of depth and details.

    Just because women’s power is indirect, and thus can be overridden by direct power of men, does not mean they do not have power.

    Just as in scripture, Mary claims that her soul magnifies the Lord, so do all women magnify what surrounds them based on whom they submit to as a leader. If they are surrounded by barbarity and submit to a barbaric man, their children will be more barbaric than if they had no mother. She will influence the community around her to be more barbaric to the extent her indirect power, that given to her by who she submits to, allows. If a woman is married to a barbaric man yet does not submit to him, but to a holy man or to God, she will magnify the traits of Godliness in the family and those around her.

    The same is true to women married to effeminate men that submit to government, they will magnify the traits government desires. Which is our problem today, because even if a man is not effeminate but possessing great masculinity, the government has more direct power than he and a great many temptations towards enlarging a woman’s indirect power.

    Only a Godly woman, submitted to a man with Godly masculinity, will be able to resist. His masculinity will appeal to her flesh, he will be put in authority by God, and hr will derive his direct power from God in the same way she will derive her indirect power from the same source. She will magnify everything in that household to be more as her husband and more as God, and the same in the community.

    That is not nothing. That is not a lack of power. It is simply a more subtle, quiet power. Female grace is the quiet underscore giving depth and beauty to the grand epic man and God have written in this world

  4. All great comments and I agree with them all. Jack is especially correct in pointing out when women supply enthusiastic sex they have the greatest power of all and can make a man/men do almost anything. Men are the force by proxy but women have the power to direct that force. With great power comes great responsibility. Women have no clue what being responsible means when it comes to the tribe as a whole, aka civilization. That is not their concern and have evolved to view it as a man’s issue. That’s why we are screwed.

  5. Feminists are not the disease, they’re a symptom that would not have changed society at all if men did not change it for them.

    It’s not the female judge or female bureaucrat booting you from your home and kidnapping your children, it’s the male cop (as for female cops, would a 5’4″ really be able to remove you from your home if she didn’t have men to call on?). It wasn’t women who decided Roe vs. Wade or gave women the vote. It wasn’t women who passed the Title IX, the Equal Pay Act, or the VAWA. It’s not feminists who own Jezebel, Gawker, Slate, or Salon. These things only happen because men do them.

    Thank you, sir.

    ack is especially correct in pointing out when women supply enthusiastic sex they have the greatest power of all and can make a man/men do almost anything.

    And this is not a flaw in men? Why?

  6. As others have said well already, what you have written is accurate in the realm of direct/public/physical power. It overlooks the realm of indirect/private/influence power. Humans are not just physical warriors, we are a social and familial species, and therefore power for us is not, and never has been, purely/only about physical power.

    Under the old scheme, women had a crapton of soft power in the family/private realm, and thereby exercised a substantial degree of power in terms of influence over the direct realm, by means of influencing the men around them, especially in the context of families (extended, not nuclear — nuclear family is a very contemporary phenomenon). For background on this, Chinweizu’s book “Anatomy of Female Power” is instructive (http://therawness.com/anatomy-of-female-power-download-and-discussion-page/). The fact that men have tended to overlook this real power by focusing instead on their indirect power has only served to augment the indirect power that women have and, ultimately, led to men supporting feminism out of “fairness” — in other words, if the only real power is the direct kind of power men generally express, it is only fair for this direct power to be shared with women, because to do otherwise would perpetuate a very unfair distribution of power between the sexes. So it’s precisely the mindset that “direct power is the only real power” that has led to widespread male support for feminism.

    The reason why feminism has not resulted in equality is precisely because the realm of female power has been overlooked or considered unimportant. What happened with feminism is that women were invited to share equally (more or less) in the bases of male power in the context of a society which is no longer based on raw, brute strength but technology and money and so on. However, women retained 100% of their own power base (sex/family/influence/culture). So the result was the disempowerment of most men vis-a-vis most women. The old system actually was quite equitable, because it granted men power in the sphere that made more sense for the physically stronger sex and the one with more testosterone and drive, while granting women power in the sphere that made the most sense for that sex, being the one that bears children. If you allow one sex to share in the power of the other, and not vice-versa (or even admit that there IS a vice-versa to begin with), you end up with what we have today: women having a share in the male power area, and retaining all of the power over the female power area, which means, in effect, on average more power than all but the most powerful men.

    There really isn’t any way to “fix” that, because the female power areas largely arise due to biology. The male area does as well, of course, but in a highly advanced technological society with the rule of law and so on, that power is well circumscribed, and mostly for the good (no-one in his right mind should really want a world of Mad Max) — this is why women have been invited to share in the male power space to begin with –> they can now do so without the heavy lifting, because that has been relegated now to certain spheres in which most men themselves don’t participate. Men’s Rights stuff would blunt some of the worst abuses here, but only slightly so — they can never really “make things equal”, because the female base of power is more or less completely off the table and, in many ways (sex/influence/culture) not subject to being manipulated through legal changes anyway. Most men (**) simply can’t partake in the female power space, period.

    But, getting back to the point, to overlook the very real female power base, its enduring strength, and its continued presence up to this very day really just plays into the mindset of the people who support(ed) feminism, because it sees only the male base of power as meaningful and significant, and therefore something which it is “unfair” to hoard by one sex.

    —-
    ** — I say most men here because a very small number of men *do* have sexual power, and can compete with women in that power base. We know who they are, and we also know that there are not many of them, although because they do exist and are highly visible to women (for obvious reasons), they are typically often used as a reason to say that “men have sexual power, too”, which is, more or less, malarkey, plain and simple, when it comes to most men.

  7. I won’t belabor a in-depth response to this since Vulture of Critique has already done it. But let’s just say I’m trying to find a polite way to respond to this – this is how “out there” this post is.

    Free Northerner, I suggest you study the history of female serial killers, and you’ll see how “out there” 2 or 3 of the paragraphs in this are.

  8. Womens’ direct, physical power IS, for the most part, due to the restraint on male power, or male power not asserting itself.

    Put 5 men and 5 ATTRACTIVE women on a desert island with little technology and no rule of law and it will be a war of male strength against female coyness and social cunning. Plus, the men will fight each other over the women. The females will experience privilege.

    Put 5 men and 5 UGLY women on a desert island with little technology and no rule of law, and the men will get along great with each other, and the females will have to trade services such as cooking the food in exchange for the men hunting it.

    Now, put me ALONE on a desert island with 5 attractive women, and I all I have to do is wait for their iPhone batteries to run out before I would be king. Especially if they don’t know how to gather food or build a fire.

  9. Nova-

    In a real mad-max scenario, you’d probably have 4 classes of men:

    1) Warlord and immediate circle (top alpha, lesser alphas)

    2) The indispensable technologically skilled men such as weapons designers, strategists, or advisers (greater betas)

    3) High ranking soldiers (lesser betas)

    4) Cannon fodder

    The women would experience power within this sphere in direct relationship to their looks and social savvy. The warlords hottie #1 girl could easily get the warlord to off one of the lesser men with no trouble at all.

    And just look at how John the Baptist met his end: A calculating older women used her cutie daughter as a fleshpot power proxy.

  10. I agree with this post entirely.

    But as for these comments, did I stumble into a mangina forum by accident?

    Women have no power at all, especially any power to agree to or to deny sex. Men can just take it, its called rape and it happens a fair bit. When law and order breaks down, say in a war zone, what happens first? The women get raped. The only thing that prevents men taking any sex they want from any women they want – is the threat of other men. Men in the police force, husbands, brothers and fathers of the women, the men in the courts and men in prison (where rapists go because men decided rape is a crime). Its the potential of male violence (real or feared) that protects woman.

    You can go on about consensual sex all day, and how only “real men” value consent, and I applaud your civility and lawfulness, but in reality that is an artificial self-imposed cultural constraint. Many Arab Muslims and Africans, for example, don’t share that cultural constraint and as a result the men have absolutely no trouble at all in routinely raping thousands of women and girls every year (especially when the women are non-Muslim, but not exclusively).

    I dont think people here have really understood this post, much less provided any robust rebuttals of it.

  11. FN,

    This is a succinct and long overdue post. So many great, Christian-based blogs dance around so issues without speaking of the true source of the problem.

    When it comes to society around us, it will always be evil men fighting with good men. Women are usually mere pawns just as Eve was for the serpent. That’s why God punished Adam for LISTENING to Eve rather than listening to God and his laws.

    Every Christian man must ask himself this about the society he lives and participates in – do I advocate for issues, vote for politicians, etc that uphold Biblical principles or not?

    We spend so much time concerning ourselves with the effects of feminism that we fail to ask who benefits from it. Here are a few:

    – Wealthy, powerful men who want harems of women to satisfy them (check)

    – Wealthy, powerful men who want to limit competition from below them by making those men compete with women (check)

    In both cases, these men gain while other men lose. That is the point.

    A Christian-based society wants all men to have a stake and have the freedom to do his God-honoring work. If men respected each other in this way, the present issues with women in the West would fade.

    This isn’t socialism, mind you. It is merely saying that a wealthy business owner should respect his employees or any man beneath his economic status as someone who has an equal right of self-determination and an equal role in society as a head, or potential head of a household (ie husband and father).

    One only need to look at the West’s poor to see the damage of powerful men (politicians and the elites that advise them) and their policies. Most of the West’s government welfare policies seek to replace men with a direct government check to women. If that woman has children, she gets a larger check. If there is no man in the house, she gets a larger check.

    Rather than strengthening the role of husbands and fathers among the West’s poorer classes, the men at the top drive them down and out and give them zero stake in the society.

    To these powerful men, women are:

    – voters

    – cheap employees

    – concubines

    – all or a combination of the above

    Men need to get smart. If any politician favors policies that diminish other men, no matter class or race, Christian men should be wise to their intent.

    Polls show that big government politicians (primarily Democrats, but many Republicans favor big government as well) already have the female vote. A recent poll showed that women vote for big government (aka their new husbands in this modern era) at a 70%-80% clip.

    Unless men band together and find a commonality, whatever was good and Christian about Western society will be permanently lost.

  12. Curia said:
    “But as for these comments, did I stumble into a mangina forum by accident?”

    Jack based his whole premise on:
    “Women have the power of supplying willing, enthusiastic sex.”

    Since Curia posted later, I can see his question was rhetorical.

    Jack, men have the power of making women willing and enthusiastic for sex. They cannot make themselves really and properly enthusiastic by themselves. Your idea of what a womans power isn’t even in womens hands. Having a little sexpet of a girl is only a matter of conditioning, and while I personally have only ever conditioned a girl who was willing, reading seems to show that a girl doesn’t even really have to start willing for this to work.

    Mind, a paid for girl won’t give you that (unless you’re hypothetically really regular with her), no time for proper training, that’s a valid point. But any girl who is willing to be with you can be made to love sex just by knowing how to be good at sex and be strong in your interactions with her.

    On the described island the 5 attractive women will be making my supper in the same way the 5 ugly will, you value yourself too lowly if just happening to be attractive makes you serve a woman instead of them serve you.

  13. Curia-

    From a male perspective, you are saying rape is equal to loving consensual sex?

    That raping a girl is no less pleasurable than consensual sex? You are missing something here. This would be like saying eating a nice meal would be of equal value whether enjoyed on a sunny patio, or in a dank cave.

    Your position completely ignores ambient factors far beyond the baseline act of penetration and orgasm.

    Not only are most men morally opposed to rape, we would not enjoy it either. Hell, most men would not even enjoy sex with a prostitute that much, to the point that if sex is not freely given, it is not really worth having.

    Dear God, people will go to illogical lengths to try and rationalize the idea that women have no power.

  14. By the way, nice try with the keyboard alpha tactic curia. How’s your mom’s basement these days?

  15. Jack,

    You’re wrong because you seem to think women themselves are in control of when they are enthusiastic about sex. That’s laughable. They couldn’t give enthusiastic sex to someone they didn’t respect if they wanted too, nor could they deny it to someone they where really attracted too. Their enthusiasm is contingent on their attraction, not their own willpower.

    They’re not even really fully in control of when they consent, at very least they aren’t if they let themselves into any kind of vulnerable situation. This is part of why chaperoning is a thing even (and especially) for otherwise well behaved girls, and why traditionally a male advisory is never allowed alone with a woman.

    This is part of the nature of sex for both genders. But to say that that kind of will is part of their power is starting entirely in the wrong place.

  16. MediaLuddite,

    Well observed.

    But, usually there is no such option regarding voting, and advocacy doesn’t get far if it’s counterculture (which what we’re talking about is)

    I wonder if you have any specific ideas as to what we should be doing and supporting. It seems more difficult than difficult to find a cause both strong and worthy.

  17. Outstanding post. I miss the “iron sharpens iron” header and your original basic white scheme. But in content you deliver again and again.

    Your concept here is something I came to long ago when first pondering the mens’ rights stuff I had discovered. Commenters who start mincing different types of power just miss your point, I think.

    I have gotten used to your black scheme by the way.

  18. I have been agreeing with the premise in this article for a while. If people don’t agree with this sort of basic premise, they’ll not be useful to the type of politics needed to eventually win.

  19. If you’re not getting laid, stop trying to close the deal with blog posts.

    Which is the fucked up Irish way of saying yes all power is violence and we have a political problem. The levers of men are force and gain and gain is all tied up and hopelessly warped beyond any use, they don’t share ANY of it in any case.

    Now that the Wheel has been reinvented to suit you Euclid uh..er …ah…

  20. What a joke. The issue is do women have power? The answer is YES. They have as much power as men are willing to give them in return for access to vagina which is quite a lot. Those of you arguing that men are to blame for the power that women have are correct but doesn’t negate the fact that they do have power to manipulate man if it suits them. You can’t get around this fact. If women as a group are getting over on men as a group that is incontrovertible evidence that they are the gender with the POWER. Historically this has always been true which is why everyone alive today is the genetic decedent of 80% of the women of the past and only 20% of the men of the past (the alphas). That’s how you have to look at it when determining the gender “power”. Which gender in evolutionary terms ends up better off and passes on their genes.

  21. While I hear what you are saying, I cannot help but think of Dr. Johnson’s remark about how “”Nature has given women so much power that the law has very wisely given them little”.

  22. That’s a great quote. Too bad the power of women overturns the law that gives them little and always ends up giving them a lot. The majority of men do not support laws that favor women over themselves (they may support the idea of equality under the law) but a minority of men and a majority of women sure do. Funny, if man holds all the “power” surely a majority of them should be able to have prevented this situation.

  23. That’s a great quote. Too bad the power of women overturns the law that gives them little and always ends up giving them a lot. The majority of men do not support laws that favor women over themselves (they may support the idea of equality under the law) but a minority of men and a majority of women sure do. Funny, if man holds all the “power” surely a majority of them should be able to have prevented this situation.

    I’m not so sure about that. The bias that men have in favor of women over other men is quite pronounced, and is biological in basis. When pushed, men will instinctively feel the urge to support a woman when she comes into conflict with a man, and the laws are written from this perspective.

    The biological basis is real, and that’s why we need to understand and acknowledge it, instead of saying it doesn’t exist and women have no power — the latter approach, far from being the beginnings of a workable politics, is a sand castle that can’t form the foundation of any workable politics or agenda (because it isn’t based on the truth of the matter).

  24. Nova. I’m in agreement on the biological basis of a woman’s power but to say that men have an instinct to support a woman in conflict with another man is questionable. In this culture it does but then how do you explain the more patriarch cultures in the Middle East with women in birkahs and stoned to death if they dishonor the family by sluting around? Where is the male instinct to favor the woman? Or India and Chinese culture of the 20th century? They certainly did not favor the woman over the man. While I think that women by nature have more power over men then men have over women overall, it can happen in more desperate situations that the survival of the family and the tribe forces men to put aside this instinct because they won’t survive otherwise. They evidence shows culture either favors women or it doesn’t, but if it doesn’t it has to go to great lengths in order to restrain her power.. It’s usually either, or.

  25. poly-

    You’re still wrong, because you assume that women would never fake enthusiasm.

    How often have we heard about the beta schlub who never really turned his wife on?

    You are taking that fact that women don’t control The Tingle, and somehow conflating that with the idea that they can’t or won’t use sex and seduction as method, then you are regrettably thinking in a very binary fashion.

    Final proof:

    Hot female spy seduces balding, chubby government worker with access to secrets. Women has no “power”. Okay, then.

    According to you, the hot female spy must actually develop attraction to the dopey guy for the honey-pot sex trap to work.

    If you think the power of seduction is not actually power, then you are deliberately selecting a very narrow definition of power.

    Admitting that women posses the power of seduction does not make someone a “mangina”, any more than admitting that a woman could strangle a man in his sleep.

    The problem is that all the keyboard alphas in the manosphere end up getting their undies in a bundle if someone says something that even remotely implies women are not utterly subordinate to men.

    This is the same dynamic that occurs if you try to tell a radical feminist that sometimes women commit sexual assault. NoNoNo, NeverNeverNever!!!

    Let me summarize what I think your view is: “I will simply keep changing the definition of “power”, until women don’t have any of whatever it is”. So, all you need to do is corrupt the language until you are “right”.

  26. Jack,

    “You’re still wrong, because you assume that women would never fake enthusiasm.”

    I never implied any such thing. Rather I implied the opposite when I said ‘ They couldn’t give enthusiastic sex to someone they didn’t respect if they wanted too’, that would mean they’d have to fake any enthusiasm they wanted to show in that case.

    “You are taking that fact that women don’t control The Tingle, and somehow conflating that with the idea that they can’t or won’t use sex and seduction as method, then you are regrettably thinking in a very binary fashion.”

    You’re now confusing faked enthusiasm with real enthusiastic sex… Your premise is that women control when they give real enthusiasm, arguing that they can try to fake enthusiasm to get what they want doesn’t further your point (rather it furthers mine).

    You’re idea of a final proof is a bad movie narrative… If you get most your ‘final proofs’ concerning reality from Hollywood ‘mangina’ is a compliment.

    “According to you, the hot female spy must actually develop attraction to the dopey guy for the honey-pot sex trap to work.”

    No, according to me any kind of cheap seduction isn’t any more fulfilling than going to a whore. She’s not offering anything a guy couldn’t buy.

    “Let me summarize what I think your view is: “I will simply keep changing the definition of “power”, until women don’t have any of whatever it is”. So, all you need to do is corrupt the language until you are “right”.”

    See, this is where you’re nigh illiterate… I really haven’t said anything tangible about women having power, only that your idea of what power women have reflects an inaccurate view of women in general. Hell, your idea’s on what people want in sex is pretty damn naive too, sadism isn’t just a fringe thing, some element of it is in most men. You seem to think a normal man would be weird if he could get into a rape if circumstances arose. But the reality tends to be the rapist can’t get off to normal, consensual sex, the normal man can get himself risen by the act of force.

    But I really do get sick of people in the manosphere even granting that women are the gatekeepers of sex… Women like and need sex in proportions similar to men. The ONLY reason they win that game and won it traditionally is becasue they’re taught to hold out (even still to some extent) more than men are.

    Do your normal turning a girl on thing but wait to approach her for sex for a bit and see how the table turn. It doesn’t even usually take long, I’ve seen the turnaround in as few as three days. Patience is a virtue and a sign of strength. Men only lose the seduction power struggle via being impatient.

Leave a Reply