Patriarchy and Critical Race Theory- Fact or Conspiracy?

Western society being and always having been inherently and overtly patriarchal and critical race theory are both viewed as givens by much (perhaps most) of the modern left.
Neither one is nearly as confirmed (empirically speaking) as they believe them to be. Hence, it could be said that these are conspiracies. But to many, of not most, these ideas are likely taken as a given and as such would not be in consideration for questioning or viewing in the lens of conspiratorial thinking.

And if you "spit your coffee on your keyboard" at the idea that patriarchy theory as applied to western civilization is not an obvious, known fact, you too share this bias. We all have them of course so I don't mean this as a fault on your part.

Edit: I know the patriarchy one really gets people going because of how obviously true it is to so many people so let me just ask a few questions to show why I think the idea is not settled at all and definitely up for discussion:

1) During WWI, women were walking around America handing out white feathers to combat aged men/teenage boys as a way to shame them for being weak and wimpy as opposed to brave and courageous, sacrificing their lives for the homeland or whatever.

Now, during this time, black Americans were being lynched and white people were getting away with it en masse. Why? Because they actually were in an oppressive and dominant position. But the women, out damning the reputation and character of these dominant and oppressive men? Nothing happened to these women.

If these women were in a position similar to Black Americans, how could this disparity in outcome exist?

2) Alcohol was made illegal in the 1920s. The people who drank were primarily men. The prohibition movement was largely spearheaded by women. They won. How?

3) The idea of patriarchy is largely supported by the common reality of women "in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant" throughout most of American history. This is supposedly because men were dominating and oppressing them.

Well, what were the men doing all this time? Were they smoking cigars in nightclubs, banging go go dancers and making big business deals? Or were they largely suffering in mines, on railroads, on farms and running towards machine gun nests praying they don't get gunshot and slowly and agonizingly die in a foreign land?

Was it oppression of one over another or was it a division of labour based on the conditions of the time?

"Why won't he open up to me? I just want him to share his emotions and thoughts."

The cultural narrative regarding this of course being that women are empathetic and men are trained to be cold and un-emotional and if only they would open up they would realize the women who love them would be there for them in an unbelievably satisfying way and their mental health (and relationships) would improve.


So simple, so obvious and so correct. Right?


Wrong.


They might not realize it but their biological imperative is to test for weakness/vulnerability (it all boils down to child rearing, resource acquisition and protection) and they can't do this if the guy is holding back. Will he be strong, dependable and successful? Will he protect her and the children as well as provide for them? She isn't sure and so something feels "off" to her. What this culture seems to have forgotten/wanted to deny as of late is how much our biology controls us.


Guys, she isn't saying this because she cares and wants to help (she may believe this.....or not). It's so that she can more accurately screen you as a mate/potential father.

On Guys Being "In Trouble" and Being Servants: Observations at Birthday Party

*This was written a few weeks ago*

So this weekend I attended a birthday party. There were several couples there and I noticed a disturbing trend. You know the classic relationship dynamic (especially these days) where they are out in public and somehow, the guy always ends up "in trouble?" He usually says something she doesn't like (often a joke) and he gets "the look?" Then they have that awkward whispered conversation, or that even worse nonverbal one, either way it's in public so they're trying to do it discreetly but holding back so they aren't really saying anything?

Well, there was a lot of that going on at this party. The guy would get "in trouble" (usually the "look") and then awkwardly try to explain himself to her but without fully having the actual conversation because there were people around. Then, if they think there's no one looking, the guys will often kiss her and talk to her with that annoying babying voice, trying to soothe her and get back in her good graces.

Every single time there was an issue, it was the girl getting annoyed at the guy, and almost always over a joke or just something he said. Well, the thing I really noticed more so now than ever before was the fact that these guys will often look at the woman after making a joke to make sure that he's not getting "the look."

It's almost like they are kids dealing with a humourless mommy.

The other thing I noticed was that whenever something needed to be grabbed from the car, another room, or even 5 feet away, it seems to always be the guy that has to do it. The most painful one was my cousin forgetting her camera in the car and instead of going to get it she said to her fiance (oh, the camera is still in the car." His response? "Well you know where the car is." Right on brother......oh wait, except for the fact that he said it in a voice that betrayed the fact that not only was he joking, but he was doing it overtly so, in an effort to let her know that he didn't really mean it. What was her reaction? A dirty look, followed by him saying "of course I'll go get it".....which he did, right away.

Bunch of pandering, snivelling, grovelling little manslaves. Do they have no self respect?

Acrobats strip for Pope Benedict XVI, perform topless in Vatican:

Place this one in the WHAT THE FUCK category:

Acrobats strip for Pope Benedict XVI, perform topless in Vatican.

The (Short) video: