The Real Oppression of Women Under Patriarchy

Go to any blog, message board or online magazine's comment section in which the topic regards the past system of Patriarchy, and the inevitable argument always gets put forth: that the past system was oppressive because it trapped innocent women and children in marriages to abusive, tyrannical men.

As bad as the current regime of feminist no-fault divorce-a-palooza and the ubiquity of single mother households becoming the primary makeup of the 21st century home, many women will acknowledge the injustices and drawbacks of the current dystopia, but still argue from the position that it is still an improvement over the dreaded oppression of Patriarchy's past.

Yet, when you take a step back and look at the big picture, what do we see when it comes to women, and their choice of sex partners and sperm donors for their offspring? Time and time again, under the current regime in which women have all the choices in mating and reproductive decisions, with the power of the State backing them up in whatever direction they choose...many, many women choose to remain or frequently return to violent partners over and over again.

It gives lie to the idea that freeing women from the constraints of Patriarchy would allow them to escape abusive spouses.

When one does a google search on "why women return to abusive partners repeatedly" you find out such fun factoids like: "A battered woman leaves her partner an average of seven times before she breaks with him permanently."

Browsing through the first two pages of those search results reveals one thing all the websites dealing with that topic ALL have in common: they all absolve the woman of any responsibility for her choices and offer rationalizations and excuses as to why she has no choice but return to her abuser over and over again. Low self esteem, societal dissaproval, emotionally still 'in love," manipulation by her abuser...blah, blah, blah.

Here's an idea: women who repeatedly return to an abusive man and continue to have sex with them and pop out children with them are sexually attracted to these abusive men because they are violent.

All of these excuses and explanations are rationalizations avoiding the dark truths of female's base sexual nature and attraction towards the dark triad of masculinity traits.

No matter how many times it's claimed, it's logically impossible to believe this notion that the majority of husbands and fathers in the bad old days were unjust tyrants abusing their wives and families with reckless abandon, deliberately hurting their spouses just because they could. If that were the case, and the vast majority of married men were unjust abusers, the feminist movement would have never ever gained society- wide traction. MEN had to vote to approve FEMALE suffrage. If all men under dastardly Patriarchy were hell bent on oppressing all of women-kind, suffrage, no-fault divorce and all the other aspects of today's feminist zeitgeist would have never come to pass.

Feminist gains were achieved with male compliance, apathy and acquiescence.

That's because while we may have a lot more "beta" males in society today due to our cultural programming that psychologically emasculates the majority of males than would naturally occur under a strictly traditional Patriarchal society, even back than, the majority of males were still "beta." They got married and their wives still ruled the roost in all but name. As I wrote over at Alte's:

For instance, my own grandparents….both grew up during the depression and had already had 4 children by the time the sexual revolution rolled around in the 60′s. There was a tyrant in the house..and it was certainly not my grandfather. My grandmother wore the pants. What she said, goes. Patriarchal oppression….HAH. My grandmother would’ve laughed at the idea that she was oppressed just because she was a SAHM and took my Grandfather’s last name.

The difference between back then and now, was divorce laws that favored men and the society-wide stigma against divorce meant men could beta-ize and their wives couldn't just up and leave them.

It has always been so, that most males in any human society will be mostly beta. Alpha's are always the select few, amongst the mass of average, beta males.

No, I do believe I've figured out the real meaning of oppression under Patriarchy.


The biggest oppression the majority of women experienced in the past was not abusive, asshole, Alpha thugs...it was being trapped in marriage to a contemptible Beta she had no sexual attraction towards. Now THAT that was some SERIOUS oppression from the female point of view.

Now that Patriarchy has been deconstructed and marginalized by the feminist movement, there is no longer any reason why a woman who got married and had children, and grew to despise her beta-ized husband, to have to stick with "'til death do us part."

Remember Roissy's Maxim #51? "For most women, five minutes of alpha is worth five years of beta."

That's under today's Matriarchal zeitgeist.

Now women can marry a beta, pop out some kids, eat, pray and than find an alpha to love for 5 minutes while she divorces the beta and locks him into years of indentured servitude via child support and alimony.

But under the bad old days of Patriarchy, if a woman settled for a beta, it really was "'til death do us part."

Corporate Whores & Mass Media Terrorism

It's that time again....

...time for another round of terrorizing we the sheeple via mass media propaganda about a common food item most of us consume.

Yes, it's time for another round of mass media "RED MEAT CANCER SCARE!"

In my last post, commenter Dan Dascalescu left the following:

You do realize that you are pitting one particular case against mountains of large-scale clinical trials (for instance this study on daily red meat consumption which shows that cancer mortality in men in the highest quintile of consumption is increased 22%, and the cardiovascular disease mortality in women consuming the highest quintile of processed meat is increased 38%.)

You have quite a burden of proof upon your shoulders.

Not quite, Dan. Funny that I had this post on the back burner for a couple of days...but your comment got me inspired to finish it up.

Before I even clicked on your link, I already knew where this was going...but I clicked anyways.

The study conclusion reads "Red and processed meat intakes were associated with modest increases in total mortality, cancer mortality, and cardiovascular disease mortality", but please see the "Adjusted model" results in the results tables of the study. For example, cancer mortality in men in the highest quintile of consumption is increased 22%, and the cardiovascular disease mortality in women consuming the highest quintile of processed meat is increased 38%.

Were have we seen this kind of thing before?

So, knowing what to expect, I click on Dan's link to the PubMed Abstract:

Abstract
BACKGROUND:

High intakes of red or processed meat may increase the risk of mortality. Our objective was to determine the relations of red, white, and processed meat intakes to risk for total and cause-specific mortality.
METHODS:

The study population included the National Institutes of Health-AARP (formerly known as the American Association of Retired Persons) Diet and Health Study cohort of half a million people aged 50 to 71 years at baseline. Meat intake was estimated from a food frequency questionnaire administered at baseline.

Same story, different channel.

Dan, if you're reading this, understand that correlation does not equal causation. But the journalists who right these "scare" stories can't seem to grasp this. They just read the PubMed abstract, write their story for corporate mass media dissemination about the dangers of red meat consumption, and BOOM! Once again, "everyone knows red meat is bad for you!"

Now, as I indicated earlier, I began writing this post several days ago...because I also saw a similar article in the same vein: Cut red meat intake and don't eat ham, say cancer researchers: World Cancer Research Fund advises people to limit consumption of beef, pork and lamb and avoid processed meat

I didn't even bother trying to find the source article. I already know it's going to lead to the exact same thing - an epidemiological study based on food questionnaire results. It always does whenever you look into these "RED MEAT" mass media terrorism campaigns.

This time, I tried a different tact. I wanted to see just who was funding this organization to produce these kinds of studies to scare us all into forgoing meat in our diets. A cursory Google search of "WCRF Corporate Sponsors" didn't reveal any WCRF lists of sponsors, but it did reveal the American affiliate of the WCRF, the AICR or American Institute of Cancer Research. There list was rather illuminating.

The Dole Nutrition Institute "Delivering Nutrition Naturally! Dole just made it easier to learn how to eat the right foods and live a better, healthy life!"
Eat Right! Fruits! Vegetables! Salads! Juice!

Nah, there's no motive to promote less red meat consumption and more fruits and vegetable consumption from a fruit and vegetable corporation like Dole...right?

Take a look at another corporate sponsors page, Giant Food LLC, and their healthy ideas page. The graphic displaying processed food products under their "healthy ideas" logo are the typical fare of so-called 'healthy' mass produced food, like whole grain pasta, orange juice and egg beaters "low cholesterol" egg substitute.

Nah, this corporation wouldn't have anything to gain by people making their grocery shopping decisions with the fear of red meat in their minds...

Another sponsor is Standard Process Whole Foods Supplements. From their "importance of whole foods supplements" page, we get the following:

Given proper nutrition, the human body has an amazing ability to heal itself. If properly fed and given the right nutrients, the human body is designed to repair itself. To do so, we need to eat a healthier diet, exercise, and take high-quality supplements made from whole foods. Whole food supplements supply our bodies with nutrients we are not getting from our diet, all the vitamins, minerals, trace minerals, and phytonutrients that foods possess in a way that nature intended, in a whole food form.

Think they wouldn't sponsor red meat demonization studies so people buy their supplements rather then eat the meat that contains many of the vitamins, minerals, trace minerals and nutrients?

Some other sponsors include The California Walnut Commission (eat nuts for protein instead of red meat!), The National Onion Association (eat more vegetables instead of red meat!), The National Fisheries Institute (eat white meat instead, like FISH!), and of course, without any surprises, we have the United Soybean Board.

You think the number one Big Agriculture crop used in making "Vegetable Oil" and "Vegetable Protein" wouldn't have an axe to grind against red meat? Nah.

I'm convinced that the entire demonization of red meat by the corporate mass media is a deliberately disseminated misinformation campaign to get consumers to buy the processed food products of Big Agriculture instead of fresh meat.

Unconventional Health Care

I've often read various comments from people on teh interwebz regarding healthcare advice, that one should take what their Doctor's tell them, and do the exact opposite to ensure good health. When it comes to diet and lifestyle advice...it may not be too far from the truth.

But when it comes to emergency medical situations, this can be a life threatening attitude. The modern allopathic health care system is very good at dealing with traumatic wounds and critical medical conditions, as well as providing corrective surgical procedures that can improve ones life dramatically.

To some, there is nothing of merit in the current health care system, it is all a fraudulent industry designed to profit off of sickness and death. There is most certainly aspects of the industry that are like that...after all, if widespread knowledge of nutrition and health were widely practiced, health care insurance claims and pharmaceutical prescriptions would not be industries that are nearly as lucrative as they are today.

In other words, emergency medicine is great...preventative health care has been hopelessly corrupted to ensure a steady supply of customers in the future.

What other conclusion can you draw, when one can actually look at the literature and TV Programming found in hospitals and Doctor's offices across the country, advising nutrition and behavior that is detrimental to human health over the long term?

To summarize:

• Eat a diet rich in whole grains, vegetables and fruits.
• Only eat lean, white meats, avoid red meat as much as possible.
• Always choose the low fat or non-fat foods when grocery shopping.
• Use vegetable oils instead of animal fats whenever you cook.
• Avoid eating salt.
• Remember that the key to weight loss is to eat less/exercise more.
• Count your calories.
• Monitor your cholesterol, if it's too high, you will need medication to control it.
• Avoid going out in the sun during the hottest part of the day...from 10:00am to 3:00pm.
• If you must be outdoors during that time, make sure you use sunblock.

These things are all articles of faith promoted by Western Allopathic Medicine. Through self experimentation, I think I can safely conclude that these are all lies, and following them religiously will inevitably lead to sickness and ill health.

Yes, we are all going to die someday.

But I'd rather maximize my short time in this life with the best health and vitality possible until I head off to my dirt nap. Widespread, long lasting, good health is simply not profitable for the health care industry so they do not have an interest in promoting it. Remember that the next time you are receiving diet and lifestyle advice, and take it with a grain of salt.

Conventional medicine can help you...and it can hurt you. Only you can decide which advice and treatment options are more likely to do one or the other.