New feminism instead of equality promises the right to demand compensation for their original sin

Last year, a fundamental gender shift occurred in the world. This is the Metoo movement. Not that there were no signs of impending changes before him, but Metoo is really a paradigm shift. One thing takes me in this shift. We will open the rules of the behavior of professors at American universities and read what they cannot from now on. They cannot remain alone with the student, close the door in the room where they are with her, etc. When you read these rules, you suddenly understand that somewhere you have already read it, and of course-these are the rules of conduct with Saudi women!

It is impossible with a Saudi woman a male, who is not a relative, to be alone. And the same can not be a professor in the USA. In both cases, the rules come from the same message: namely, that the male is a rapist and a villain, and he should be alone with a woman, as he, of course, will dishonor her.

The watch cultural arrow made a full revolution, and ultrapheminism led to Saudi Arabia. So we should not be surprised that the leaders of the female march ( a wave of feminist shares in the USA and around the world in 2017, the largest took place in Washington, was dedicated to the inadvertible statements of Trump about women - approx. Ed. )-this is anti-Semitic and Islamist in Hijab, and who does not like it-that islamophobe and white privileged male.

Let's, however, in order.

Why are we Bonobo

The first private property in the history of mankind was slaves, and women were the first slaves. In all ancient cultures, a woman is property.

If you, for example, read the Bible, then you will notice that

The idea that a woman is a thinking creature was simply not visited by the Bible authors.

Let us recall the famous story when the Lords come to the Lord in soda to destroy it, and all the inhabitants of the city - from small to great - gather at the door of the Lot's house and demand to give them angels to commit unnatural sexual intercourse with them. For which these bad people are first blinded, and then watered with gray and fire from the Lord from the sky.

We will not focus on the fact that for such an indignant approach to justice the Lord would be in our time before the Hague tribunal. We will ask only one question: and women of Sodom? What are them for? They certainly could not take part in the process.

The answer is that the author of this text does not even suspect that a woman has some kind of independent value, just like the author of Job’s book.

The Lord experienced Job and took his wife and children from him.

But then everything ended well, and the Lord gave him a new wife and new children. This is described as if Job defeated the Mercedes, and the Lord gave him the keys to the new.

If you think that such contempt for a woman is associated only with stratified societies, with states, then, unfortunately, this is not so.

One of the most amazing things that are striking in the eyes of anthropologists is the low status of women in archaic societies. Say, in the vast majority of the New General tribes, it was the woman who did all the work.

She raised children, wore water, planted a garden, the man did not do it. Why? Elementary, Watson, because it is stronger.

Because this is how the evolution arranged. We are cars for the propagation of DNA, and the strategy of the human female and the human male regarding this propagation is fundamental.

It is profitable for the male to cover as many females as possible. He invests in the propagation process as long as sexual intercourse lasts. The female invests nine months of pregnancy plus eight to ten years during which the child will die without her. She needs a long male who would somehow help her.

In Homo Sapiens, like all hominids, the mass of the female body is about 80% of the body weight of the male, and this leads to the fact that the male is the main thing in the family and the main thing in the pack. We have the only close relative who is an exception - this is a monkey of Bonobo, aka dwarf chimpanzees. In Bonobo, relations within the team are built mainly due to homosexual connections. 80% of these homosexual relationships fall on females, and although Bonov’s females are also fewer males, they rule the team. Bonobo’s flock is led by a collective Central Committee from old wise females. This is the only one of the highest monkeys who really have matriarchy. None of the human societies of matriarchy are recorded. These are fairy tales.

The attitude towards a woman, as a property walking and talking, entailed the natural fact that wealthy and powerful people had a lot of property. They had harems. In most human societies, in which there was private property, wealth and power of a person, they were measured not only by the number of his herds, shells in the ears, the length of the nails, etc., but also by the number of women.

Sometimes this epidemic acquired such forms that the rest of the population had to sleep with the faces of the same sex for lack of free valentines in females. For example, that was the case with Auchanti at the beginning of the XX century. The king had Kraal, and the king guarded the army from young men full of strength. The poor fellows, of course, were littered with spermotoxicosis, but they had absolutely nothing to do, because most of the women were owned by the king, and at those who remained, there were such high prices that young people could not pay them. But the prices were much cheaper for boys.

The girl in the family cost, say, five rams, and the boy - a couple of chicken.

Young warriors married a boy, and if they treated the boy well, then the family could then sell them a boy’s sister.

It can be seen, - the right man, the boy does not beat, treats him well, so the woman will be good with him!

And all-due to the shortage created by the king.

From this common paradigm - “If you are a big person, then you have not only a lot of money, but also a lot of wives” - there were few exceptions. But one of these exceptions was European civilization.

Valuable goods

In the world, tons of books about the difference between the "Western" civilization and the "eastern" are written. This is all mostly waste paper. Firstly, because there are no single "eastern" civilization, there are a lot of different. And secondly, because most of these books begin with the story that the uniqueness of Europe was the inviolability of private property, etc., while the riddle of Europe is not that it was respected by private property, but why it was respected.

Nevertheless, there is really one fundamental anthropological feature that distinguished first Greece and Rome, and then medieval Europe from all other societies - from China, India, ashanti, from ancient Egypt, from ancient Iran, from Islamic countries - from everything.

This is the principle - "one husband, one wife." And in medieval Christian Europe, he was completely connected with another, completely fantastic prohibition for the rest of humanity - with the impossibility of divorce.

As a result, much earlier than a woman in Europe became an independent creature, she became a valuable product. With its help, alliances were concluded between the ruling houses.

In the east, such unions were also consisted of, but not a penny, because if you gave your daughter in a harem to the ruler, who has four wives and two hundred concubines, then what's the difference if he has another?

In medieval Europe it was different. The woman was the most important product, as well, by the way, is shown in George Martin in the “Game of Thrones”.

The rich heiresses left without a father in the early Middle Ages served as a stabilization fund. Their hand was rewarded with the best warriors. William Marshall, Richard's ally Lion's heart and the legendary knight, who served by George Martin, the prototype of Barristan Bold, began a simple knight, and ended with the guardian of the king. Marshall received the rich heiress as his wife and immediately became one of the largest barons of the kingdom.

With the help of marriages, empires were created. Maximilian Gabsburg had no money and he did not win a single war. But he left his descendants a huge empire due to successful marriages of children. In the east, this was impossible - the kingdoms were not inherited there along the female line, unlike Europe, where every fourth noble family had only female heirs. In the east there was no problem that the ruler had only one offspring, and this is a daughter. There was another problem - that the ruler had two hundred sons, and they all want to kill each other.

Long before becoming an independent person, a noble woman in Europe has become a valuable unique product.

In the east, she could not become them simply because there was too much of him. A marriage cannot be a valuable transaction if you can conclude twenty of them.

As a result of the beginning, a unique thing. Eastern society was built on a vertical hierarchy. It doesn’t matter who got into the harem is the daughter of a vizier or a slave from the market. Both were equal. On the contrary, in Europe, the ruler’s marriage very quickly began to be built on the basis of mutual equality - not with his wife, but with his wife's family. The wife was taken to get the support of the neighboring king, and it was simply impossible to cut it off. The English king Henry VIII started changing one wife to another - a trough in the east. Henry VIII had to become the head of the Anglican Church for this.

Mistress of the castle

In addition to the fact that in medieval Europe a woman was a valuable product, she was also the mistress of the castle.

The castle, like the knightly armor, was a completely unique artifact.

For us, the word "castle" is very familiar. It is constantly found in books, cartoons and "Game of Thrones."

But outside of medieval Europe, except for Japan, there were no castles. They were not in the ancient East. They were not in Rome and Greece. There were fortresses - that is, a fortified point that has a garrison. Of course, a man commanded this garrison. There were cities - that is, again surrounded by the wall of the clusters of people who had a garrison, official or city council. In Rome were the villas of private rich. There were estates in China. When absolutism began in Europe, forts began in it.

But the castle is a unique artifact. In fact, this is just a residential building. The habitat of one specific person, which is usually inherited. But this is a fortified house. With walls. With Donjon, with a moat, with Barbican.

This house could not be built in China. In China there was a manor defenseless against the imperial troops.

Try to build a castle there - I would immediately follow the imperial shout: from whom are you going to defend yourself here?

Since the right to violence in feudal society was delegated to the lord, he could build a personal fortress. And since the wife of this lord was alone, she was also the mistress of the castle. And she headed his entire economic life, and sometimes defense - when her husband at that time fought under the banners of his overlord in another place.

Soon after the castles appeared in France, both troubadours and Menestrels appeared in it, who sang the mistress of the castle. The troubadours did not sang the woman at all. They sang a woman, clothed with power, because power always has sexual attractiveness.

The concept of “love” in its modern sense in European culture appeared precisely then, in Aquitania of the XII-XIII centuries. In some cultures, it did not appear for a very long time. At the very time, when the trumpeters in France sang courteous love and sang about Tristan and Isolde, a captivating epic text was composed in Japan - “Song of Yoshitsune”. In it, in particular, it was mentioned that the great commander Yoshitsune before his death, hiding in the mountains from his brother, took a dancer with him. The text did not say in any way how Yoshitsune reacted to this dancer. How he was supposed to love her passionately in order to drag her into wild mountains in the middle of winter. For the author of "Songs of Yoshitsune", love was not an event and was not a plot engine.

The attitude towards a woman as a prize that needs to be earned, and not as a mud under her feet, began to permeate the entire European culture. Most of the European novels of the XVIII-XIX centuries narrated about the exploits of a young male for the sake of the female he liked. For her sake, the males went on travel, opened the continents and made discoveries.

Thus, a fundamental difference was formed between a European male, who always entered the female in the duel, and his eastern counterpart, for whom his wives were small livestock. They did not have to differ in front of them. They did not have to earn them. On the contrary, they could recoup for all inequality and humiliation reigning in society.

Was a Padishah warder beat you in the market today? And you came and beat your wife. And you feel like a cool male.

Sexual revolution

Since until the 20th century the woman was property even in Europe, the rules for owning this property, of course, were very strict.

Is it unpleasant for you when you get a parcel from Amazon, and it is smeared and packaging is torn? Here the woman also had to come in a whole package. If the packaging was torn, the woman was defective.

An attempt to tear the package was fraught with a reaction of relatives. Imagine what would happen to the nobleman in the 19th century if he slapped a lady on the ass at a drunken form at the ball. What would happen? Duel.

The XX century brought to Europe not only a technical revolution, but also its consequence - a sexual revolution. The woman said: Stop. I'm not a thing. I am not a walking uterus in which the heirs are grown. I control my body myself. I myself decide when I can turn off the packaging.

This was one of the greatest conquests of the 20th century - sexual freedom for women.

And now, as Metooo grows and deepen, an amazing thing is being clarified. It turns out that sexual freedom and its flip side - sexual irresponsibility - is not at all what a woman always wants. After all, the main biological beneficiary of sexual freedom is certainly men. Which enough for a few minutes to multiply. A woman who needs at least 9 months for this needs another. She, as a typewriter for the propagation of DNA, needs a reliable partner who will take care of her child in exchange for a reward in the form of sex.

A few months ago, in the United States, Judge Brett Cavanano approved the judge of the Supreme Court of the United States, and since Donald Trump put forward it, the Democrats resistance was huge. Among other things, there were several women at once who accused Cavano of harassment. All these claims were a lie, but now I am now interested in another - namely, how they were structured.

One of the prosecutors was called Julie Svetnik. In her youth, she changed her lovers like gloves and scared one of them by saying that she loved group sex. Now it suddenly turns out that it injured her.

The other prosecutor was called Deborah Ramirez. She accused Judge Cavano of the fact that one day she was drunk at a party, and he took off at all his pants and waved a penis at her face. How quickly it turned out, this did not do it, but this is not about that. The point is that in the 19th century this could not be. It didn’t happen that young girls with high social status would gather at a party where men would wave in front of them, drunk, penis. And in the 70s it was-Yes! We have achieved this! Hooray! We are now free women.

And, as it turns out, Deborah Ramirez did not like it at all.

The third prosecutor was Kristina Blazy Ford, who said that when she was 15 years old, an unfamiliar young man threw her at a bed at a party on the second floor and began to undress her. She had a bathing suit, so she undressed poorly, then his friend also fell on them, she slipped out from under them and ran away.

Not everyone knows-but the FBI has found a man who was harassed by the young Ms. Ford. This man, whose name is not revealed (but it was not cavalled), said that the matter was that: the party, the second floor, a bathing suit, she ran away when their friend fell on them, and he thought that everything was according to mutual desire.

Apparently, at the time when this happened, Ms. Ford was decent drunk, and what happened was so mundane for her that she did not even remember where and when it happened. But then she decided that it broke her life.

This is the essence of the matter. Because, although Ms. Blazi Fordos, in the testimony of all these three women was a very important point. Namely-the behavior that was considered as a triumph of female independence in the 70s, in fact, women really liked it.

Because women like much more when spears in tournaments break for their sake, than when they are drunk, unfamiliar men waved penis.

New Domostroy?

Any freedom - including sexual - is impossible without responsibility.

Metoo implies that a woman is always free, and a man is always to blame. If a drunk girl slept of her own free will with a drunken boy, and then, a day later, she consulted with a specially allocated person at the university and decided that she was offended, then she was a victim of rape. And every person who doubts this is vistimizing the victim. He inspires the victim that she is to blame.

Not really! Она не виновата. Просто мальчик тоже не виноват. No one is to blame. Shit happens. В нашей жизни случается много гадостей. И не все их можно отрегулировать с помощью суда.

Разумного выхода из этого парадокса нет. Чтобы из него выйти, надо вернуться к новому домострою и совершать каждый сексуальный акт только с разрешения соответствующей комиссии. Вообще-то, в традиционных культурах это и называлось свадьбой.

Либо серую зону надо исключить из области, которая влечет за собой ответственность, потому что создание серой зоны и есть главное завоевание сексуальной революции.

Почему современный левый феминизм вдруг так сосредоточился на белых самцах?

Если цель феминисток — освобождение женщин, то почему не бороться против культур, где женщины действительно находятся до сих пор на положении рабов? Почему не бороться против хиджаба, против женского обрезания?

Почему объектом борьбы является белый волосатый самец, который, о ужас! потрогал девушку двадцать лет назад за коленку, и с тех пор мир ее рухнул?

The answer is simple. И заключается в том, что, в отличие от суфражисток, которые реально добивались равноправия женщин, целью нынешних феминисток ни в коем случае не является освобождение женщин. Их цель — внушить женщинам, что их обидели. И что им должны.

Это стандартная цель любого левака. В начале XX века левые внушали это пролетариату. Сейчас пролетариат кончился, и это внушают люмпенам, мигрантам, расовым и сексуальным меньшинствам — и женщинам. Все мужчины им должны.

Мигрантам белый европейский самец должен еще за Крестовые походы, а женщинам — еще за Содом и Гоморру. Отсюда, собственно, и фантастический союз феминисток и исламистов.

Поэтому во главе Женского Марша стоит исламистка в хиджабе, которая рассказывает, как Аллах защищает права человека.

В обществе, в котором женщина пользуется свободой, абсолютно у каждой найдется случай, когда ее кто-то сально обидел. Это оборотная сторона сексуальной свободы. Не хочешь — сиди дома в четырех стенах и выходи замуж через сваху. Тогда тебя точно никто до свадьбы не обидит.

В чем тут обман? В том, что в жизни любого человека — и мужчины, и женщины — случаются неприятности и трагедии. Проваленные экзамены, «мой парень меня бросил», двойка в школе, несправедливая учительница, непонимание близких, их, не дай бог, болезнь или смерть. И все эти вещи оставляют реальные душевные травмы — куда более серьезные, чем если тебя кто-то потрогал за попу.

Загляните в список причин, по которым кончают с собой подростки. Причины «меня вчера потрогали за попу» — там просто нет. Травля одноклассников, хамство учителей, получил двойку, за компанию, вообще грустно жить. В качестве причины, и то редко, бывает настоящее страшное изнасилование. Но Дианы Шурыгины с собой не кончают.

И вдруг вот из этого количества реальных проблем, которые нельзя наказать, упорядочить, предотвратить, потому что жизнь вообще сложна и несправедлива, современные феминистки выбирают одну проблему и говорят взрослой женщине: ты мало зарабатываешь? Не добилась, чего хотела? Не нашла подходящего самца? А ну-ка вспомни, это все потому, что 20 лет назад тебя как-то не так погладили по коленке.

Это — электоральная стратегия новых левых.

В ней ужасно прежде всего то, что как только вы внушаете человеку, что все ему должны как представителю определенной группы (пола, нации, расы), этот человек кончается как личность. Ему не надо больше ничего самому себе доказывать. Ни к чему стремиться. Ему все должны. Все перед ним виноваты. Его обидели.

What to say? Дорогие женщины! Будьте личностями. Пользуйтесь фантастическими возможностями и фантастическим равенством, которое не имеет аналогов почти ни в одной культуре мира и которое предоставлено нам, женщинам, развитием науки и техники на Западе. Зачинателями этого развития были белые привилегированные самцы. Участвуйте в этом развитии. Умножайте его. Не дайте себя использовать новым левым.

А если вам надо бороться за права женщин — боритесь за них в тех частях мира, где они действительно до сих пор являются рабынями.