Female Power versus Male Power

Women are lying when they claim they had no power in the past. We may not have accurately described
female power but this is actually in keeping with the feminine: All things female are covert while the male
is overt, and so it is that female power in society is also covert. Although it is true that men have held
most overt positions of power in the past, one must keep in mind that they were only permitted to do so
because society socially condoned such practices. Society (ie. the herd) falls under the domain of the
female principle and further, our social mores are controlled by women. What women want, society wants.
What women find socially acceptable, society finds socially acceptable. Women have enormous social
power while men have very little.
"Nature has given women so much power that the law has wisely given them little." -- Samuel
Johnson
Over 100 years ago, E. Belfort Bax was writing how a man could never expect to receive justice from a
court of law when his adversary was a woman. Justice is only achieved between a man and another man,
and the only time a woman receives punishment from the court is when she has done something to harm
another woman. When it comes down to man versus woman, the woman always fares better. This is not
something new that has arisen recently, as you can see, but rather is something that is innate to humans.
Everywhere in nature, males are the servants of the female. Furthermore, women have spent the past
several thousand years evolving to better manipulate males to do their bidding.
"A man strives to get direct mastery over things either by understanding them or by compulsion.
But a woman is always and everywhere driven to indirect mastery, namely through a man; all
her direct mastery being limited to him alone. Therefore it lies in womans nature to look upon
everything only as a means for winning man, and her interest in anything else is always a
simulated one, a mere roundabout way to gain her ends, consisting of coquetry and pretense." -Arthur Schopenhauer, On Women
What men do with their positions of "power" in society is serve the needs of the female. Even the socalled "oppressive" things of patriarchy past were done for women's benefit. Take the practice of placing
all of a woman's property holdings into the husband's name upon marriage. While feminists claim this was
indicative of women being "non-persons," what it actually did was benefit women enormously. Women are
hypergamous by nature and as such, seek out men who are more powerful and have more resources
than they themselves have. Thus, upon marriage, the male's property holdings were generally much
greater than the female's, and by combining the two upon marriage the female received the right to her
husband's property. If wives could maintain property outside of marriage, then it stands that so could
husbands. If property were able to remain legally outside of marriage then women wouldn't be able to fully
take advantage of men's higher provisioning abilities. It was in the wife's best interest for her property to
be co-joined in such ways. Wouldn't you agree to co-join your assets with Bill Gates if it meant you gained
access to his fortune and further, received inheritance rights to it upon his death? Since it was ultimately
in women's favour for it to be handled this way, society condoned it.

The introduction of labor laws, such as limiting the work-day for women and children to a maximum of
eight hours, was done for their benefit. Men still had to work long, hard days in the fields and mine shafts,
but society thought it wrong that women should spend lengthy days in the hazardous conditions of the
workplace, and so laws were enacted to protect women - not men - from such harsh conditions.
Feminists, in their hate-fueled rage against nature, have tried to complain that such acts were the result of
an evil patriarchy conspiring to hold women back, but they are plain and simply lying. In fact, as Angry
Harry points out in his two excellent pieces, Women - Weak and Pathetic? and Did Women Really Want
to Go Out to Work?, it was women who fueled such movements as it was considered by society (ie.
women) that women leaving the workplace was a great step forward for womankind, and so, because
women socially condoned it, that's what happened. Here is an extract describing the situation, from David
Thomas' book Not Guilty:
The desire to free oneself from work was common to all classes and both sexes. Dr Joanna
Bourke of Birkbeck College, London, has studied the diaries of 5,000 women who lived between
1860 and 1930. During that period, the proportion of women in paid employment dropped from 75
per cent to 10 per cent. This was regarded as a huge step forward for womankind, an opinion
shared by the women whose writings Dr Bourke researched. Freed from mills and factories, they
created a new power base for themselves at home. This was, claims Dr Bourke, "a deliberate
choice. . . and a choice that gave great pleasure."
Further evidence to support this position is provided by a 1936 Gallup Poll asking a national
sample, "Should a married woman earn money if she has a husband capable of supporting
her? By overwhelming majorities, both men and women said that she should not. However, a few
decades later, women decided that they belonged in the workplace again and, as Esther Villar pointed out
in The Manipulated Man, in very short order, the laws changed by the early 1960's to grant women equal
pay and opportunity with men in the workplace - and of course they blamed it all on men, even though it
was women themselves that had earlier condoned lesser pay for women and encouraged men to be the
sole breadwinner so that women could leave the workplace. As you can see, in each case, what women
wanted, society wanted, and thus it came into being. Men were just the toolswho facilitated society's
(women's) desires.
"Woman, weak as she is and limited in her range of observation, perceives and judges the forces
at her disposal to supplement her weakness, and those forces are the passions of man. Her own
mechanism is more powerful than ours; she has many levers which may set the human heart in
motion. She must find a way to make us desire what she cannot achieve unaided and what she
considers to be necessary or pleasing; therefore she must have a thorough knowledge of man's
mind .. she must learn to divine their feelings from speech and action, look and gesture. By her
own speech and action, look and gesture, she must be able to inspire them with the feelings she
desires, without seeming to have any such purpose." Jean Jacques Rousseau, Emile
Men's power comes from conquering the outside world while women's power comes from conquering the
will of man and encouraging him to willfully surrender his power unto her when it suits her purpose. Think
about how women claim they were powerless because for a few decades they didn't have the vote. Did
they pick up guns and overthrow society to get their way? Nope, they bitched and moaned and cajoled
men into doing their bidding. They did the same things with the Temperance Movement. Women decided
what was socially acceptable, and then harassed men into doing their bidding - and the men did it!
Women's social power is enormous and far outweighs men's social power. Men are playing a fool's game
if they think they can compete with women on this level, for that is where the heart of female power lies.
Men are as horribly outmatched by women on this level as women would be if they deemed to "overthrow
men" by lifting weights and taking boxing lessons in an attempt to physically subdue them. Why should
men then try to form a movement on the basis of the female principle when it is under this very principle
that men have little ability to compete? Seems pretty stupid to me and it can only lead to disaster. Much
of this warped thinking is still based in the false Boomer-topian ideology that men and women are
essentially the same, save but for externally imposed "social constructs." This is a false ideology and as
such, actions based upon it can only lead to false conclusions.