Gynocentrism and Hair Choice

Yesterday I went to the bank, and it was one of those banks which are set up inside of a grocery store. The woman in charge at the time was dressed professionally, but one side of her hair went about three inches below her shoulder, and the other side was cut up to her jaw. If this were the first time I had ever seen something like this I would not deem it worth mentioning, but I have been seeing this a lot lately. Usually it’s black women who have one side of their hair much shorter than the other, as was the case yesterday, but I have also seen a few white women doing the same thing.

I don’t know who finds this attractive, or who told these women this was a good idea, but it looks both terrible and unprofessional. I never saw a hairstyle like that when I was growing up, not even during the most ridiculous hair period of the 80’s. The closest thing to that I ever saw growing up was the aftermath of when my sisters were toddlers and they used to cut each others’ hair, or their own. On an adult the hairstyle looks no less childish or unprofessional. I can’t help but wonder how much the women paid for that horrible hairstyle. I think the mentality is akin to whatever compelled a lot of girls to pay good money for jeans and pants that came with holes already in them. But I digress…

When I saw that hairstyle on someone in a management position, it dawned on me that women have a good deal more hair freedom than men. Of course there is no law which regulates hair in the US, and I would be thoroughly opposed to such a law (they do have such laws in Iran and North Korea), but there are social pressures which are nearly as restrictive as a law.

It seems that women can do whatever they want with their hair and not face any economic repercussions. They can cut one side short, they can cut it all short, they can shave part of it, or all of it, and none of this seems to affect their ability to get a job. On the other hand, a man is expected to have short hair, and if he doesn’t then his ability to get and hold a job is reduced. Men are socially required to have a modest or traditional hairstyle, but women are not. Why is that?

When one group in a society has a wider range of privileges than another it’s a clear indicator of power. Feminists say that men are in charge of everything due to their superior physical strength, and that we have “male privilege.” Their claims are not borne out by reality. First of all, most of the rulers are middle aged to very old, which means that physical strength is not a requisite for being in charge. Second, women actually have more privileges than men. Men have more responsibilities, but fewer privileges.

The increased hair freedom of women is just a superficial symptom of something which runs much deeper. Women have affirmative action on their side. If a man and a woman apply for the same job, the woman is more likely to get that job, even though she probably has less need of a job. Women can receive scholarships for being women. A man will never receive a scholarship for being a man, but he might get one for being black or Mexican. Women are able to take advantage of quotas for being women.

Women can choose to work or stay at home, and will face no stigma either way they decide. Women are the default custodians of children when a divorce occurs, even if the woman initiates the divorce. After the divorce, a woman can deny the man access to the children, yet still receive child support payments. Women can accuse men of rape, and the man is almost always presumed guilty until proven innocent based on that accusation alone.

Regulations such as “no means no” and “yes means yes” have been designed specifically to give women power over men in sexual matters. It is really much better for men not to have sex outside of marriage, because if a woman regrets it and accuses the man of rape then the legal and social impetus is in her favor.

If legal and social protections for each gender are weighed then things come out wantonly in favor of women. We do not have a patriarchal society, we have a gynocentric society and legal system. If I had my way I would restore the patriarchy. Things are actually much more balanced and orderly when men are in charge. But it is simply inaccurate to describe the conditions we live in as being weighted in favor of men.

Advertisements

Published by:

Radamanthes

I could be described as a libertarian monarchist with religious leanings and sympathies towards anarchy and nationalism. I have realized that a lot of my views are reactionary. Most of the time it's when I see something I don't like that I feel inspired to write. I'm basically like a badger being poked with a stick. I'm fairly ornery when poked, but I don't wish people harm provided that they don't seek to harm me either directly or indirectly. I don't at all care for the left, and I am not at all happy that they are out to destroy my way of life and undermine my freedom. But one of my goals is to spread awareness as much as I can. My Manifesto in Short.: 1. Dejure rights and positive liberty are invalid concepts. Man in his natural state is free. He is free to create what he wants, occupy and defend a territory he exists in, associate with who he wants, wear what he wants, say what he wants, follow whatever religion he wants, and essentially do whatever he pleases. Government is an artificial imposition which requires force both to come into existence and to exist. Therefore, government is not in a position to grant freedom or rights, as those already exist prior to the institution of government. Government can curtail freedoms, but it can never give them. The only fully legitimate function of government is to protect the natural rights of others from being violated by forces which they are incapable of combating, for example, protecting a farmer from the Mongol invasion. Protecting someone from having their feelings hurt is not a legitimate function, as never having hurt feelings is not a natural right. 2. Freedom of association and speech are more important than anyone's feelings. Feelings are subjective, and there is no reason why one person's feelings are any more valid than anyone else's. A law to protect one person's feelings from being hurt is certain to harm another person's, therefore, feelings cannot be a basis for law. My freedoms do not end where another person's feelings begin. 3. Democracy is a failure, and it is predicated on faulty premises. In order for Democracy to work, two criterion must be fulfilled, 1) those who tally the votes must do so honestly, and 2) those who vote must be moral and intelligent enough to make wise and proper decisions. The first premise is impossible to prove, and the second is not true of most people, therefore, Democracy is a questionable endeavor at best, and ultimately doomed to failure. In fact, under the best of circumstances Democracy is mob rule, but aside from that it also opens the door to demagoguery, tribal politics, and lobbying. 4. Communism and Islam are no less evil than Nazism. Communism has killed more people than Nazism, and in fact Stalin alone killed more people than Hitler. Islam has killed, and continues to kill more people than Communism and Nazism together. The only reason why communism and Islam are given a free pass is because Cultural Marxists are in charge of education, the media, and entertainment. Cultural Marxists have decided to institute communism by attacking the culture, and they have recognized Islam as something which they can use as an ally (for the time being). That is why both of those toxic ideologies get a free pass, but really they should not. Hitler worked with both Communists AND Muslims before the allies entered the war, and during the war he continued to work with Muslims. If some guy were to go around in a Nazi uniform and goose-step and Sieg hiel as he walked down the street he would never be able to get a job. His life would be over, and he might even be met with physical violence. If a white guy did it then things would be even worse. However, Muslims are able to walk down our streets wearing their terrorist clothing, their robes and hijabs, which represent thousands of years of slaughter, antisemitism, and persecution of religious and ethnic minorities (not to mention violence against women), and people just let them go. I want a complete and indefinite hiatus on Muslim immigration, and I want us to start repatriating the Muslims that are already here. 5. I utterly reject the concept of the "social contract." I did not ask to exist, nor did I have any control over what part of the world I was born in, which people group I was born into, or what other groups might happen to exist around me. Since my existence is entirely involuntary, I cannot be held responsible for the fact that I exist, nor is my existence sufficient grounds to argue that I owe something to someone else. I do not owe anyone money, goods, or services simply on the basis that I exist or that they exist. 6. Collective guild is a rubbish concept. No one can help what group they are born into, and no one is born owing anyone else anything. Debt is the result of borrowing resources on some level, and having just entered in the world one does not have the capacity to borrow, or really do anything beyond the most basic biological functions. Therefore, the notion that one baby is born owing something to another baby is absurd at best. 7. I thoroughly support Israel. I fully admit to supporting Israel for religious reasons, but if those were not in place I would still support Israel out of enlightened self-interest. Israel fulfills the real world equivalent of the function Gondor serves in Tolkien's Middle Earth. By that I mean they are close to the evil army, and draw a lot of it's attention and focus, and in doing so they protect the west. The difference is, that in Tolkien's world the west does not actively seek to import orcs and other members of the evil army, behind Gondor's back, whereas our moron leaders in real life do constantly import the evil army. Also, Jews are not a monolithic group, There are both left wing and right wing Jews. Those who are on the left are not motivated by religion to do what they do, but by the perverse Marxist ideology which they have adopted in place of their religion.

Categories Uncategorized2 Comments

2 thoughts on “Gynocentrism and Hair Choice”

  1. The hairstyle thing is so true, and it goes further than that. Men almost always have to shave their face daily (and I imagine that is not a fun task), and the few who can have long hair are forced to put gel or oil in it and tie it back or put it in a bun to still maintain an image considered professional. I do see a lot of feminists put down stay-at-home mothers. But the fact is that there are much more flexible roles in this culture for women as opposed to men. From homosexuality being more accepted among females, to hairstyles, to attitudes, to dress and demeanor. Honestly, I don’t even know where the double standards end.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s