This is Leslie writing, a man. Substack gets our e-mails mixed up.
That is an interesting hypothesis; I'll grant you that. But if the very survival of those women in power in Gaza had to be gainsaid by the armed force of foreign troops -- Israeli no less! -- and you are right: it surely would, how does that set Gaza (or Judea, or Lebanon,…
This is Leslie writing, a man. Substack gets our e-mails mixed up.
That is an interesting hypothesis; I'll grant you that. But if the very survival of those women in power in Gaza had to be gainsaid by the armed force of foreign troops -- Israeli no less! -- and you are right: it surely would, how does that set Gaza (or Judea, or Lebanon, or Syria) on the road to becoming an independent matriarchal nation? As soon as the IDF pulls out, the men will take down the women because the women have not the temperament or the physical strength to employ violence effectively themselves, and must always rely on men to keep order using the state's lawful monopoly on violence. Even if all your cops are female, and all the sergeants and division commanders and chiefs and the commissioner of police are all female reporting to the female Supreme Leader, they can't collectively control a national mob of angry armed men. Not until you do a whole lot of social engineering among your country's women which probably culminates in sub-replacement fertility. (Which, in the case of Gaza, would be a good thing viewed objectively, but probably not so by Gaza's leaders whoever they might be.)
The world might well be a better place if women were in positions of power in more places, although I'm betting you didn't care much for Thatcher or Meloni. But women can hold power only if they can resist efforts by men to unseat them. And for that they need other men loyal to them, leading to the question, why should men be loyal to a female leader if they know she will prevent them from ever taking power themselves, as men? In countries with strong institutions, where resisting violence isn't a daily feature of politics, these men are loyal to "the Crown" or "The Constitution" and it doesn't matter who the Prime Minister is, personally. And she will eventually retire and a man can vie to take over. But in Arab/Muslim countries, the only institution is Islam or the tribe/family. Women, like all other leaders in such shit-hole places, need a personal power base. But women cannot physically overpower men determined to take them down. So how to enlist men to defend you with violence while telling them that neither they nor their sons can ever rise to the top, only their daughters, and then only if they don't want to be mothers?
Nobody said anything about matriarchal except you. I said if they put women without male influence into positions of power in Palestine, the region would stabilize and there is a 100% chance the women- no matter how antisemitic, or uneducated or brainwashed- would be “better” than Hamas.
You’re right that women aren’t physically capable of protecting ourselves against male violence, although I don’t necessarily agree that we don’t have the “temperament” to defend ourselves. Thats why I already said it would require men cooperating and defending the women.
I don’t know what “sub replacement fertility” means and it doesn’t sound relevant to what I said. But since men have proven throughout history that they’re willing to have sex with dead bodies, non human animals, prepubescent children, each other, and women who don’t accept physical and sexual violence, I’m sure that 99% of Palestinian men would be willing to keep having sex with women who don’t allow themselves to be oppressed.
Statistically, women, no matter their political persuasion, put more money into children, education, and infrastructure that benefits women and children. More female politicians in general is conducive to a more prosperous and safer world for women and all children regardless of gender, which logically means also safer for men bc all men were once children, because women are less violent in general and more focused on the success of children, regardless of any women that may or may not be outliers.
I can’t comment on every single policy of Margaret Thatcher and Giorgia Meloni and whether their policies would be more bloodthirsty and selfish if they were men bc that’s theoretical, although it’s an interesting thought experiment.
Your question doesn’t accurately reflect reality. Women aren’t asking men to be “loyal.” We’re asking men to stop physically and sexually controlling and assaulting us. Ceasing attacking and abusing someone isn’t a request for “loyalty.” It’s a request for nonviolence.
It’s interesting you see women in positions of authority as “preventing men from taking power.” Clearly a lot of men view any advancement of women into leadership positions as bias or unfair towards themselves, regardless of how many millennia men have had almost all leadership roles. It’s funny you wouldn’t consider every single country on earth having all female leaders for 100 years just a drop in the bucket on the way to correcting the gender imbalance, bc that is how you should perceive it based on logic and numbers and not emotions.
Women have innate power in that we naturally control the means of (re)production. Thats why men control and oppress us, and it’s the reason these Hamas apes are raping and probably trying to impregnate the Israeli women they kidnapped. Men intuitively know that women ARE the nation. So they try to “conquer” the nation by making it theirs in some way. They ultimately fail every time, however, because they’re fighting against reality. And the reality is that every human being who has ever lived shared their blood with a woman, the first person they heard speak was a woman, the first and really only place they truly felt safe was inside a woman’s womb, they shared a heartbeat with a woman, and the truest love they will ever experience is from a woman. Thats why men constantly create laws, policies, religious and social norms to oppress women: because patriarchy is something you have to constantly try make happen and then constantly upkeep through force ie it’s not the natural order of things.
If those Hamas apes do impregnate some of these women, and the women give birth to their rapists babies…they will still fail. Bc the very fact that women are women is gestate life means that that babies’ true and natural loyalty will be to the Israeli mother, not the father, bc our mother’s body is our one true indigenous homeland.
Thanks for engaging in discussion with me.
Men get very upset when I mention things like this that to me are non controversial and actually crucial to the success of societies, but to men who have had these topics censored from them via patriarchal propaganda, they can sound shocking. I appreciate you listening to me and considering my data-driven theory of middle eastern regional stability. A great book to read that goes into this gender-based theory of Middle East instability is “What Went Wrong? The Clash Between Islam and Modernity in the Middle East” by famed Orientalist/public intellectual/political commentator and expert on the Middle East Bernard Lewis. You can also find more info on this theory in many, many books by feminists. A good place to start is Invisible Women: Exposing Data Bias in a World Designed for Men by Caroline Criado-Perez.
This is Leslie writing, a man. Substack gets our e-mails mixed up.
That is an interesting hypothesis; I'll grant you that. But if the very survival of those women in power in Gaza had to be gainsaid by the armed force of foreign troops -- Israeli no less! -- and you are right: it surely would, how does that set Gaza (or Judea, or Lebanon, or Syria) on the road to becoming an independent matriarchal nation? As soon as the IDF pulls out, the men will take down the women because the women have not the temperament or the physical strength to employ violence effectively themselves, and must always rely on men to keep order using the state's lawful monopoly on violence. Even if all your cops are female, and all the sergeants and division commanders and chiefs and the commissioner of police are all female reporting to the female Supreme Leader, they can't collectively control a national mob of angry armed men. Not until you do a whole lot of social engineering among your country's women which probably culminates in sub-replacement fertility. (Which, in the case of Gaza, would be a good thing viewed objectively, but probably not so by Gaza's leaders whoever they might be.)
The world might well be a better place if women were in positions of power in more places, although I'm betting you didn't care much for Thatcher or Meloni. But women can hold power only if they can resist efforts by men to unseat them. And for that they need other men loyal to them, leading to the question, why should men be loyal to a female leader if they know she will prevent them from ever taking power themselves, as men? In countries with strong institutions, where resisting violence isn't a daily feature of politics, these men are loyal to "the Crown" or "The Constitution" and it doesn't matter who the Prime Minister is, personally. And she will eventually retire and a man can vie to take over. But in Arab/Muslim countries, the only institution is Islam or the tribe/family. Women, like all other leaders in such shit-hole places, need a personal power base. But women cannot physically overpower men determined to take them down. So how to enlist men to defend you with violence while telling them that neither they nor their sons can ever rise to the top, only their daughters, and then only if they don't want to be mothers?
Nobody said anything about matriarchal except you. I said if they put women without male influence into positions of power in Palestine, the region would stabilize and there is a 100% chance the women- no matter how antisemitic, or uneducated or brainwashed- would be “better” than Hamas.
You’re right that women aren’t physically capable of protecting ourselves against male violence, although I don’t necessarily agree that we don’t have the “temperament” to defend ourselves. Thats why I already said it would require men cooperating and defending the women.
I don’t know what “sub replacement fertility” means and it doesn’t sound relevant to what I said. But since men have proven throughout history that they’re willing to have sex with dead bodies, non human animals, prepubescent children, each other, and women who don’t accept physical and sexual violence, I’m sure that 99% of Palestinian men would be willing to keep having sex with women who don’t allow themselves to be oppressed.
Statistically, women, no matter their political persuasion, put more money into children, education, and infrastructure that benefits women and children. More female politicians in general is conducive to a more prosperous and safer world for women and all children regardless of gender, which logically means also safer for men bc all men were once children, because women are less violent in general and more focused on the success of children, regardless of any women that may or may not be outliers.
I can’t comment on every single policy of Margaret Thatcher and Giorgia Meloni and whether their policies would be more bloodthirsty and selfish if they were men bc that’s theoretical, although it’s an interesting thought experiment.
Your question doesn’t accurately reflect reality. Women aren’t asking men to be “loyal.” We’re asking men to stop physically and sexually controlling and assaulting us. Ceasing attacking and abusing someone isn’t a request for “loyalty.” It’s a request for nonviolence.
It’s interesting you see women in positions of authority as “preventing men from taking power.” Clearly a lot of men view any advancement of women into leadership positions as bias or unfair towards themselves, regardless of how many millennia men have had almost all leadership roles. It’s funny you wouldn’t consider every single country on earth having all female leaders for 100 years just a drop in the bucket on the way to correcting the gender imbalance, bc that is how you should perceive it based on logic and numbers and not emotions.
Women have innate power in that we naturally control the means of (re)production. Thats why men control and oppress us, and it’s the reason these Hamas apes are raping and probably trying to impregnate the Israeli women they kidnapped. Men intuitively know that women ARE the nation. So they try to “conquer” the nation by making it theirs in some way. They ultimately fail every time, however, because they’re fighting against reality. And the reality is that every human being who has ever lived shared their blood with a woman, the first person they heard speak was a woman, the first and really only place they truly felt safe was inside a woman’s womb, they shared a heartbeat with a woman, and the truest love they will ever experience is from a woman. Thats why men constantly create laws, policies, religious and social norms to oppress women: because patriarchy is something you have to constantly try make happen and then constantly upkeep through force ie it’s not the natural order of things.
If those Hamas apes do impregnate some of these women, and the women give birth to their rapists babies…they will still fail. Bc the very fact that women are women is gestate life means that that babies’ true and natural loyalty will be to the Israeli mother, not the father, bc our mother’s body is our one true indigenous homeland.
Thanks for engaging in discussion with me.
Men get very upset when I mention things like this that to me are non controversial and actually crucial to the success of societies, but to men who have had these topics censored from them via patriarchal propaganda, they can sound shocking. I appreciate you listening to me and considering my data-driven theory of middle eastern regional stability. A great book to read that goes into this gender-based theory of Middle East instability is “What Went Wrong? The Clash Between Islam and Modernity in the Middle East” by famed Orientalist/public intellectual/political commentator and expert on the Middle East Bernard Lewis. You can also find more info on this theory in many, many books by feminists. A good place to start is Invisible Women: Exposing Data Bias in a World Designed for Men by Caroline Criado-Perez.