Nowadays, the idealistic idea of judging the personality, but not the gender, is popular in its many variations:
- Violence has no gender;
- there are enough assholes of both genders;
- if women are in power, this is no better than patriarchy, it is necessary that all people be equal and no one oppresses anyone.
If everything is clear with violence (there are enough crime statistics here), then the absurdity of the last thesis is not that obvious to many.

Let's start with what patriarchy is: it is the usurpation by males of the reproductive ability of females, it arose precisely because females carry and give birth to offspring, and males have the opportunity to fertilize. Is it possible to imagine "patriarchy in reverse" if women, with all their desire, fail to do the same? Even if women have weapons and power, control resources, this will not result in mass exploitation of men, because there are no economic prerequisites for it. Men do not produce anything useful that women cannot do. If earlier it was possible to extract at least physical strength from them, then with the current level of automation this is no longer relevant. Therefore, in matriarchal formations, both sexes are the most free, if freedom is understood as the absence of exploitation, and not the ability to exploit others.
Also, at the moment there is already a historical experience of women's power, i.e.matriarchy (these are both primitive times and modern peoples with a matriarchal system). And here you can hear the argument that this is "not a real" matriarchy, precisely because it is not a "mirror" of the patriarchal system whete men are not in slavery and freely go about their business, as well as women. But the fact is that this is exactly how a society is built in which women rule - it is distinguished by freedom and the concentration of resources on development and creation. Not because women are less aggressive (aggression is natural, because the female must be able to stand up for herself and her offspring). And because there is no economic benefit in violence, and to mock someone just like that is possible only because of mental illness, which is much less common in such a harmonious society.

But isn't power in women's hands itself an oppression of men? It is not, due to biological characteristics. The females are responsible for deciding on the establishment of offspring, providing conditions for its development, including security, resources, social acceptance. Therefore, it is females who should be able to make decisions about the distribution of resources, the course of development of society, and also control the aggression of males. Due to the fact that this simple principle is not respected, we are now seeing a picture where males have a lot of power and influence, but do not bear any responsibility for how they dispose of them. On the contrary, women are responsible for all their actions, forced to breed and raise children without any control over the environment (in fact, in captivity).

To compensate for this apparent imbalance, "equality" social movements are trying to force (through the state) men to take responsibility, such as taking part in raising children, paying child support, and so on. This is better than nothing, but such changes only mask the problem - the ability of males to impregnate females with impunity and forced reproduction. Obviously, more serious legal measures are needed, such as punishing males for unwanted insemination, compensating for the damage caused to the female body by pregnancy, unless, of course, there was an initial agreement on the desire to have a child. And this is just the beginning, ideally society should be built in such a way that it would never occur to males to encroach on the decision of when and how to have offspring. This applies both to the individual level and to coercion through the state, the media, religious organizations and social movements.
If women are given the opportunity to make decisions about parenthood, then they will be interested in providing the best conditions for their children, and this means political activity, building up resources, ensuring security. In the current society, almost no one would have given birth if there had not been such a system of coercion and disinformation. The very ability to produce new people already imposes a great responsibility, because you need to decide whether to bring a new person into the world, into this society. And whoever is responsible, those should have power - this is reasonable.The point is not that women are more decent, etc., even if most men were good and kind, this would not change anything. The point is that they do not have leverage, that there are opportunities (!) to use violence against women and enslave, that is, it is necessary to create a system in which their moral qualities will be unimportant.


Author: Philosopher's Stone of Artémis
Translator: Yulia N.