Taken from a X post...
A woman without her men is easier to control.
A father wants to protect & take care of his daughter.
A husband wants to protect & take care of his wife.
A brother wants to protect & take care of his sister.
A son wants to protect & take care of his mother.
These 4 are the most emotionally invested people in a woman's life. They gain nothing from her harm & everything from her well being.
So naturally… they had to be removed.
First, the father.
His concern is reframed as control.
His discipline becomes oppression.
His experience with men… suddenly irrelevant.
He's told he's a tyrant for wanting to know who his daughter marries. Not because he hates her freedom… but because he knows exactly how men can destroy a woman's life.
That possibility is never discussed. Only one word is allowed: patriarchy.
Next, the husband.
If he values family, he's controlling.
If he values motherhood, he's reducing her to a womb.
If he expects contribution at home, he's exploiting her.
If he worries about her safety, he's restricting her freedom.
Conclusion is pre decided:
He must be an oppressor.
Divorce must be incentivized.
The family must be weakened.
Next, the brother.
He grows up with her. He sees the world treat her differently. He understands both male intent & female vulnerability... often better than a husband ever could.
But here's the catch…
A brother doesn't fit neatly into the villain boxes.
- He's not patriarchy like the father.
- He's not ownership like the husband.
- He's not future oppressor like the son.
He protects without authority. Controls nothing. Owns nothing. Gains nothing.
Just blood, loyalty, & instinct.
So he's quietly erased. Not demonized or attacked loudly... just made irrelevant.
His protectiveness is mocked as overbearing. His concern is labelled controlling. His presence is treated as unnecessary.
Because acknowledging the brother would expose an uncomfortable truth:
Male protection isn't always about power. Sometimes it's just love without leverage.
And that's dangerous to an ideology built on the claim that all male concern is oppression.
So the brother is left out... not because he doesn't matter, but because he matters too much.
He's proof that protection can exist without ownership, authority, or control.
And once that's admitted… the whole oppression story starts to fall apart.
Now only the son remains.
But even he is a problem.
She's told having fewer children is progress.
She's told to be proud if the child is a daughter.
If it's a son… he's a future tyrant in training.
His masculinity must be corrected. Softened. Neutralized.
He must not become the kind of man who protects.
And just like that… Father sidelined. Husband discarded. Brother made irrelevant. Son reprogrammed.
The 4 men who would die for her well being are removed from influence.
What remains are:
The state.
Corporations.
NGOs.
Elites.
People with zero emotional investment in her life… but full authority over it.
Because here's the truth they don't want spoken:
Without love, there is no real protection.
Without emotional investment, there is no genuine concern.
And a woman isolated from those who love her most is infinitely easier to control.
Too many are taught to call this liberation. It isn't.
It's abandonment... sold with better branding labelled as FEMINISM.
No comments:
Post a Comment