Over at Red Pill Girl, a newcomer Robert commented,
About the above topic, while I’m typing here, ‘choice’ is an extremely broad term. But the rest of this post is good news: the underlying subject gets close to the core of feminism’s problem. Now, I do not like talking about feminism too much. As as a male, I can sound like a jerk in doing so. But I have been both a feminist and then an anti- feminist for my whole life. redpillgirlnotes seems to be doing something unheard of with most people these days. She seems to be scratching, so to speak, at her own ego. Because what she is referring to, and I do not know if she was conscience of this at the time, is the female ego being a selfish thing. And so, consequently, the idea for females is to strive for selflessness. But I have to add that for all of humanity to work properly with each other, males have to continue to strive for being laid- back, to counteract their aggressive egos. A lot of this is already being done by institutions such as anger management and domestic violence classes. As a former Anti- feminist activist, I used to advocate all of the time for the female equivalent, in the name of equality, such as fear management and domestic selfishness classes. But for all of the verbalizing of that word, equality, I have been met with even more inequality by people giving me blank stares or laughing at me over such advocations as those above about the classes. So it is honorable that redpillgirlnotes is posting about the problems with the female ego. I usually do not try to over- emphasis my point, but it can not be emphasized enough how much of a spiritual meaning this has. This is the exact thing that all of the great spiritual leaders throughout history had spoken so much about- intentionally denying your own ego so that your spirit may be set free. That is the Truth. And as the Scripture goes, the Truth shall set you free.
What is apparently being suggested here is that men and women (probably within marriage and without) need to be tamed. And that there was an implicit agreement that if one gave up some of their gender’s particular “naturalness”, the other would also. Also implied is that this would be to the benefit of all.
The first question is: did this implicit agreement exist?
And presuming that it does, what is the present state, and the future?
I will take a bit of a stab at the second question. Women these days can do pretty much whatever they want, and be cheered on for it. The recent Dalrock posts here, here and here provide snapshot of the current state of affairs. Apparently it does not matter that their selfish behaviors cause problems to others (perhaps not so much in the short term, but always in the long term).
Fellas on the other hand, are more muzzled than ever before. Toning down their supposed aggressiveness was much of their part of the bargain. Well, that is apparently still going on. Furthermore, men are still expected to work. So their portion of the implicit agreement is still in place.
So commenters, please chime in with your assessment of the whether such an agreement every existed, and it it did, what is its current state.
NAWALT of course applies.