Starving Patriarchy

[Lila9]

On 5/21/2026 at 4:55 AM, Wilhelm44 said:

Yeah, it will be interesting to see how all of this plays out in society, especially with all the structural changes that AI will eventually bring as well.

Have these ideas been officialy adopted by a political movement in any country yet ?

 

Yes, hopefully we will be alive to see it.

I don't know if those ideas have been officially adopted yet by any political movement. They are borrowed from the ways humans organized themselves prior to the rise of patriarchy. I believe that as we develop our consciousness as a species, our society will naturally evolve (and, more accurately, return) into a more matriarchal/egalitarian structure because at our nature we are matriarchal/egalitarian species.

This will start gradually from the bottom up.

As women get more education and become wealthier, thanks to the freedom reclaimed by feminism (freedom is our birthright🥹) while men are still behind, pulling back toward oppressive traditional gender roles and supporting patriarchal, capitalistic, and fascist oppressive regimes, this will radicalize women even more and deepen the split between the genders.

As a result, more women will deconstruct patriarchy and avoid patriarchal men and women. They will build their own safe communities based on the repressed divine feminine values (life, creativity, care, compassion, community, ritual, authenticity, gift economy etc) with a great spiritual and non dogmatic reclamation, in which women do everything (including using guns for protection from outsiders, doing science, arts and everything they are interested in with their unique non patriarchal perspective), and gradually they will accept safe men who have deconstructed patriarchy and built clans and families.

As time goes by, more women will join those communities until many or the majority of them are there. Those communities will reproduce and support healthy, nurtured, and loved children, while the rest of the patriarchal system will starve from a lack of children because of a lack of women or because people are too old there to reproduce, until the old patriarchal, individualistic, and capitalistic structure collapses. It may take a century, two or a few but it is the future. This or fatal death and destruction because of patriarchy, capitalism, materialism and neoliberalism which are interconnected.

[Lila9]

On 5/22/2026 at 1:33 AM, Rafael Thundercat said:

This is for the women in the Forum, that as far as I can see are a few.

https://www.instagram.com/p/DYngbw_FJd7/?igsh=MTUxM3M2dDdvY2R1cw==

Tell me if in your experience this is not the case?

I am open for perspective 

Yes, this is why I don't get along with most men.

They expect the women around them to be insecure, pleasing, constantly happy, play dumb, and be attuned to their needs, responsible, while at the same time also playing damsels in distress so the men feel stronger and his soft ego will not shatter in pieces. 

This is not only contradictory, but literally a humiliation ritual, which I am obviously not willing to participate in. Especially while men socialized to be such cruel assholes which shitty NPC boring personality.

This is why I had to break up with the men I dated because of all those implicit expectations, which are not in line with my true self.

The more I spiritually evolve, self-actualize, connect to my intuition, and become more in tune with myself, the less convenient I become to men or women who are still stuck in the patriarchal paradigm. And I am happy about it. I love being a free-spirited woman, and I love making people who hate women angry and bewildered.

Edited 8 hours ago by Lila9

[Raze]

28 minutes ago, Lila9 said:

I love making people who hate women angry and bewildered.

Have you ever been psychologically evaluated for any personality disorders? I’m not asking as a dig, it’s a genuine question.

[Lila9]

12 minutes ago, Raze said:

Have you ever been psychologically evaluated for any personality disorders? I’m not asking as a dig, it’s a genuine question.

Why are you asking?

[Raze]

10 minutes ago, Lila9 said:

Why are you asking?

Just some things you say and how you phrase it sounds similar to what I read elsewhere related to it

[Natasha Tori Maru]

On 22/05/2026 at 8:33 AM, Rafael Thundercat said:

This is for the women in the Forum, that as far as I can see are a few.

https://www.instagram.com/p/DYngbw_FJd7/?igsh=MTUxM3M2dDdvY2R1cw==

Tell me if in your experience this is not the case

I am open for perspective 

Also take a look in the work of Toi Marie. Even is for the sake of Requisite Variety. For me so.e members forget the concept of requisite Variety. I dont mean being able to know it all, but to at least explore others writing and voices more than the usual references shared a lot in this forum. I remember for example not knowing the work of Susan cook Croider and how being exposed to her work expanded my views. 

I dont assume I am the know it all in this topics I share, I am ok with some contrarian views, but to simply dissmis others voices before a depth study of them is contrarian to the very spirit of the work that Actualized.org talks about. 

 

The instagram link:

Women may, on average, have somewhat stronger predispositions toward caregiving-related behaviors, influenced by both biology and external incentive structures. There are strong biological drives to care for others, pay attention to their wellbeing and ensure they are safe and happy. Just because a woman takes care of a man, does not in all circumstances mean this is a result of brainwashing of the patriarchy. Sure - some men might leverage this natural instinct to their advantage. But I would argue that many women engage in this role instinctually and willingly. These tendencies may still emerge even without explicit coercion or ideological pressure (ie patriarchy). Women, on average, show greater attentiveness to interpersonal and caregiving needs - those of men included. Women take care of the needs of other women, elderly, children and men. Men do this also - but perhaps with less of an instinctual inclination, but it is certainly there. Both sexes engage in this process. Women show a preference in general.

A woman who chronically abandons herself in relationships may be dealing with trauma, insecure attachment, poor self-concept, dependency patterns, or other psychological difficulties. In the case of attachment trauma: this is not always a result of the 'patriarchy' - but it can be. Girls (and boys) raised in environments where love is not consistent from the parent, often end up with attachment issues. These manifest in self-abandonment, not knowing our own needs, being unable to advocate for ourselves. When we are depended on another to meet our needs - as is the case with insecure or avoidant attachment - we tend to abandon our needs in service to another. This sort of behavior in general is more to do with the individuals trauma from inconsistent caregiving.  On the slip side, attachment styles are crafted by external social structures and isolated circumstances. So, it isn't necessarily totally clean cut as a mechanism.

If you think an external force alone is responsible for 'not knowing' yourself - think again. There are so many factors that could come into play here. And I think it is a combination of biology, attachment psychology and social systems. They all operate at once. The truth of it is a mixed bag - how can we know if women are abandoning themselves to the needs of another (or a man) originates from some larger incentive structure like 'patriarchy' or a broken attachment style, or biology? 

I think reducing women’s self-abandonment entirely to the patriarchy oversimplifies a complex interplay of biology, attachment, and social influences.

Edited 5 hours ago by Natasha Tori Maru

[NewKidOnTheBlock]

Riiiiiiiiight, they'll do a whooole lot of science, I'm sure of it LOL. Good luck

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@NewKidOnTheBlock is this in reference to me pointing out there is more to it? 🤣

There friggin is - blaming one thing, 'patriarchy', is a reductionist trap.

[NewKidOnTheBlock]

8 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

@NewKidOnTheBlock is this in reference to me pointing out there is more to it? 🤣

There friggin is - blaming one thing, 'patriarchy', is a reductionist trap.

Nope, wasn't directed at you at all. To be honest, you are too inteligent to be engaging on this thread😂 might save that energy for something else instead

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@NewKidOnTheBlock I questioned whether or not my post would move the needle on the pure certainty all these issues stem from one source 🥲

I suppose I am hanging here to try to steer the convo, but it really seems an identity has been formed around the concept.... 

 

Edited 3 hours ago by Natasha Tori Maru

[NewKidOnTheBlock]

39 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

@NewKidOnTheBlock I questioned whether or not my post would move the needle on the pure certainty all these issues stem from one source 🥲

I suppose I am hanging here to try to steer the convo, but it really seems an identity has been formed around the concept.... 

He's missrepresenting requisite variety as well, using requisite variety entails you are trying to solve a problem and so, complexity of your mental toolbox must exceed a complexity of the problem. First of all, we don't even know what exact problem is OP trying to solve (there might be one but I don't wanna be offensive LOL), second of all even if the problem is named, the OPs mental toolbox to hilariously simple to "solve" a societal scale "problems"

[Natasha Tori Maru]

12 minutes ago, NewKidOnTheBlock said:

He's missrepresenting requisite variety as well, using requisite variety entails you are trying to solve a problem and so, complexity of your mental toolbox must exceed a complexity of the problem. First of all, we don't even know what exact problem is OP trying to solve (there might be one but I don't wanna be offensive LOL), second of all even if the problem is named, the OPs mental toolbox to hilariously simple to "solve" a societal scale "problems"

I didn't even consider this TBH, but it applies as well.

The whole thing appears confused as fuck to me now >.<