I’ve noticed that most “freedom” movements, in history, have been dominated by men, more so than other movements.
The American revolution. The French Revolution. The sixties. Etc.
This is because the male dominated Ron Paul robot “freeeeeeduuuummmmbbbbbbb!!!” crowd cares about freedom all right. The freedom to do “whatever they want,” which always coincidentally happens to be problematic and oppressive toward women, blacks, gays, Native Americans, etc.
In the American Revolution (which I’m still in favor of), the Iroquois (coincidentally a matriarchal) tribe, I believe sided with the British, not because they were filthy traitors, but because the Americans were going to swallow up their land with their newfound Freeeeeduummmbbb!!1!1!1!11!
Men could now be capitalistically free and financially oppress other men. They were socially free so now they could oppress women and behave in abhorrent manner via twisted use of “free speech” laws (remember: freedom for the wolf is tyranny for the sheep!) which they now use to defend problematic porn and hate speech. They were politically free so no one was stopping them from marching, in all their glorious self centered dood-hood, over the Natives’ land and people.
I read a book for a college history course- I forget what it’s called- but it was all about how men during the American revolution era were rediscovering the values of male bonding and same sex attachments.
In the French Revolution the theme was “Liberty, equality, and fraternity,” and the word fraternity is very heavily one of male bonding. Liberty for men from feminine like responsibilities and ties, equality (to predicate bonding) among all males, and fraternity meaning loyalty to men of all creeds and classes and to the cause of above said virtues, which included smashing anything feminine and smothering that (oppressive or not) at least promoted responsibility and sociality.
That book I talked about before ended off with a chapter about how great Freemasonry was (shocker!) and how it promoted this wonderful male bonding and that it helped glue American society together.
Same thing in France. Instead of the warm sticky effeminate familial form of the monarchy, people were “free” to “do what they wilt” and to act on individualist and selfish and detached (“masculine”) pursuits, free from the bonds of mother country, sister earth, and fellow society. Logic, finance, and intellect were the new gods, not faith, feelings, home, and love.
In the 1960s, in America, the sexual revolution struck. Although the 1950s wasn’t a picnic for women, now that the pill made it easy to prevent pregnancy, women had “no excuse” to refuse sex and several “great thinkers” of the era wanted to “liberate” women for the same reason a monkey wants to “liberate” a banana from a tree or a hound wants to “liberate” a fox from his den.
Once again, it was freedom of, by, and for men.
The Rock and Roll movement, especially the late 60s/early 70s genre, promoted bestial sexuality, dark and esoteric occultism, and the longing for lack of structure and responsibility and safety in favor of Dionysian “values,” which overwhelmingly benefit rapists and not women.
Women who weren’t interested were “prudes,” “uncool,” “unliberated,” and spiritually unenlightened.
Because enlightenment and freedom and advancement and logic is letting a man stick his dick in you.
Now as it was then.