The Blue Origin NS-31 space flight that included singer Katy Perry has recently been the topic of mockery on the Internet. Feminists are hailing it as the next major milestone for women since Valentina Tereshkova’s historic mission in 1963. They may also say that it is the women’s right since they have the money for it and we “peasants” are just jealous. However, I agree with critics pointing out that the “crew” were actually just passengers on an automated flight that was funded by Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos – making it just another rich man’s hobby toy and 10-minute rich girls’ “road” trip. It’s just as hyped as movie star weddings and it does nothing to help women who are truly oppressed in certain parts of the world.
Aside from the over-hype, I think it brought along some toxic feminism among the defense. If you don’t praise the women involved or acknowledge their “astronautness,” you are a bigot or misogynist (I might be called one for writing this article after all). Something from the communist playbook.
“Girly-Group” Behavior
| SUPPORT INDEPENDENT SOCIAL COMMENTARY! Subscribe to our Substack community GRP Insider to receive by email our in-depth free weekly newsletter. Subscribe to our Substack newsletter, GRP Insider! Learn more |
I’m also thinking the “girls’ complimenting each other” habit that I mentioned in my Social Media Likes article contributes to the toxicity. I thought that this tendency is something that should stay within girls’ circles; don’t let it get to males. Now I realize that it already has been in males… and many other groups, such as the LGBT+ movement. They make compliment-giving and positive affirmation requirements for others and try to “cancel” anyone who doesn’t comply, even if compliments and affirmation are undeserved. As long as compliment-seeking becomes an obsession in any group or gender, bloated egos, unreasonableness, and toxicity spread.
“Women’s Logic”
Perhaps it’s just the so-called “women’s logic.” Of course, it is a stereotype of illogic (should it be “women’s illogic?”) and even men can have it. When women are angry while illogical, the Filipino word for it is “toyo” or soy sauce; in American pop culture, it’s the ”karen.” As a married friend said, some women seem wired to whine. Being a scale modeler with other hobbies, I have heard of women partners angrily demanding that their men stop their hobbies and just pour all the money on them. That’s somewhat like the pokpoks in this country seeking to leech rich foreign visitors of their money.
Some have probably heard of the joke where a woman in an airplane complained about the window in the plane’s bathroom, fearing that someone will be peeping at her from outside. At least it was another woman, a flight attendant, who retorted that at this altitude, if someone is peeping at you, they deserve to see everything! Gives me the impression that women are more likely to believe fanciful magical thinking like The Secret and Manifesting (or at times, it could be schizophrenia or other mental conditions, leading to loss of touch with reality).
This may be a personal gripe, but I don’t like it when mothers sometimes take some of their children’s clothes and other belongings and give it to other people without the children’s knowledge. Also, I remember when I was told to give off my old phone to a family member rather than sell it off. Problem is, that encourages mendicancy. That makes me theorize that socialist ideas actually started in families where the mom or other family member is a whimsical “redistributor.”
We Compliment-Fishers Must Rule!
I think the “girls’ complimenting attitude” gives the illusion that women are better than men, so they want to rule over society. Of course, this is a theory on one of the real drivers behind feminism as well as Wokeness. When they don’t succeed in their takeovers, they lash out with their “bigot” and “despot” namecalling.
So if compliment-fishers think they are better than men or others, they will only accept others who are like themselves and hate those are unlike them. This might also fuel the claim that if everyone were more like women, the world would be more peaceful. Yeah, right, as if thinking you are better than others isn’t toxic itself. I have heard that some females can be worse than males when they become abusive while in power. It may be a moot topic, but it’s a lie to say females have no toxicity.
Do Easy times Create Weak People?
I surmised that one reason for the idea of “women’s illogic” is the female culture (as well as culture of the youth) that developed after World War 2. With the end of the war, women were no longer needed in factories and other lines of work where they used to be mainstays. This meant that they stay home most of the time as housewives. They had more idle time to gather with other wives and gossip (like in ancient times, creating “Old Wives’ Tales”). Further fueling the potential for misinformation was mass media in the form of radio and television, which gave them topics to gossip on, including celebrity worship. This spreads to other members of the family (even the men at work).
Advertising and marketing teach women to focus on vanity, appearance, and self-aggrandizement, and this later spread to men. Celebrity worship culture (i.e. Katy Perry and the other women on this flight) was built up in order to facilitate the consumerism. The marketing messages also encourage treating anyone not following the trend as “out.” Some people who are anti-racist or against discrimination seem to fail at criticizing discrimination of the “untrendy.”
Also, the recent fiasco on the live action Snow White movie reminds me of how some people today could be called Disney Princesses, spoiled people expecting to be treated like princesses. As the princesses are the main characters of the story and are spoiled by their “Prince Charmings,” the young people develop main character syndrome and become as obnoxious as Rachel Zegler was during her notorious “promotion” of her movie.
Women’s culture is also filled with adages that spoil them a bit. For example, we have sayings like “bring me the moon” or “I promise you the world.” There are also adages like “mother is always right” or “never argue with a women,” which are humorous approaches about family and married life. But I wonder if some women actually literally believe them and raise their expectations to the impossible level.
Conclusion
My suggestion that people (not just “girls”) should overcome the compliment-seeking habit and stop seeking such as entitlements (or stop seeking any entitlement at all) is more likely be slammed as “sexist hate speech.” But feminists and their ilk have to understand that real peace is obtained by being tolerant of even what seems offensive. For example, closed-minded girls often find boys offensive and rude; but they must understand that male traits contribute to the survival of the species.
As esteemed webmaster Benign0 recently wrote, people are so addled by social media that they get trapped in their main character syndrome bubbles, ready to explode if they don’t get enough compliments. Wait… as if that syndrome didn’t infect Filipinos already for years as evidenced by the Pinoy Pride mantra – Filipinos deserve compliments, or else you are Anti-Filipino! That core of Filipino culture will have to change if we want real improvement in our country.
- Why Transhumanism is Humanity’s Enemy, not its Future - May 4, 2025
- Compliment Addiction and Making Everyone “Girly:” Why Current Feminism Fails - April 26, 2025
- We are Deceived to Crave Likes on Social Media - April 10, 2025
Let’s focus on facts. If women are “illogical” according to your impression, why did they have to exclude women from education and positions of power if women don’t deserve to rule or be educated? The failure of society would be evidence and should finish all arguments if such assumptions were valid. Is it easier to just burn free-thinking women to prove a point that they are a problematic being? Were men incapable of taking a challenge on presumed roles? So how exactly do you want a level playing field?
In the historical context, the place of women in history varied. It isn’t just arbitrary decision-making or “oppression” by a patriarchy. Before technology, men protected villages and families from both human and animal threats. It would make sense to make them the leader, as both the muscle and brain for defense are with them. When elections became common, only men voted as they were usually the household head. Whatever their vote would be is considered the household’s vote, as it was assumed that a household shared a common view. Men were also at the forefront of scientific discoveries that made life better. My highlight would be Fritz Haber and his fertilizer discovery.
In the old says, women were working at home-based processing of food, where they would gather, talk, gossip… and come up with “old wive’s tales.” These days, women have the vote because they also work and make decisions, but that also implies more friction between them and the husband, which is also not a good thing. This is linked to the breakdown of the family. So giving women more “rights” might actually be a symptom of family breakdown! I am not for removing the vote for women, but this context should be taken note of.
These days, women are able to take a few roles men did because of technology. Forklifts, machinery, helicopters and planes in combat, power tools to do a bit of what men did. However, that does not justify that they take over all these roles and edge men out. I also see women today as still steeped in “old wives’ tales” culture, so there’s a bit of that to get out of.
Failure of society? You mean nothing is perfect and crime and corruption are still common? Society “fails” because that’s reality. Humanity can never be perfect, perfection is impossible. Putting women in charge will change little, if anything at all. At times men failed and women had to take over, that is situational, it doesn’t mean women have to take over all the way.
A level playing field? It’s already in place, as far as I know. But, end the propaganda that seeks to put women in charge over men as a whole. Many of society’s failures will end when people who want to be in charge of the world to impose on it their ideas of perfection give up their pursuit.
The Blue Origin flight never gave women a level playing field. It’s a rich man giving a bunch of girls a ride. It does nothing for women at all.
Here’s a video that might be of help about patriarchy:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/lKmEZS2mQwE
Without a doubt, men have leveraged physical strength and male “brains” for domination. Everything has been derived from the assumption that because men can defend, they should decide how to organize society and therefore the power dynamics that go with it. Following that logic, should a guard make decisions beyond security matters? Should we let the hunter dictate how resources would be distributed because he had to go out and hunt while the female had to manage the household and attend to the young? This civilization developed from an oversimplification that brute force is an entitlement for power. We can even argue that capitalism itself evolved from that male-oriented thought process that result in today’s power dynamics and value systems.
Why were women deprived of education if men were truly intellectually superior? If many women act like they do today, it’s because they’ve been made to submit to the idea that they are less than the man.
“Civilization developed from an oversimplification that brute force is an entitlement for power” is itself an oversimplification. It is only one of the multiple dynamics that worked to build societies. Men have leveraged physical strength and male “brains” for domination sometimes. Hunters for example would have asked their wives on food distribution when they came back. An assumption that they dictated without asking the wives is just that – an assumption. So the idea that men lord it over others in the way Marxism explains it, that it’s all about exerting dominance, is an oversimplified assumption.
Although a dominance struggle does exist between men and women and other people in general, it is not what defines society. Advances like Fritz Haber’s discovery of nitrogen fertilizer, the inventions of containerization, refrigeration, and others, were not conceived in purely a dominance struggle. People have come together with ideas for the benefit of their society, and seeing this in a dominance perspective will only ruin the dynamic.
On the guard thing, if a guard has risen through the ranks and become an senior officer through merit and education, they can become a security adviser. That shows that a whole lot of context and factors in missing in that question about a guard deciding on security matters.
And despite the flaws like men’s dominance happening at times, society is mostly success and not a failure, because many people are living safe lives in many parts of the world. Likely including both you and me able to type on this blog site. And we can attribute it to the achievements of both men and women, not on dominance.
“People have come together with ideas for the benefit of their society, and seeing this in a dominance perspective will only ruin the dynamic.”
Is this from your own perspective? Because if you were to put a name to that idea, what would you call it?
Also, what can you say about what China is doing in the disputed seas? Why does China have to exert dominance if it already sees itself as powerful? Same for the white guys who hide behind patriotism. Do you mean to say that they brought all those wars and colonization for nothing? What sort of dynamic would you call such things?
We might have different standards when it comes to success. I wouldn’t call it success if a lot of people are only functionally literate. That would be for workers who will barely have a chance for real independence. Many of them can’t even recognize their velvet collar.
People coming together with a common goal instead of relying on dominance is a real thing that happened, not a mere perspective. When people come together to make nitrogen fertilizer and medical advances available to more people, that is not dominance. When we at LTFRB want to require a driver’s academy for drivers of public vehicles, that is not dominance, that is use of authority to enhance safety for all.
China’s efforts to assert to political dominance is something I’m not for (especially since they are still a Communist state), but it is not something to compare to male vs female dominance. They seek to dominate because of their Communist ideology. On colonialism, I believe webmaster Benign0 has articles here saying that the reason for colonialism was not dominance as an end in itself, but dominance as the step to economic security. I continue to hold that the causes of conflict between nations can be narrowed down to resources or economic security.
Velvet collar? Are workers really under that or is it simply the more complex, like the difficulties of nature itself? Must the misfortune of such people always be blamed solely on “dominating” people?
@ChinoF
It’s ironic to blame and point to nature’s difficulties and complexity then find it easy to simplify and reduce everything into numbers just to trade without considering the real consequence of such a system. Why do they betray and violate the natural order and then blame nature when for disastrous outcomes. If you don’t see the cognitive dissonance there, I don’t think nature was ever the problem.
Abc,
I would say it is the feminists who “blame and point to nature’s difficulties and complexity,” then they simplify it as oppression by man. They are the ones betraying and violating the natural order and then blaming nature (which toxic masculinity may actually be referring to) for disastrous outcomes.
You will eat your words when Leni becomes president. I will take a screenshot of your article in case you delete it in the future due to embarrassment.
Good luck with that, after she endorsed Manny Pacquiao and Benhur Abalos. As the saying goes, there are no permanent friends or enemies in politics, only interests.
She is learning how to play the game of thrones. Like Danaeris Targaryen, she made mistakes early on but she will bounce back and defeat all the players.
If she plays that, doesn’t that mean the risk that she also gives in to “baddiness?” I’m pretty sure Game of Thrones means, even the “hero” becomes the baddie really quickly.
It’s a world where women and children don’t even feel secure. There’s always the threat of shortage and war. I don’t know how they have the balls to say they should be the leaders.
Here’s an interesting video to ponder on:
Why We Need the Patriarchy by The War on Beauty
Another interesting find is “There is No Sisterhood,” written by a woman (needs Medium dot com access though).
From a video by Akkad Daily.
“Patriarchy and easy access to women and reproduction are killing the most of testosterone and masculinity.
When only the best and strongest men are allowed to be by the women, testosterone and male quality will increase again.
Matriarchy creates strong men.
Patriarchy creates weak men because they are easy to manipulate and easy to keep at the lower levels of the hierarchy.”
Transcription of an online post. What do you guys think?