Feminism is a symptom of, and dependent on, adept masculinity. A byproduct of competent masculinity is feminine influence. Competent men domesticate an environment, then domesticate themselves. Only in a domesticated setting can feminism exist; only with the enforcement of men can feminism persist. Countries experiencing ongoing hardship or poverty will not have it; no feminism in famine, no equality in war. Female influence is an indicator of sustained stability and prosperity; the existence of this is positive by virtue of stability and prosperity also being positive. Whether it veers into destructive territory is a matter of degree. Comfort and wealth produce healthy feminism; decadence yields toxic feminism. When there’s political dialogue around topics like “should women be in combat roles?”, it means your country is so indulgently safe its creating luxury controversies for the fun of it. Radical feminism exists in a fairytale world that’s been disconnected from the harsh empirics of the masculine for too long. The pathological feminine erodes borders, vitiates standards, and tears down boundaries to the point it adopts the deception that men and women are the same, equally suited to every task. There is probably no greater demonstration of “societal extravagance playground theater-kid pretend time” than the prevalence of this lie. Masculine/Feminine dyad balance is salutary, when she overwhelms it becomes corrosive and slowly undoes the very domestication and safety that allowed feminism to exist in the first place; she ends up marginalizing herself through excess and the results of her own chaos. When volatility and conflict reemerge — and they will reemerge — the masculine becomes ascendent again. The masculine baselayer is always there; it’s less visible when times are good, it’s revealed when times grow tough. “Hard times, strong men, good times, weak…” Masculine because you have to, feminine because you get to.