This is part two of a two-part article by Yoav Levin. Those who haven’t done so already should start with part one.
The Redistribution of Financial Resources: It’s All About Women – Economic Gynocentrism and how it Works to Exploit Men
Additionally, according to studies conducted in the US, as early as in 1931 the number of female millionaires was identical to the number of male millionaires. This was the case even though the rate of participation of women in the labor force was then under 40 percent. During the said period, women also constituted the majority of the shareholders of the large corporations and in addition, they constituted between 35 and 40 percent of the customers of the investment bonds. Moreover, as early as 1951, women controlled 70% of national wealth, although they still constituted less than 50% of the labor force.
Accordingly, women also constitute the majority of purchasing power. This is the period of time that the feminist liars of gender studies have declared greedy and egotistical men to be the exploiters of women only concerned with taking all of their money for themselves and oppressing them. Ask yourself the following question? What group or another oppressed class in history has worked fewer hours than the oppressive class yet dominated most of the national wealth, 70 percent of the big corporations, held between 35 to 40 percent of the investment bonds and constituted the majority of the purchasing power in the economy?
As a result, we can conclude, among other things, that women could have actually not only in theory run the entire domestic sphere of affairs in the decision-making centers of the formal power, but they actually do so even without the need to be present there, based on their combined economic strength, while they also control all the informal power positions and while the percentage of men in the formal positions of power is only a small and insignificant fraction of all men. In such cultural and societal conditions men at the centers of decision-making and formal power have no choice but to surrender and submit to the dictates of women’s organizations and feminist lobbies.
We are talking about puppets in a theater that are guided by these lobbies and organizations. That’s the reason why we are witnessing a dynamic where it does not matter what the political worldview of those men at the position of power is because they will always surrender to these dictates. In order to do the dirty work, there is no need for women to be in key positions, but it is enough that men who lack a backbone will submit to the dictates of feminists. In this way women’s organization and feminist lobbies achieve three main objectives:
A) Their policy is implemented;
B) They do not have to do the dirty work and therefore publicly they always appear clean and good;
C) They can continue to incite against men;
Thus it is another classical feature of matrifocal gynocentrism: the formal power is left to men, yet without the informal power which is in the hand of women it’s worth nothing. Thus male power as already acknowledged by Warren Farell and Carol Rogers is nothing but a myth and delusion. It’s also a taboo and one upon which all of the matrifocal gynocentric construct is built and rests.
The main thing here is that according to the narrative of the fake news media, the ignorance of our pseudo academy promotes nothing but stupidity and dismal science alongside the false historical feminist narrative. This is the garbage we learn in school, universities and media, namely that women are buried in poverty by greedy men and that all men are pigs, rapists and patriarchal abusers. Moreover, through the laws of inheritance and divorce, it is apparent that this claim is nothing more than a fraud and an illusion. In fact, the divorce and inheritance law makes sure that the men serve as tools for transferring resources from men to women with the aim at enriching them even if the woman does not work even one single day.
This is the basic dynamic that is identical everywhere in the world. Think (hypothetically) about a woman who does not work a single day in her life. She is married to a man. This woman profits from divorce in at least three principal channels: real estate (apartment or house), social benefits, property, child support, alimony and many more. Moreover, on the day she divorces her husband, she would receive half of the house, half of his pension, half the provident funds, half executive insurance, and half the business (if there is any). The husband will receive little if it is the woman that holds them.
The meaning of this is not only that the definition of what the husband earns in a marriage is not his own but half of it is also hers but actually the husband owns less than half the ownership of his assets and resources already from the “get go” while the woman is in a possession of at least seventy to eighty percent of family assets and resources from the same starting point. This is the shortest explanation of the gynocentric inheritance and divorce laws. They may alternate between different countries but the basic dynamic is identical.
Moreover, it is important to understand that the law is written in a way that on its surface reflects equality, but is, in reality, a gigantic fraud. What is important is the interpretation, not the written law itself. In practical terms, even though the law is written on an equal footing, the deception is carried out by the fact that while the formal power is changing in favor of women there is no change in the informal power to balance it in favor of men. Yet, inheritance and divorce laws are all based on the informal power and not vice versa. Therefore, even if a woman for example earns more still in general calculation the man has to pay and to transfer all of his resources to the woman. Therefore, in practical terms, women pursuing careers and working outside the home do not ostensibly serve equally in the sense of reducing the burden put on men to provide for the family, but on the contrary it weighs on it, as he will continue to serve as a tool for transferring money, assets and resources and for the economic exploitation of men.
In a matrifocal and gynocentric society, women pursuing careers and working outside the home are therefore not really working towards equality but rather for greater economic exploitation of men. The feminist fables and tales about patriarchy, the exploitation of women and so forth are nothing but false – both historically and in factual reality of modern day to day life. The real situation is exactly the opposite! Feminists claim that feminism is good for all, that traditional gender roles are bad for men, that they hurt them, that this everything is toxic masculinity; that women going to work will help to reduce the burden of men providing for the family. In fact, just as in everything else feminism claims and feminists say this is nothing more than fraud and lies.
Feminism is not really about changing the traditional gender roles, but rather exploiting them even more. In the favor of women, of course! Not only will the man according to feminist gender roles continue to serve as breadwinner but now the burden of providing will only increase until he becomes a slave and even worse a mere subservient and subordinated tool to his wife. Feminists are also not interested in changing the gender roles of the man as a knight who protects women. Today, they limit that role and ask the men by “affirmative action”. Which, as we have seen, is not intended to correct anything but to radicalize the situation, to give up all the positions of formal power so that women can control men even more through the long dreamed of matriarchy. And there is the man’s role as a sperm donor. And that’s why, exactly for this purpose, all the dynamics and laws described above were put in place.
The bottom line, in such a matrifocal Gynocentric society, is that men are exploited merely as cash machines. The economic reality for men means that and even with joint-spending on fathers and children, women still spend more money on themselves than the shared father-offspring spending. This can even be observed in the floor space allocated to women’s products in malls and shopping centers actually designed for men.
Men also earn 25% the income of a woman due to her working shorter hours, less difficult and dangerous jobs but her spending 90% more money than she makes. Women earn around 38.5% of the household’s income but spend 75% of its domestic spending. Men earn around 61.5% of all income but only account for 25% of spending. Men only spend 40% of what they earn after tax. In case of divorce women got more than 70% of all resources while fathers less than 30%. This is real exploitation; and this is real sexism. This characteristic which puts the female needs and desires about everyone else’s including the children is the basic property and dynamic of a Gynocentric matrifocal society where men and children are mere tools and designed to serve women. Gynocentric society is therefore the embodiment of female supremacy aiming at exploiting not only men but children too.
To create such an extremely female-focused environment, this kind of matrifocal Gynocentric society exploits and takes advantage of the basic evolutionary condition that every human being – man, woman and children – have been raised and instilled with a woman’s point of view from birth. This is called Gynocentrism 0:1 and it is an evolutionary feature also existing in all primates. However, taking advantage of that condition, in the matrifocal society the Gynocentric ideology conditions men through social engineering to give women special treatment from birth and women are taught to expect privileged treatment from men. The matrifocal gynocentrism as a social construct is by definition a supremacist ideology. However, it has become the default social model for most of the societies on the planet. Men are trained to suppress emotions and always be considerate of a woman’s feelings, men are trained to sacrifice, work and die to provide for women’s happiness. They are trained to be socially subordinated slaves to their wives and other women in their life.
Furthermore, men and women are also trained to always take the woman’s side over a man no matter how wrong she is and the man is right. Additionally, women are taught to support each other and view men’s pain and suffering as less important. Men are indoctrinated in doing the opposite while dismissing, ignoring and suppressing their own pain and suffering. Men are taught that fighting, dying and sacrificing themselves is noble but women experiencing, that any emotional distress is terrible and that their pain and suffering is invalid! This sexist attitude and female brainwashing has seen men literally dying to protect women who quite often take the sacrifices men make completely for granted. This is again real sexism and it is taught at a very early age and reinforced in our society through media, academia (pseudo-science) education and legal system.
This is the reason that all of the ancient Gynocentric cultures prior to societies having gynocentrim 0:2 as a social construct and ideology were a combination and a mixture of matrilineal, matrilocal, matrifocal as well as patrilineal and patrilocal elements within the Gynocentric societies. Even gynocentrism 0:2 still exhibited such kind of alternating combinations and variations. Feminism, namely gynocentrim 0:3, which is a derivative of Gynocentric ideology and society aims at creating a matriarchal society by destroying the traditional balance and harmony between men and women in the context of older Gynocentric cultures. It should be achieved by shifting all of the formal power from men to women while keeping the informal power in the hands of women too. This is the feminist end goal and the zero-sum game.
Women control two thirds of the world’s and family’s wealth
Table showing that the labor force participation rate for women
Women owning just as much stock as men
In 1950 Women Controlled 70% of the Nation’s Wealth despite having a labor force participation rate of less than 50%.
Women in Colonial America owning Businesses
Additional Sources for cross checking the data were:
- Muhtar Kent, Chairman of the Board and CEO, The Coca-Cola Company
- Nielsen Consumer
- Federal Reserve, MassMutual Financial Group, BusinessWeek, Gallup)
- U.S Bureau of Labor Statistics
- Integer Group and M/A/R/C Research
- Consumer Electronics Association
- Food and Drug Administration
- Natural Marketing Institute
- Pew Research Center
- Business Week
- New York Times
- Harvard Business Review, Boston Consulting Group Survey
- U.S. Census Bureau