There were a pair of really good articles up today, on similar themes. One was from the blog, Freedom Through Empowerment which challenged the Feminist myth of toxic masculinity. Feminist writers---who are quite creative in dreaming up neologisms for nonexistent concepts---believe that our culture is essentially poisoned by masculine domination. The idea, of course, is absurd: both in that masculinity is essentially negative and that men actually dominate society.
The other article was posted at See There's Thing Called Biology, which questioned some of the hateful rhetoric of the Red Pills. I'm not sure of her take on the 'Metoo' Movement; but the authoress does raise some points about the unwillingness of Christian leaders to take sexual abuse seriously. The churches' neglect on these issues, is really due largely to Red Pill infiltration. However, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a joint statement some time ago on Domestic Violence. But the Red Pills would likely deny most of these points and dismiss them as 'Feminist.'
Which brings us to a term that some angry Feminist wrote to me in response lately: Gender Essentialism. Here's how Wikipedia defines this term:
"Gender Essentialism is the theory that there are certain universal, innate, biologically or psychologically-based features of gender that are at the root of observed differences between men and women...Essentialism thus refers to the existence of fixed characteristic, given attributes, and historical functions which limit the possibilities of change and of social reorganization."
The Feminists think that Essentialism is a very bad thing. However, such would contradict their notions of 'toxic masculinity'. How could masculinity be socially toxic without essential elements of masculinity? On the other hand, if there is nothing essentially feminine, how would society benefit from empowering women in the first place?
The Red Pills, being reactionaries, hold the opposite position. They believe that women have an essential nature---which is wholly negative. Men however are categorized into different archetypes: Betas, Gammas, Omegas, Zetas---but by converting (taking the Red Pill) they can become Alpha supermen to whom all things are possible.
In reality, these fixed characteristics inherent in gender are the very things which make change and social reorganization possible. It's the family unit---rightly called the bedrock of civilization---which has driven mankind to grow into communities and, ultimately, into nations. The social stability provided by monogamy and a recognition of gender polarity is why the Western World grew and prospered far ahead of other cultures.
Thus it stands to reason that breaking that foundation will lead to social decline. Societies which are strictly patriarchal (i.e. the despotic countries of the Arabian Peninsula) or matriarchal (i.e. some of tribes of Western and Central Africa) haven't progressed much beyond the state of barbarism. That's where the gender supremacists would see the world return. If anyone doubts this, witness Feminists rhapsodizing about the days when a Wise Woman ran a community or the Red Pills longing for a God-Emperor surrounded by his Alpha lords and princes.
It stands to reason too that harmonious gender relations obviously make for a happier and better society. And that's another thing the gender supremacists don't want. It's easier to control a divided society. That's also the reason why both Feminists and Red Pills are so notoriously racist.
Essentialism? Yes it exists, but it is a fact and not a social construct. Embrace it; don't scorn it.