Posted 11 мая 2021,, 09:47

Published 11 мая 2021,, 09:47

Modified 24 декабря 2022,, 22:37

Updated 24 декабря 2022,, 22:37

Question of the day: where does the cult of machismo come from in the "female" Russia?

Question of the day: where does the cult of machismo come from in the "female" Russia?

11 мая 2021, 09:47
Фото: Фото:
Having a colossal numerical superiority, Russian women, nevertheless, have come to terms with the deeply patriarchal tempers that reign in the country.

The results of a recent demographic study indicate a clear demographic asymmetry in our country: in most regions of the European part of Russia, there are only 80-84 men per 100 women. The shortage of men is further aggravated by the fact that they account for most of the prisoners, the disabled, the mentally ill, alcoholics, drug addicts and other deviations. In reality, the ratio of healthy men to women will be more like 6-7: 10.

“So it turns out that Russia is a “female kingdom”, journalist Pavel Pryanikov comments on these figures. - On the contrary, in China we see a different asymmetry: a huge shortage of women. In the coastal provinces of the country, there are 120-130 (and more) men per 100 women..."

According to Pryanikov, the main mystery here is how, with such a numerical and social superiority, Russian women allowed men to take and hold power for so long?

“As the dear Masha Baronova says, "pod-bearers”. I don’t know if she understands that this “pod-bearers” briefly and succinctly described the Russian paradox: men in an absolutely feminine society, where there are 6 capable men for 10 women, imposed a male simulacrum, a snag in the form of “macho aspirations” - a cult of muscular strength, aggression, security services, etc. In general, the cult of "service" instead of the cult of "creation".

In an absolutely feminine country, after all, there should be completely different ideals - the cult of the family, the hearth, the big house (not cages in human houses, but a real house of 150-200-300 sq. M.), Trade, arrangement. Ultimately - and regionalism, the arrangement of a small homeland, as opposed to the chaotic territorial expansionism of male societies.

If one day women in Russia realize this paradox and their potential role, life in the country will change dramatically..."

However, not everyone shares Pryanikov's point of view. So, the social psychologist Alexey Roshchin writes about this:

“A strange idea of a “female society”. Why on earth should there be a "cult of the family" in women's society? Why does a woman need a "cult at home" - to do more homework? In women's society - the cult of SECURITY. Because a woman is AFRAID (and there is something). So we are observing this cult of security in all its glory.

And the emphasis on "machismo" and "male aggressors" is precisely the WOMEN'S cult. Why do men need aggressors? Do you like getting in the face? Not. Here everything is exactly the opposite: the "cult of the home", "family", "home" are purely male, just by definition. But all this machismo and "who will give whom in his face" is female, because aggression = male sex, and it is logical that women want male sex. It is strange when a man wants this - for a man, by nature, it should be more interesting to be compliant, ready to accept, warm and savor. A man who is dragged by external aggression raises doubts about his root sexual orientation. It's all so obvious that it's even strange to discuss something here..."

However, other points of view were expressed in the comments:

- The total fatherlessness in the country since the post-war years has given rise to this macho. Women, in their eternal old Russian longing for a strong male, brought up more than one generation of adherents of an iron fist and a leather boot

- "Pod-bearers" - it's a brilliant phrase! In fact, Russia is a deeply female country. Her whole character is by no means masculine, clear and loyal. Resentment and suspiciousness, tears and snot, incredible volatility and inconstancy. Here are our braces.

“We're not a separate species, on the contrary, the same laws work for us as they do for everyone. It's just that there is an important mistake in the reasoning above. The fact that there are more women than men is given as some kind of characteristic of society taken from the sky. And from it it is concluded that a large sex group can set different rules of the game for society. But there are fewer men just because of the existing rules. Why there are fewer of them, why their life expectancy is less. It is more difficult for them to survive. In biology, this is typical for tournament species, where males are stronger than females and where individual selection dominates. So in a society with "macho aspirations", a cult of aggression and strength, there will always be more women and fewer men. If we change the conditions of development to less aggressive ones, then, most likely, we will see that the ratio of men and women will tend to 50 to 50.

- I also do not understand how, with such an overweight of women, the power was in the hands of men. But I completely disagree that in an absolutely feminine environment there are other ideals - family, hearth, and further down the list. These are not our feminine values and not our ideals. These are values and ideals imposed on us by the pod-nosed ones. Women just benefit from other forms of life together, and not the "traditional" family - Boston marriage, lesbianism, colivings, communes without men. And giving up the role of a living incubator. But women are imposed on a "traditional" family and childbirth as the only form of "female happiness". To some extent, when a woman is deprived of the opportunity to go to the highest power, this is so. But these forms do not bring happiness either.