Do Good Guys Really Benefit From Bad Guys?
Rasa Responds
By Ajax the Great (Pete Jackson) Sunday, 23 March 2025
NOTE: This article is primarily addressed to men
One question that comes up over and over again is, do men really benefit from patriarchy? The nuanced answer is, "yes, in a relative sense, but NO in an absolute sense in the long run". It ultimately hurts everyone across the board, backfiring on men as well sooner or later, per the law of karma. I would hope anyone reading this would realize that patriarchy is inherently a negative-sum game (lose-lose) in the long run. And everyone regardless of gender would ultimately be better off without it, except of course the tiny few at the very top of the whole pyramid scheme (because that's what it really is).
Rasa says: It’s kind of like this: There was a Southern slave owner who starved his slaves of meat all year long. But on the 4th of July he pulled out all the stops & gave them a royal feast: pork, beef & chicken – with all the trimmings – all they could eat. Did they benefit? Only on the 4th. Most slave owners did not even provide shoes for the children not even in winter until they reached a certain age – so if one slave owner provides the poor kids winter shoes – do they benefit? We’re talking crumbs from the Master’s table….. Now I’m watching a British TV series called Pennmmaric. The last couple episodes the wife of the Penmmaric heir is being assaulted by him. He calls her a whore & reminds her that when he met her he gave her 5 sovereigns to go to bed with him – that makes her a whore, & he dredges up her past, how she went from man to men for financial benefits – basically for support. But that makes her a whore. We women were put into a position – by evil means – to depend on men for money. Whether it’s coins or bucks in hand or weekly support, or a house, or whatever, we ‘ve leaned on them because they arranged it so - & in the end they denounce us for it! Men STOLE from us & are still doing it by paying us less for the same work, giving us worse jobs, & depriving us of opportunities. But do we BENEFIT from this patriarchy? Yes & no. As Ajax says, in some ways yes, in the long run no. That’ why we’re working to dismember patriarchy & assemble Matriarchy, so all would benefit.
AJAX (PETE) SAYS: That's a great way to put it, Rasa. Makes a lot of sense how you say it. The sooner patriarchy ends and gives way to Matriarchy, the better off we will all be.
But what about the related question, do good guys really benefit from the existence of bad guys? After all, bad guys are found in literally all walks of life and all socioeconomic classes, not just at the top (though they seem to be overrepresented there, not coincidentally). Again, the answer is nuanced. While it is true that the existence of bad guys (broadly defined here, ranging from crappy to absolutely horrible monsters) does set the bar for men in general at a pitifully low level, which makes it easier for the good guys to clear, this comparative advantage collapses when one considers the other effect that bad guys have. Namely, the existence of bad guys makes it obviously harder for Women to trust men in general, so the good guys get lumped in with the bad guys and thus have a that much harder time getting Women to trust them enough to be with them in whatever way. To put it in quasi-economic terms, this "safety tax" that bad guys impose on Women in general ultimately gets passed on to men in general in the form of a "risk tariff", thus making the dating market that much harder and costlier for the good guys as well. Thus, we see here that any relative comparative advantage that good guys gain from the existence of bad guys is NOT worth it on balance, and the good guys would be better off without the existence of the bad guys, period.
Rasa says: I wish you would define exactly what is a good guy & a bad guy & give some examples of behavior. As I find it difficult to respond without those details. It isn’t good for me to ASSUME I know what you mean because I could be off……for example –
There are criminal men, say a poacher, who shoots a deer on the wealthy landlord’s property. In a British TV series I saw, “A Horseman Riding By” this man get FIVE YEARS for the crime {he also broke the jaw of the game warden, so that was part of the sentence, lol}.
Now at my local supermarket, routinely, this happens: You see something on SALE. Say recently the Pink Lady apples said 1.99 a pound. So I bought a bunch. But on the register it said $2.49. I caught it & received back the overcharge. This happened twice with the same apples within weeks – also with avocadoes & other items - I have received refunds from this market many times. I have never seen anyone else check their receipt or demand restitution. What happens is they accidentally on purpose forget to put into the computer the sale price, so they are STEALING from the customers & as I said I’ve never seen anyone else demand restitution so they are counting on the negligence of the customer to check what they are actually charged, so they make extra money by stealing. But of course, lol, they won’t go to jail for this…..
Another example – they keep changing the law so the rich get richer. In old days the rich simply took over the land of the poor – the King gave it to them, & it rendered these people who’d lived off the land {& owned cottages} for generations, destitute. But it was against the law to beg & when they begged they were given a brand on their forehead &/or jailed.
Now in the last few years they found gas & oil under the land here where I live – including my own – from what they cal the ‘Marcellus Shale.’ People were to get big money for this. So what did the local govt. do? They passed a law called the WINDFALL TAX where they get 40% of the initial payoff, which in my case would have been 40% of abut $250k {except I didn’t sign & our state passed fracking laws, so it never happened.} What was the windfall tax? Just another evil law to steal from the poor. So these examples are the bad guys. The good guys don’t do crimes like this, mugging people or business crimes.
{And btw the local owner of my supermarket is the nicest, sweetest guy you ever met, & his manager is the most helpful. I get along great with both of them, but this is a mask for the conspiracy to pilfer money out of the customers – they are both in on it as I have seen it played out.}Don’t assume that all the ‘bad guys’ appear evil!
Just remember, bandits WEAR MASKS when they rob the bank!
AJAX (PETE) SAYS: All of that is unfortunately very true, Rasa. And those masks can be either literal or figurative. Most bad guys indeed wear some flavor of a "Good Guy" mask. The self-proclaimed "Nice Guys" (TM) are in fact often the very worst when their masks begin to slip. That includes the more modern incarnation, the fake "allies" and fake "empaths" as well, of course. If a guy has to loudly broadcast that he is an ally or an empath, it means that he is probably NOT, or at the very least he doesn't practice what he preaches, and it goes downhill from there. As for my definitions of "good guys" and "bad guys", I meant that in relative and general terms based on ethics, morals, virtues, or lack thereof. And of course there is also a third category: "neutral", those who all too often get swayed by the bad guys.
It's a deadweight loss to everyone, in other words. That is, the marginal costs the bad guys impose outweigh any marginal benefits.
Rasa says: Explain the costs & the marginal benefits
AJAX (PETE) SAYS: While men in general in one sense benefit from lowered standards overall for men in general ("hey, at least I am not like those jerks over there!") and thus things may SEEM easier as a result, such marginal benefits to the good and neutral guys are rather hollow when one considers that those same bad guys are the reason why Women have a hard time trusting men in general, as it can be difficult to tell friend from foe. And when Women have a hard time trusting men in general, that has a chilling effect on any relationships that good guys may have or would otherwise have with Women. The "male loneliness epidemic" is caused primarily by the bad guys, in other words.
WILLIAM SAYS: I can give a personal story of how a bad guy effects my relationship with my wife. When I met my wife she was divorced, but her first husband was verbally abusive. So when she got involved with me she appreciates the fact I am a nice guy. This is also true of her children whom don't like their father and have said they wish I had been their dad. So they all contrast me with my wife's first husband and it makes me look good.
AJAX (PETE) SAYS: That is true, William. And of course at the same time, unfortunately, the fact that Women have a hard time trusting men in general as a result of the bad guys has a chilling effect, to say nothing of all the trauma they inflict on Women. How many relationships would have otherwise occurred but don't as a result of what the bad guys do? So the net effect of bad guys is still harmful overall, even if there are some bright spots.
So fellas, if you really are genuinely good guys, stop validating and making excuses for the bad guys and stop mindlessly going with the flow. You're not really helping anyone even remotely worthy of help by doing so, as neutrality only benefits the oppressors and never the victims, and you are ultimately hindering yourselves in the long run.
Rasa says: There are very few men who ever care about or fight for women’s rights – they see it as hurting themselves & their privileges, & being traitors to their gender. Some of the men are brainwashed to believe, this is as it has to be – men should be controlling women. They WANT to believe this so they do. And sadly, some men wan to be dominated but instead of working for the Cause, they prefer to be dominated in a paid sexual setting, where they tell the dominatrix what they want – she does it & gets paid – this is called ‘topping from the bottom.’
You might say what about the men who have joined NOW? And work as volunteers in their offices. As usual, men want to hang around & take part wherever there are women so they could get to know the women, be friends or on the odd chance, get laid, lol. I’ve seen this as I belonged to NOW. They aren’t there for authentic reasons; they’re there to get something out of it.
That’s why I suggest when we start this new Order, men are NOT to be allowed entrance as volunteers or ‘friends’, it has to be all women as the men who would join have ulterior motives. Even men who offer big donations – you have to be leery of because they want that pound of flesh. When we do accept men as members they must be totally under the control of the Order & obedient to its rules – they have no authority whatever & have little rights. This is not ordinary life – in life they can go out & do whatever, but in our Order it is the way we say it is – matriarchal.
I might add that we should eventually have some communities where we have generations of matriarchy – grandmother, daughter, granddaughter - & the men who are part of the family within the household. For privacy we could have cottages surrounding the main house, but the cottages are not where the man takes advantage beats up the wife & abuses the kids. The cottages are close enough so we can see what is going on if there is something out of line – especially with the children. All children should be housed in the main house up to a certain age {we need to discuss this-how it would work out because there is the issue of privacy vs safety…too much privacy to the man, he takes advantage - perhaps the husband & wife could have their cottage at certain times, not every day—this all needs to be worked out by the Elders}, then they can live in the Mom & Dad cottage if they wish. But remember, the nuclear family is designed to give freedom to the man & take it away from the wife & children.
AJAX (PETE) SAYS: That is unfortunately true as well, Rasa. Indeed, when it comes to the Order, you really do NOT want any such "foxes in the hen house", so it makes sense NOT to allow any men to join whatsoever at first. And in the distant future if and when men are allowed to join in some capacity, it would probably be best for them to be associated as loosely and peripherally as possible. (Note to the reader: my own words in this article are speaking generally and are intended primarily about the outside world, not Rasa's Order.)
AJAX (PETE) SAYS: That's all for now. Very well said overall, Rasa. Keep up the great work!
