Blind Empathy: Manufacturing Our Own Oppressors – Patriarchy, Power, and the Radical Logic of Reproductive Resistance

Introduction: The Women Who Keep the Machine Running

---

Somewhere in the world, right now, a woman is protecting a degenerate man.

She is protecting a son who has terrorized girls in his neighborhood.
She is protecting a brother who violates boundaries with impunity.
She is protecting a husband who abuses his wife.
She is protecting a man who has harmed, exploited, or destroyed another woman’s life.

And she is doing it in the name of love, loyalty, family, culture, religion, or survival.

This is not rare.
This is structural.

We see it over and over again.

A recent case makes this pattern impossible to ignore.

A 40-year-old man in the UK killed a 23-year-old young woman for ending a relationship with him. The image of her in her graduation robe circulated — young, hopeful, educated, with a future that was stolen because a man felt entitled to her life.

But what makes this case even more revealing is not only the man who killed her.

It is the woman who protected him afterward.

The man had a Nigerian girlfriend living in the UK. After killing the young woman, he contacted this girlfriend and told her what he had done. And instead of reporting it, instead of protecting another woman, instead of breaking ranks with male loyalty, she kept it quiet.

In her own words, she did it for love.

Now her home has been searched.
Her devices seized.
Her life upended.
And she is being investigated as an accomplice.

Why?

Because she chose male loyalty over female life.

This is not an isolated story.
This is a pattern.

Across communities — including Nigerian diaspora communities — women are often pulled into protecting men at the expense of other women. Covering. Lying. Assisting. Pretending. Playing roles. Helping men evade consequences. Teaching men how to manipulate systems. Joining men in exploiting other women for status, residency, money, or validation.
.
Because patriarchy trains women to be male-identified.

Male-identified women are taught that a man’s survival, freedom, and reputation matter more than a woman’s safety. They are taught that protecting a man is proof of love. They are taught that male validation is worth more than female solidarity. They are taught that their proximity to a man is their primary currency.

So women lose themselves.

Women lose scholarships.
Women lose jobs.
Women lose businesses.
Women lose money.
Women lose futures.
Women lose their lives.

All to stand behind men who would not stand behind them.

That young woman who protected a killer was an orphan. She had no family safety net. She had received a scholarship opportunity. She had a chance at stability. And she threw it behind a man who had already taken another woman’s life.

That is not love.

That is indoctrination.

That is what male worship looks like in real life.

It is women being trained to betray their own interests.
It is women being trained to prioritize men over women.
It is women being trained to sacrifice themselves — and other women — to keep male power intact.

This is how patriarchy reproduces itself.

Not only through men who commit violence.
But through women who are recruited to defend it.

And this is where the deeper question begins:

Why are women still expected to marry into this system?
Why are women still expected to reproduce inside this system?
Why are women still expected to birth and raise future beneficiaries of a structure that consistently harms them?

When women begin to talk about boycotting marriage, boycotting reproduction, and even questioning the automatic production of future male beneficiaries of patriarchy, people call it extreme.

But what is actually extreme is continuing to normalize a system where:

Men are protected.
Women are expendable.
Silence is rewarded.
Accountability is optional.
And female lives are collateral damage.

This essay argues that what is dismissed as extremism is actually pattern recognition.

It is women looking at the data — personal, cultural, psychological, and historical — and asking why they are still expected to keep feeding a machine that destroys them.

This is not about individual men’s feelings.

This is about systems that train men to expect domination — and train women to protect it.

This is about how male entitlement is socially manufactured, psychologically reinforced, religiously justified, and culturally defended.

This is about why some women are no longer willing to be the unpaid security system for male violence.

And this is about why reproductive resistance, marital resistance, and the refusal to automatically birth future beneficiaries of patriarchy are being named — not as hatred — but as survival logic.

Not because women hate men.

But because women are done pretending not to see what this system produces — and who it protects.

---

Thesis: Reproduction, Power, and the Politics of Manufacturing Entitlement

This essay argues that in a world where patriarchy is structurally designed to benefit men and systematically harm women and children, continued reproduction inside violent, misogynistic systems is not neutral — it is participatory. When women knowingly raise boys inside environments that normalize male entitlement, female subjugation, and male impunity, they are not just birthing children. They are reproducing a power structure.

Calls to resist, interrupt, or even boycott the continued production of future male beneficiaries of patriarchy are not rooted in hatred. They are rooted in pattern recognition, harm reduction, and political self-preservation.

This is not about individual men’s feelings.
This is about systems, incentives, and outcomes.

Until male power structures fundamentally change — until men as a class meaningfully disrupt the system that advantages them — women are not irrational for questioning why they should continue feeding a machine that consistently produces their own oppressors.

⸻

I. Patriarchy Is Not a Personality Trait — It Is a System With Incentives

Patriarchy persists not because men are confused, but because men benefit.

Economically.
Socially.
Sexually.
Psychologically.
Culturally.
Religiously.

Systems do not survive by accident. They survive because they reward the people positioned at the top. That is why “good men” staying silent is not morally neutral — it is structurally predictable.

In social psychology and power theory, silence in the face of injustice is not passive. It is protective behavior. It protects access to privilege, belonging, comfort, and male solidarity.

If men as a collective truly opposed patriarchy, we would see widespread, sustained male accountability. We would see men risking social capital. We would see men confronting abusers. We would see men severing ties over misogyny. We would see men choosing women’s safety over male bonding.

We do not see this at scale.

What we see instead is protection of the group.

Which tells us something critical:
Patriarchy continues because men benefit from it continuing.

Where do we even begin listing the ways men endanger women?

Just this evening, I was tagged in a post about a married woman whose husband’s mistress came to her place of business — her livelihood — and attacked her. The woman was assaulted so violently that she was blinded in one eye.

Let that sink in.

Not the husband facing consequences.
Not the man being confronted.
But the wife — attacked, maimed, and permanently injured — for a man’s infidelity.

This is how patriarchy works in real life.

Men create the danger.
Women absorb the damage.

The wife pays with her body.
The wife pays with her health.
The wife pays with her safety.
The wife pays with her livelihood.

And the system still finds ways to center the man — while women are left to fight each other over male behavior.

That is not an anomaly.
That is a pattern.

Men’s choices routinely place women in harm’s way — directly and indirectly — while women are socialized to carry the consequences.

⸻

II. Developmental Psychology: How Male Entitlement Is Formed

Using Erik Erikson’s stages of psychosocial development, early childhood and adolescence are the periods where identity, trust, autonomy, morality, and relational expectations are formed. Children do not simply learn values — they absorb power dynamics.

A boy raised watching his father dominate women is not learning about marriage.
He is learning about hierarchy.

A boy raised watching women absorb disrespect is not learning about love.
He is learning about entitlement.

According to Bandura’s Social Learning Theory, behavior is modeled before it is moralized. Children imitate what they see rewarded, protected, and normalized.

So when male dominance is rewarded, excused, and insulated from consequence, it becomes identity — not just behavior.

You cannot “explain away” what a child watches every day.
You cannot out-lecture a system that trains through repetition.

This is not an abstract nature-versus-nurture debate.
This is the daily training ground of patriarchy. Power is not neutral to the human brain.

Neurologically and socially, dominance is rewarded. Status is rewarded. Control is rewarded. The more power is experienced without consequence, the more it becomes psychologically reinforcing.

Over time, entitlement stops feeling like privilege and starts feeling like identity.

This is how men come to experience equality as loss, accountability as attack, and women’s boundaries as rebellion.

That is not accidental.
That is how dominance trains the nervous system.

⸻

III. Maslow’s Hierarchy: Male Domination Is Not a Human Need

Maslow’s hierarchy of needs includes:

Physiological needs.
Safety.
Love and belonging.
Esteem.
Self-actualization.

Nowhere on that pyramid is:

• Dominating women
• Controlling female bodies
• Sexual entitlement
• Religious male supremacy
• Emotional absenteeism
• Avoiding accountability
• Hoarding power
• Dehumanizing half the population

Male domination is not a need.
It is a socially conditioned appetite.

And appetites, when constantly indulged without consequence, escalate.

That is why entitlement is growing.
That is why audacity is increasing.
That is why bare-minimum behavior is praised like heroism.

This is not biology.
This is social permission.

⸻

IV. Mothers, Sons, and the Reproduction of Male Power

Patriarchy does not reproduce itself through men alone.
It also reproduces itself through women who are socialized to center, excuse, elevate, and over-protect sons.

The “mama’s boy” culture is not harmless.
It often functions as entitlement training.

When sons are shielded from accountability, treated as inherently special, and centered above daughters, what is being produced is not love — it is hierarchy.

That is how boys learn that women exist to absorb, serve, and excuse.

That is not maternal instinct.
That is ideological conditioning.

When women continue to birth sons inside violent systems while emotionally sidelining daughters in pursuit of male validation, that is not tradition.

That is patriarchy using women as its delivery system.

The most uncomfortable truth is this: at some point, survival knowledge becomes responsibility.

When a woman knows the system.
When she has lived the harm.
When she has seen the outcomes.
When she understands what this structure produces —

Continuing to reproduce inside it is no longer just victimhood.

It becomes participation under conditioning. No other oppressed group is expected to reproduce its own enforcers as a moral duty.

Women are uniquely socialized to treat their own sacrifice as virtue.

But self-preservation is not selfish.
It is rational.

Asking women to continue reproducing inside a system that statistically harms them is not morality.
It is structural self-destruction disguised as tradition.

Because patriarchy trains women to act against their own long-term survival — and rewards them for it.

This system does not just trap women.
It recruits them.

⸻

V. Why Reproductive Resistance Is Political, Not Personal

When women question why they should continue producing male beneficiaries of patriarchy, they are not making an emotional argument.

They are making a structural one.

If a system consistently:

• Harms women
• Rewards male dominance
• Protects abusers
• Excuses violence
• Punishes female resistance
• Praises male mediocrity

Then continuing to feed that system is not neutral.

It is participation.

Reproductive resistance, even when framed radically, is not about hatred of boys.

It is about refusing to keep manufacturing future enforcers of a system that harms women.

⸻

Conclusion: Pattern Recognition Is Not Extremism

Women are told they are extreme for naming what they see.

But extremism is continuing to normalize a system where:

Women are harmed.
Children are abused.
Men are excused.
Violence is normalized.
Power is hoarded.
Accountability is optional.

And then demanding that women be quiet about it.

This is not bitterness.
This is data.
This is history.
This is lived experience.
This is psychological pattern recognition.

Until men as a class meaningfully dismantle the system that benefits them — not with words, but with risk, loss of comfort, and real accountability — women are not obligated to pretend the system is redeemable.

Hashtag all is not hatred. The anger is not random.

It comes from watching the same patterns play out over and over.

From watching women say they didn’t know — after they knew.
From watching women say they had no choice — after they had information.
From watching women call survival logic “extreme” while burying daughters, sisters, and futures.

At some point, denial becomes a choice.

That brings back the first draft’s moral heat.

Hashtag all is a refusal to lie about patterns.

This is not about individual exceptions.
This is about collective outcomes.

Women are done pretending not to see who the system serves.

And women are no longer obligated to keep feeding a machine that keeps producing their own harm.

---

VI. Self-Preservation Is Not Hatred — It Is Pattern Recognition

History and lived reality show women the same lesson over and over again: uncritical worship of men is not aligned with women’s self-preservation — either individually or collectively.

Self-preservation is not bitterness.
It is an evolutionary and social survival principle.

Across cultures and across time, systems organized around male dominance have consistently placed women and girls at greater risk of exploitation, violence, and disposability. Loving within a structure that is built on entitlement does not neutralize that structure. It often exposes women to it more deeply.

What women are being asked to do — repeatedly — is to nurture, protect, excuse, and rehabilitate men inside systems that reward male dominance and minimize female harm.

That is not neutral caregiving.
That is structural self-sacrifice.

The trickle-down effect is real.

Even if it does not happen to you directly.
Even if you have no daughters.
Even if you believe you personally are exempt.

It reaches sisters.
It reaches nieces.
It reaches neighbors’ daughters.
It reaches other women’s children.

“Injustice to one is injustice to all” is not just a slogan. It is a social reality. Harm normalized in one household becomes harm exported into the community.

Look at the world we live in.

Global conflict.
Militarization.
Weapon stockpiles that outnumber food supplies.
Political leadership dominated by systems that prioritize control over care.

What we see at the macro level mirrors what women see at the household level: leadership structures that normalize domination, extraction, and risk-shifting onto the vulnerable.

Women and children absorb the cost.

This is why reproductive and relational resistance is not about revenge.
It is about refusing to keep underwriting systems that consistently place women at risk.

And sometimes, the pattern reveals itself in ways that are impossible to rationalize.

---

VIII: A CASE STUDY OF DEGENERACY

I will end this essay with yet another example of how men are not consistently socialized to see women as fully human — and why blind empathy continues to put women in danger.

A close Kenyan friend shared a story with me this morning that stripped away any remaining illusions about how deep male entitlement can run.

A woman in Kenya discovered that she had a biological half-brother she had never known — the son of her late father. She reached out in good faith, seeking connection, family, and reconciliation. She wanted to know her brother. She wanted to build a sibling relationship. She wanted to introduce him to the rest of the family.

She approached him as a sister.

He did not approach her as family.

⸻

a: When Blood Is Not a Boundary

Despite knowing they shared blood.
Despite knowing they looked so alike they could pass as twins.
Despite knowing she came to him with trust, vulnerability, and the desire for kinship.

He began sending her sexually explicit messages.

Not confusion.
Not misinterpretation.
Not ignorance.

Sexual messages. Persistent. Graphic. Targeted.

One message in particular made her physically recoil. He told her that he wished they had grown up together so he could wake her up every morning sucking and licking her — describing acts no brother should ever think, let alone write, to his own sister.

This was not a stranger.
This was not a mistake.
This was not a one-off comment.

This was entitlement overriding blood.
This was desire overriding kinship.
This was dominance overriding the most basic human boundary.

⸻

b: Married. A Father. Fully Aware.

This man is married.
He has children.
He knew exactly who she was.

And still, he saw her first as a body — not as a sister.

She is now afraid to ever be alone with him.

Let that sink in.

A woman sought family.
What she encountered was sexual entitlement.

She is now concerned he could prey on her other siblings.

⸻

c: Not a “Bad Apple” — A Systemic Outcome

This is not about one “bad apple.”

This is about a system that teaches men that their desire, access, and entitlement override boundaries, relationships, and even basic humanity.

This is why, for self-preservation, women cannot afford to keep “testing the waters” with men as a collective.

When even blood is not a boundary, what is?

⸻

d: Why Women Are Choosing Self-Preservation

This is why women are talking about self-preservation.
This is why women are talking about selective relationships.
This is why women are talking about reproductive resistance.
This is why women are questioning whether continuing to feed a system that trains entitlement is moral, rational, or safe.

Not because women hate men.

But because too many women have learned — through experience, not theory — that a system that centers male entitlement will sacrifice women at every level: strangers, partners, daughters, sisters, and sometimes even family.

Self-preservation is not extremism.

It is women finally believing what the patterns have already shown them.

⸻

e. The Pattern, Not the Exception

And this is not an isolated pathology.
It is an extreme expression of a pattern women recognize.

A system that trains men to center desire over consent, entitlement over boundaries, and dominance over empathy will produce men who violate even the most fundamental human lines.

This is what women mean when we say the system does not consistently train men to see women as fully human.

Not in theory.
In practice.

⸻

d. Responding to Evidence, Not Emotion

So when women begin to talk about selective reproduction, selective partnership, reproductive resistance, and the refusal to automatically center men and male futures, they are not declaring war.

They are responding to evidence.

They are responding to generations of patterns that show them that love alone does not neutralize entitlement, that loyalty does not reform dominance, and that proximity to male power often increases women’s risk rather than reducing it.

The movement you see globally is about self-preservation.

This is about women finally prioritizing women.

This is about refusing to continue sacrificing bodies, futures, daughters, and safety to sustain systems that consistently reward male entitlement and minimize female harm.

It is women finally acting on what history, data, and lived experience have already made clear:

If a system repeatedly harms you, you are not required to keep feeding it.

⸻

e. Respectability as a Shield for Violence

It is visible to the blind and audible to the deaf that women are endangered — most often at the hands of men closest to them in proximity.

Yet society remains heavily invested in grooming women to ignore their own wellbeing, safety, and red flags.

Almost every man who is later exposed for harming women and children is described the same way by the people who knew him.

His teachers say he was polite.
His classmates say he was quiet and normal.
His parents say he was a good boy.
His church says he was respectful.
His community says he was kind.

And after the harm is revealed, the script is always the same:

“We never thought he was capable of that.”

But that sentence is not evidence of innocence.

It is evidence of how well violence hides behind respectability.

Abuse rarely looks like a movie villain.
It looks like normal.
It looks like nice.
It looks like charming.
It looks like someone the community protects.

So when people say, “He seemed so nice,” what they are really describing is not his character.

They are describing how effectively the system trained everyone to confuse politeness with morality — and reputation with accountability.

That is not surprise.

That is structural blindness.

---

IX: Women, We Are Manufacturing Our Own Oppressors

This is what manufacturing our own oppressors looks like in practice. It is built in homes, protected by silence, excused by love, sanctified by culture, and reinforced by systems that reward male entitlement while disciplining female survival. Conditioning becomes character. Entitlement becomes identity. Proximity to women becomes access.

This is not accidental.
It is a pipeline.

A pipeline that trains boys to see dominance as selfhood, trains men to see access as entitlement, and trains women to absorb, excuse, and protect that entitlement. Every time that pipeline is fed — through marriage, reproduction, emotional labor, and blind loyalty — it reproduces the same outcomes.

So when women question whether to keep feeding it, they are not rejecting humanity. They are rejecting a system that has made women’s humanity conditional and men’s entitlement automatic.

This is not extremism.
This is pattern recognition meeting self-preservation.

Until the system stops producing men trained to dominate rather than reciprocate, women are not obligated to keep supplying it with bodies, futures, and daughters to prove what history has already made clear.”