(Alt-Market)—These days we hear a lot about the concept of the “male power fantasy,” usually in reference to accusations of “toxic masculinity.” In other words, feminists and woke activists argue that the male power fantasy is a social construct that makes men aggressive, and masculine aggression is supposedly the cause of most of society’s ills.
I would point out, however, that we don’t really see men talking about or obsessing much over power these days. Instead, it’s women (mostly feminists) blithering incessantly about power, institutional power, imbalances in power and how much they want power. If I was to guess by their rantings at the root principle that inspires all of feminism it wouldn’t be “equality”, it would be the thirst for power.
It’s also important to understand that the female power fantasy looks distinctly and darkly different from the average male power fantasy and this is why so many people remain skeptical of women in authority. All we have to do is look at how they express their desires in fiction.
If one studies the archetypal ideals of the hero’s journey (a hallmark of the male power fantasy), what we almost always find are stories of self sacrifice. Power for most men is meant to be used in service to others; to protect and to provide for those who cannot protect themselves. This symbolism is found everywhere in literature, television and movies centered on powerful and popular male figures. Rather than being “toxic,” men are compelled by their inherent relationship to power to achieve something greater for all the people around them.
This is not to say that there are no men with twisted motives. History is splattered with male rulers who have abused their authority and committed a host of atrocities. These men, however, are the exception to the rule. The majority of men desire a chance at heroism and adherence to a moral code. We used to call it “chivalry”, the opposite of villainy.
The hero’s journey usually requires a struggle to attain the power that will eventually be used by the man in question. It is at least subconsciously understood that power attained without experience and wisdom leads to corruption. In other words, for men, great power comes with great responsibility.
The female power fantasy, unfortunately, is very different. For feminists in particular, great power means never having to take responsibility for anything ever.
When fictional women with power are written by women (specifically feminists) or woke activists, you will see a considerable juxtaposition when it comes to how that power is attained and used. A female power fantasy does not inspire a woman to be a hero. In fact, when feminists write protagonists they often act like villains – They tend to be selfish, narcissistic, they lack depth and lack the redeeming qualities associated with principled people. When women fantasize about power they are more likely to reflect psychopathic traits instead of nurturing feminine traits.
There is no such thing as an archetypal hero’s journey for modern women. In pop culture, female icons usually gain power automatically without any effort to earn it. They are born with magical abilities, magical or god-given talents, or they “manifest” power by sheer psychological will (the fantasy of witchcraft). They imagine what they want, and what they want is supposed to come to them magnetically. This is not just fiction to feminists; they really think this kind of magic is real.
Even in male power fantasies where a protagonist is born with certain strengths there is an immediate dilemma: How can I use this power for good and prevent it from corrupting me? This does not exist in feminist fiction. For them, power is a virtue in itself, and abusing power is always justified if it’s a woman doing it. If they resort to evil, it’s usually because of the trespasses of men. There’s always an excuse.
In the past, stories of female power usually involved women using sexuality to influence men to do their bidding (sexuality being treated like magic). But this dynamic has long perturbed feminists who enjoy the idea of sexual manipulation but don’t like the idea of women relying on men in order to project their “agency.” So, in modern times feminists have shifted female power more into a male realm, with women acting like men, using physical force like men and asserting dominance in the way they imagine men assert dominance.
They’ve abandoned the idea of merely getting close to a man’s power so they can exploit it. Instead, they now covet the institutional power within corporations and governments, believing they can cut out the “middleman” (no pun intended). This has given rise to the pervasive “girl-boss” meme in mainstream media, a bizarre construct which relies on making men look incompetent in order to make women in leadership look intelligent.
But here’s where things go awry. Women are not men and will never be capable of what men are capable of. That is to say, men can survive and thrive without women but women will never be able to survive without men. It’s a cold hard reality that feminists simply do not grasp; all feminist power relies on the charity and tolerance of men.
Woke activists like to claim with a certain tinge of glee that “the world is progressing” and say conservative men are angry because “the patriarchy is losing power.” I find this argument fascinating because it’s self-contradictory: If the patriarchy exists and men really are a monolithic power structure, then frankly there’s nothing stopping us from crushing feminists under our boots like bugs and taking all that power back.
Women, by virtue of their biology, have no power. At least not in the way that men do. Any power they think they have taken was actually GIVEN to them by men. Men allow women to have the freedoms they enjoy in the western world, there is no power struggle. I’m sure some feminists will accuse me of chauvinism here, but this is a fact – Women have equal rights and opportunities to men in the west because men want them to. If there was a patriarchy, those rights would not exist.
Just look at fundamentalist nations in Asia or the Middle East where you find REAL patriarchy. Feminists have no influence because the men in those societies do not allow them any. It just takes a flip of a switch and all the control feminists think they have gained can be confiscated in an instant. So please ladies, don’t delude yourselves and be thankful western men are inclined to appreciate and support the women around them.
The next most common argument from feminists is that women don’t actually “need men.” I think for first-wave feminists this was limited to the idea that women don’t need men for personal happiness or personal success. That’s debatable but I’m not really interested in feminists feeling affirmed in their daily lives. The problem arises with third-wave feminism and the notion that women don’t need men for anything, including the stability of society.
Lets make this clear right up front: Men built almost EVERYTHING in civilization. Men maintain almost everything in civilization. Everything you see around you, from the technology to the buildings to the roads to the utilities to the factories and to national security – It’s all built and kept running primarily by men. All those ugly but necessary jobs that women don’t want to do or are incapable of doing are done by men.
Feminists like to assert that women only need men for protection from other men. They say if men did not exist, they would be safe. This is a hilariously naive assumption and it’s only spoken by women in first-world societies where they’ve never been forced to experience true survival.
If men were to disappear tomorrow, civilization would collapse. Women might not have to worry about male aggression, but they would have to worry about functioning in an environment without any amenities or modern comforts. They would not last more than a couple weeks; the vast majority would die almost immediately.
We know this for a fact because there have been multiple survival experiments in recent years with all-women groups that ended in disaster. They are either forced to rely on male groups to survive, or, they have to tap out and leave the experiment completely. A famous example is the old Bear Grylls battle of the sexes experiment, but it’s not the only one and the results are generally the same across the board.
Feminists talk big, but they fold like wet paper when they’re placed in situations where they must legitimately struggle to live.
The world is an inhospitable place, especially without men. The feminist power fantasy relies on the notion that they are capable of doing whatever men can do. It’s simply not true, and the requirements are not limited to the physical. There is a dangerous lack of organizational ability among women, at least where completing necessary tasks is concerned.
In another famous example of an all-female experiment, in 2005 a female TV producer decided to build a media-based business from the ground up with only female employees. No men were allowed because she believed men had an easy ride. The company quickly imploded two years later due to lack of work ethic, lack of direction and infighting. The CEO admitted openly that an all-female staff was a terrible idea. She noted:
“While I stand by my initial reason for excluding male employees – because they have an easy ride in TV – if I were to do it again, I’d definitely employ men. In fact, I’d probably employ only men…”
My point is, feminists can only exist in a first world society where men have already created a safety net. These are places where men have built and maintained the majority of amenities needed for survival to such a high degree that women have very little to worry about compared to their counterparts in third-world countries.
It is within these comfort-focused environments where feminists thrive, if only because women have so much time on their hands to ponder minutia rather than being concerned about how they will eat, where they will sleep and who will keep them safe.
In a survival scenario, feminists cease to exist. They die out or they give up on feminism and seek the aid of men. It might be prudent for modern women in the west to keep this reality in mind, because first world countries have been known to fall into third world status without much warning.
If you would like to support the work that Alt-Market does while also receiving content on advanced tactics for defeating the globalist agenda, subscribe to our exclusive newsletter The Wild Bunch Dispatch. Learn more about it HERE.
Safeguarding Your American Dream: Discover the Power of America First Healthcare
In today’s economy, healthcare costs remain one of the biggest threats to financial stability and family security. Americans work hard to build a better life, yet rising medical expenses can quickly erode savings, force tough trade-offs, and even push families toward debt or bankruptcy. Medical bills continue to rank as the leading cause of personal bankruptcy in the United States, with millions facing underinsurance or unexpected out-of-pocket burdens that no one plans for. Many turn to government-run marketplace plans under the Affordable Care Act, hoping for relief, only to discover that what appears affordable on paper often delivers higher long-term costs, limited real protection, and coverage that may not align with personal values or family needs.
America First Healthcare stands out as a private insurance agency dedicated to helping conservatives and families secure better coverage and better rates through customized, values-aligned options. By conducting free insurance reviews, the agency uncovers hidden gaps in existing policies and connects clients with private alternatives that emphasize personal responsibility, small-government principles, and genuine affordability—often delivering up to 20% savings while providing stronger protection for the American Dream.
The allure of marketplace plans is easy to understand: open enrollment periods, premium tax credits for many households, and the promise of “comprehensive” benefits mandated by law. Yet recent data reveals a different reality, especially after the expiration of enhanced premium subsidies at the end of 2025. Enrollment for 2026 dropped by more than one million people compared to the prior year, with many shifting to lower-tier bronze plans to keep monthly premiums manageable.
These plans feature significantly higher deductibles—averaging around $7,500 nationally—and greater cost-sharing requirements. Families who once paid modest amounts after subsidies now face average premium increases of $65 or more per month, even as they accept plans that leave them responsible for thousands in upfront costs before meaningful coverage kicks in.
High deductibles create a dangerous barrier to care. Studies show that people in such plans are less likely to seek timely treatment for chronic conditions, attend preventive screenings, or fill necessary prescriptions. A seemingly minor illness or injury can balloon into major expenses when patients delay care until problems worsen. For a family of four, a single hospitalization, cancer diagnosis, or unexpected surgery can easily exceed the deductible, triggering coinsurance and out-of-pocket maximums that still leave substantial bills. One recent analysis noted that some proposed changes could push family deductibles toward $31,000 in future years, further exposing households to financial risk.
Beyond the numbers, marketplace plans often carry structural limitations. Coverage for certain critical services may include waiting periods or narrower networks that restrict access to preferred doctors and specialists. Preventive care is required to be covered without cost-sharing, but everything else—lab work, imaging, specialist visits, or ongoing treatment—typically waits until the deductible is met. This reactive model contrasts sharply with the proactive, holistic approach many families prefer, especially those focused on wellness, early intervention, and maintaining health to enjoy life rather than merely reacting to illness.
Values alignment represents another growing concern. Government-influenced plans operate within a framework shaped by federal mandates and political priorities that may not reflect conservative principles of limited government, personal freedom, and ethical stewardship. Families who want to direct their healthcare dollars toward providers and benefits that honor traditional values sometimes find marketplace options feel misaligned, forcing a compromise between affordability and conviction.
Private alternatives, by contrast, offer year-round flexibility without the restrictions of open enrollment windows. Independent agents can shop across a wider range of carriers to design plans tailored to specific family needs—whether that means lower deductibles for frequent medical users, broader provider networks, or add-ons that support wellness and preventive services from day one. Clients frequently report more stable premiums that do not automatically escalate each year, along with genuine cost savings once the full picture of deductibles, copays, and coverage depth is considered.
Take the experience of real families who made the switch. Amanda C. shared that her new plan felt “way better” than what she had through the marketplace. Johnny Y. noted his previous coverage kept increasing annually until he found a more stable private option. Sofia S. expressed delight with her plan and began recommending it to others. These stories echo a common theme: when families move beyond one-size-fits-all government marketplaces, they often discover customized protection that better safeguards both health and finances.
Founder Jordan Sarmiento’s own journey underscores the stakes. In 2021, a six-day hospitalization generated a $95,000 bill. Under a well-structured private “Conservative Care Coverage” plan, his out-of-pocket responsibility would have been just $500. That stark difference illustrates how thoughtful planning and private options can prevent a medical event from becoming a financial catastrophe.
Practical steps exist for anyone questioning their current coverage. Start with a no-obligation review of your existing policy to identify gaps—high deductibles, limited critical-care benefits, or escalating premiums. Compare total projected costs (premiums plus potential out-of-pocket expenses) rather than monthly premiums alone. Consider family health history, anticipated needs, and lifestyle priorities. Private agencies can present side-by-side options that include stronger wellness incentives, broader access, and plans built on shared values of self-reliance and freedom.
In an era when healthcare inflation continues to outpace general cost-of-living increases, relying solely on marketplace solutions carries growing risk. Families who proactively explore private alternatives frequently achieve meaningful savings while gaining peace of mind that their coverage truly works when needed most.
America First Healthcare makes this exploration straightforward through its free review process. Families and individuals receive personalized guidance to close coverage holes, reduce unnecessary expenses, and secure plans that align with conservative principles—protecting wallets, health, and the American Dream without government overreach. Many who complete a review discover they can enjoy better benefits for less, often saving up to 20% while gaining the customization and stability that marketplace plans struggle to deliver.
Ultimately, protecting your family’s future requires looking beyond the marketing of “affordable” government options. By understanding the long-term costs hidden in high deductibles, shifting coverage tiers, and values mismatches, Americans can make empowered choices. Private, values-driven insurance offers a smarter path—one that rewards diligence, supports wellness, and delivers real security. For those ready to move beyond the limitations of traditional marketplace plans, a simple review can reveal options designed to serve families, not bureaucracies. The American Dream thrives when individuals and families retain control over their healthcare decisions, and thoughtful private coverage plays a vital role in making that possible.