I have made posts earlier about women and colonialism.

The short of it is that colonialism is a 2 step process

1 Proto-colonialism: Women deselect men, for they outgrow the need for them (called feme soles in the ~17th century), and the deselected men go to foreign lands to gain wealth and status. Some achieved domestic happiness within India itself, via their status as foreigners - earning the derogatory title of 'Nabob'.

2 Memsahibs and fishing fleets: With the invention of the steamships in the mid 1800s, women got to safely journey to these colonies at a near 0% mortality rate, unlike the men's 50% or so, and institute laws forbidding these men from utilising their newfound wealth, should they race mix.

I am writing this post to expand on the first phase, proto colonialism. The stage that is marked by some level of cultural integration between the deselected men (the nominal vanguards of colonialism), and the people of the land.

FYI Please note that inside alot of literature, 'colonialism' gets swapped out by 'global trade' or some other words. This is to maintain that mental distance between women and colonialism throughout history.

Women were the primary drivers of the EIC, as early as in the stage of proto-colonialism

And by that I mean the financial side of it. I did not explore this part as much as I had the other parts in my posts.

'Spinster' women, i.e. feme soles abstained from marriage, deselecting men, not because of 'restrictive marriage laws' but because the men did not have enough for them leech off of for a better life. Sound familiar?

My main argument is this.

Women in the 17th-19th century were en masse, rejecting marriage. Having accrued tonnes of wealth, instead of getting married, they drove colonial shipping routes as one of the primary venture capital forces.

Women held shares in the major banks

 Paper bonds and financial transactions show us that women signed up to shares in the Bank of England, the Land Bank, the East India Company and the South Sea Island company. 

Some were even 'middle women'. The following quotes are from here.

Some women used middle men to buy their shares for them, but many women acted as the “middle woman“ themselves by buying shares for other people and taking a small commission. From early archives we can see for example that Bruce James a merchant in Leadenhall sent his wife to the bank to purchase shares in his place, and that Anne Mason of Westminster Hall came to the bank herself and bought £1000 worth of stock in her own name. 

From all walks of life, women had opportunities to participate in the markets

One of the other significant vehicles to manage government debt from 1694 was the State Lottery. The lottery offered tickets which paid an annuity with prizes of either a larger annuity or a cash sum. The attraction of the lottery was not just the chance of winning, it was also ideal for those with fewer resources who wanted to take part in the new financial markets. 

You could also buy your tickets without the intervention of “discredited stock jobbers’. It was seen as a good solid investment, and women from all walks of life bought tickets – aristocracy to nobility to wives , widows and servants. 

It was commonplace.

We know from literature and letters that London was “awash with lottery talk’. A newspaper reported in 1720 that “ stocks, shares and lottery tickets were now so popular amongst women that a great many ladies forsake their tea, cards and chat to go to Change Alley”.

Women admit to their significant contributions to colonialism, when you replace it with something else

Join me on Power, Profit, and Progress: Women in the City of London walk to learn more and hear remarkable stories of women in the City of London whose contributions helped the City become the global financial powerhouse that it is today.

Aside from this there is this source here that shows in more detail and more linked sources accordingly, that women were in a managerial position of global trade, i.e. colonialism.

The following quotes below are from here.

Despite limitations for women during the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, they were politically and economically active on a national and local level.[20] In relation to the EIC, women were involved through investments and the management of global trade.[21] Aske Laursen Brock and Misha Ewen argue that women were active, both formally and informally, in the EIC. Brock and Ewen use Elizabeth Dale, Rebecka Duteil and Mary Goodal as examples of the public role women had and their involvement in the EIC.

There were women who played an active role in business and established themselves as competent professionals.

Asian women helped bolster the EIC too

Let's not be racist here. Asian women had a good relationship in propping up the EIC as well!

In southeast Asia, women had more freedom than in Europe. Men and women had separate

roles within society however there were certain areas that overlapped which did not exist in

European culture.[31] In southeast Asia, women were very prominent in trade and marketing as in the pre-colonial years, it was seen as the ‘female domain’.[32] Traders would often be working with female merchants. A 1727 source reported that ‘the women of Siam are the only merchants in buying goods, and [...] trade very considerably’.[33] This source reveals that the EIC relied heavily on women when trading. In order to establish the Company in southeast Asia, it was necessary to trade with women, which prompted their growth. A 1699 source also reported that in China, ‘money-changing is a great profession [...] managed by women’.[34] There were numerous economic professions which women contributed heavily to. Women were vitally important in the expansion of the EIC and their establishment in southeast Asia, as their trading networks included women.

Marriages with the foreign women also drove the EIC's influence success

In the expansion and entrenchment of Madras, the role of women was very important due to the connections that emerged from a marriage. Many of the women in these marriages were from wealthy or connected families in the area and this was beneficial to the EIC as it opened up new avenues to pursue in terms of trade.

Remember that the deselected men from Britain who came over to India or wherever else, were generally marrying into higher status families, because that was what mattered to these women. These women of the higher status, did not and do not to this day, see themselves as 'part of the colony that is being exploited'. They are one as a class with the colonising force, for they have more status.

It follows that these women actively supported and grew the EIC, and thus, enabled colonialism.

In other words, the local elite women in Madras and Siam weren’t being "subjugated" by the EIC; they were merging corporate interests with it. While the native working-class population was systematically strip-mined of its resources, these high-status women traded local infrastructure access for British global liquidity. British women, and Asian women of high enough status and opportunity, fed on the blood of the colonised, and the 20-30 million Indians that died due to famine, are because of these people.

Whitewashing deselection, colonialism and global subjugation with the 'EMP'

Sociologists of course, brand this entire period to having played witness to a mysterious phenomenon called the European Marriage Pattern. That eludes all the typical analysis of the crucial role women played in promulgating colonialism. They use gender neutral language regarding what unfolded to plant the seed of colonialism, and even go as far as to not acknowledge colonialism.. as colonialism.

No, it was just a magical boom that Europe had, conveniently in the same time period that Europe was engaging in 'global trade'.

EMP is denoted by 4 traits

1 A late age of first marriage for both men and women

2 A substantial fraction of men and women never marrying

3 Unrestricted fertility within marriage

4 Sexual abstinence before engaging to marry

This is very similar to tournament species behaviour - which is characterised by

• No Male Parenting: Winners move on quickly and provide no help raising offspring.
• Territoriality: Males defend large territories to attract multiple females.

Some might even call this, hypergamy.

Women's colonialism and harvest of foreign land brought 'gender equality and higher levels of education and income'

When sociologists look at this data, they invent clean, clinical software terms to mask a savage biological realignment. 

Academia celebrates colonialism if you give them the opportunity. If I whitewash colonialism, with the 'European Marriage Pattern', suddenly the period in which colonialism occurred was a great thing! Especially for women! Here is a snippet from Gregory Kitson Clark, From Syddansk Universitet, Odense, Denmark.

The EMP has been proposed as a key mechanism for the rise of Western Europe economically 1400–1800*. By limiting fertility and delaying marriage for women, the EMP has been claimed to have fostered a society with more gender equality and higher levels of education and income**

There is a alot of whitewashing of women enriching themselves off of the blood of foreign countries, as 'opportunities', 'economic booms' and 'flourishing moments of gender equality'. I find it to be a perfect reflection of what women view to being a 'good relationship with a good man' to be like. Her a slave master, and him a slave.

Colonialism is a female/feminist project, not a male one

The ultimate historical irony is that modern feminism paints this entire era as a dark age of patriarchal confinement where women were locked out of the world. The archival hardware proves the exact opposite: women were the protected shareholders, the venture capitalists, the lottery speculators, and the elite local trading partners who sat safely in the metropolitan core while the deselected male tier absorbed a 50% mortality rate acting as the disposable enforcement machinery.

When academia celebrates the EMP for fostering "gender equality, higher education, and income," they are celebrating the birth of the modern insulated state. The political software changes, but the hardware remains identical: the system thrives by treating the young male body as high-risk, expendable collateral, while ensuring the wealth he extracts is funneled directly back to fund the comfort, literacy, and equity of the domestic tier.

This is why we need to claim the history, lessons and literature of colonialism as a relevant topic of discussion wrt men's issues.

Colonialism is the natural result of women's increased access to the economy.

The rationalisations, and stories that feminists conjured up to justify colonialism back then, are IDENTICAL, to the rationalisations feminists come up with TODAY to justify colonising our spaces online - games, TVs, movies. We are savages to be tamed. Our spaces are to be made more appropriate and safe for their sisters, just like the British women/Memsahibs wanted to save their indian sisters.

I hope this post could serve to educate some of us here to understand. Colonialism is not a racial issue. It is not a white on non-white issue fundamentally. It is a female-driven conquest for resources, and it is governed by the same forces that are colonising our spaces today. It is also these same forces that have lead and continue to lead us into war and conflict.

This is why history is so important.