Feminism

I was at the public library the other day and overheard two feminists spewing all sorts of venom about men. Today feminism is simply a laughing-stock of its original purpose. I find it difficult to sympathize with the movement, when all I see are bitter women, who use the ideology as a crutch for their misandry.

SweetNightmare wrote:

I was at the public library the other day and overheard two feminists spewing all sorts of venom about men. Today feminism is simply a laughing-stock of its original purpose. I find it difficult to sympathize with the movement, when all I see are bitter women, who use the ideology as a crutch for their misandry.

In the past, there were two basic types of men. The toiler, and the fielder. The toilers worked in the field, and were generally non-violent types. The fielder, hunted in the fields, killing by neccesity.

Neither of the two men were excessively violent, only killing by necessity, and had an outlet for their energies - a loving woman at home to return to, the sweat and pride of the fields, and the excitement and adventure of the hunt.

The modern man, however, has no such outlet. He lives alone, surrounded by women who fear and despise him, in a concrete jungle, filled with predatory men, because of the scarcity in such a jungle. He turns to videogames and movies to satisfy his instincts and thrills.

How does this affect the woman? In the past, women were seperated from violence. Men hunted outside the homes, and violence was generally hushed up and not glorified. Women were protected from it. Violence only occured to them if they were failed to be protected.

In this day and age, the man sits at home, watching violent movies all day. He does not hunt in the fields, seperate from the woman. Female children are exposed to this, and believe it is "the norm". They are unaware that it affects their minds, turning them into savages, like men. In the past, women exposed to violence as children, were called "warrior women". They were generally treated as men, and if they mated with another man, it was rare, and it was usually only the alphas.

In summary, women, thanks to proximity to violence and male culture, have become like men. They are rarely attracted to men. The only way they will be attracted to men, is if they are surrounded by female culture, flowers, sensitivity and such.

In short, women cannot expose themselves to violence, without automatically becoming a man.
In short, when a modern woman feels attraction to a man, she feels equally repulsed as she does aroused. Her brain has been tainted since childhood.

.

.

You can't institutionalize the hearts; good sentence.

.

cold wrote:

Again, there are many types of homosexuals.

That's all very vague and it's either a language barrier thing or just your way of trying to confuse and rather keep everything open for interpretation. Gives me a headache.

cold wrote:

They have Greece's greasy disease - a male who bonds with another male is true alpha masculine also maintaining hatred for women ( femininity ).

Is there misogyny in Greece's civilization, especially towards the later periods? From what I've read I would think so. That's what civilization seems to do - a form of feminization. And feminized men become particularly poisonous. No surprise.

Quote :

Women are strange creatures, for men they are difficult to comprehend.

When the magic spell is broken then they are not that difficult to comprehend. But if you break that spell you must weave your own.

.

TFM provides excellent material, as usual.

Notice how the bonobos are described as 'making love instead of war', when all they do is fuck. This just exposes how simple and primitive the females are in their thinking, lust is conflated with love.

The modern man is a bonobo. Dominated by females, reduced to primal sexuality being his highest priority in life and the entire culture centered around sex, and exchanging sex for resources. Add to that the uncertainty of fatherhood due to female promiscuity and the male is unwilling to support the children, who may or may not be his, also characteristic of bonobos.

According to modern feminists, this matriarchy equals egalitarianism, and an equality of opportunity based system where males come out on top due to being more capable, is patriarchy?

I remember the time when I thought that feminists are generally just well-meaning and are willing to adopt the more gender-neutral term egalitarianism if I provided them with good arguments, guess how that turned out when I asked them. I was a shitlord, and a troll, for even daring to make the suggestion

The video could be filmed in our current society; exactly the same.

cold wrote:

" feelings for women are considered effeminate while feelings for another man are considered masculine "

Sounds like the PUAs and overall parts of the manosphere in the West.
But at the same time I find the manosphere to be reacting to feminism and modern western society. It's not the official narrative - that one has been feminism for many decades by now.

Feminism a hundred years ago was already about integrating women and equalizing them into a biologically unhealthy society. Making them into social constructs detached from their nature.

If someone hates himself then he wants to escape what he is. Escape the past, deny it.
Feminism is rooted in such a mindset and if you read up on the history it has always been filled with those who felt inadequate compared to others in their biological qualities. Driven by the need for others to evaluate and value them and thus compelled to change the rules of society.

Good book about old-school feminism and its origins [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

.

The paragon of "masculinity" for neo-traditionalists as it were confused about their manliness (an entire movement has taken course here) is a self-professed homosexual.
As far as I understand there are two types of homosexuals: 1) the masculine, which comprises of the majority, but are more elusive about it sexually and publicly and 2) the feminine, fairy type, which comprises of the minority, but are more sexually outspoken about.
The former as the penetrating, while the latter as the penetrated.
In this relation, it is sometimes asserted that the Third Reich was homosexual of the former type.

cold wrote:

Though there may have been women who felt inadequate but their freedom has always been curbed away by pathological society.

I don't see a society to be pathological simply because it seeks to restrict certain behaviors/freedoms.
To not restrict is certain death for any society and that restricting includes sexuality, especially that.

And as for feeling inadequate, that depends on society. If having children is seen as a sign of health and status then being an infertile or psychologically unfeminine woman can make for strong feelings of inadequacy, I imagine.
Of course, if society tells you that no matter how you look or what you do, you are always doing good and even more so, you are potentially always oppressed, then that's all in favor of pushing feelings of inadequacy under the rug or finding some oppressor to blame for undesired feelings. Easy solutions.

cold wrote:

Though aggressive feminism was needed to break social engineering.

You mean to increasingly monopolize the engineering ideals.

"Romeo and Juliet: Mercutio’s Misogyny"

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

cold wrote:

A masculine man when he meets woman personally, secretively, he meets her as a lover.

Now, a lover, cannot be converted into war machine. This is what politician and religious leaders don't want. Their stronghold of power falls.

People in love don't have any drive to go war?

.

.

.

How's this for engineering?



Or this..

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Nice combination. More fuel for the fire.

There are a bunch of these type of ads: 'plug that empty, needy hole inside you with our brand's products. We value you, we care for you. Reproduce our message with a new-found confidence. Break the mould, this can be your purpose. You are empowered, you are strong.'





This one is my personal favourite. Exploiting female needs whilst denying their existence and relevance. Utter hypocrisy appealing to shallow narcissistic personalities.

Carlin wrote:

This one is my personal favourite. Exploiting female needs whilst denying their existence and relevance. Utter hypocrisy appealing to shallow narcissistic personalities.

''We have all come face to face with doubt, eye to eye with uncertainty.., but today there is no time for maybe's; so let's put our best face forward.., cover-up nothing and show-off everything''
''We won't apologize for being more, for being beautiful...,''

That is the most hypocritical emanicpating video I have seen in a while. 'We are not ugly, we are a little insecure sometimes, so here - a means to emancipate yourselves from judgements *puts on make-up as if a new face has been born*; see, now we are beautiful and emancipated from judgements!'

Telling them that they are not ugly yet selling them the products covering their sensitive - insecure - marks, accentuating the best, covering the worst.

Intended for negro-comedy; but quite interesting actually.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Now filthy cucks are pushing their agenda under the guise of Feminism.

^
At least where the hermeneutics of relationships are embodied, it's an either one has to want to devour the heart of the other or not: any corroborated and indicative suspicion within the economy of chance gain or chance loss confers the presentiment for disinterest or unthreading of the filament.
From here, recasting the need is rendered obsolete.

Supra-Aryanist wrote:

^
At least where the hermeneutics of relationships are embodied, it's an either one has to want to devour the heart of the other or not: any corroborated and indicative suspicion within the economy of chance gain or chance loss confers the presentiment for disinterest or unthreading of the filament.
From here, recasting the need is rendered obsolete.

Ha!

And this guy, Supra-Aryanist, called me a " pretentious sancho ".

Lmao!

Oh, how the irony is lost on him.

On a separate note:

While I dislike modern feminism to a large degree, due to its focus on many trivial issues, I find most feminists, at least the ones I've met, to be interesting and a pleasure to converse with; many of them are well-educated and know about philosophy.

I guess so, because I have little idea what you're talking about.

Supra-Aryanist wrote:

I guess so, because I have little idea what you're talking about.

It seems so...forced...

My intuition is f-cking uncanny, Supra.

Nothing wrong with using sophisticated words; I do it myself.

But, as they say: " Nothing in excess ".

They're just concentrated words to express and stylize the arrangement of thoughts.

Btw, your intuition needs calibrating as I wrote that in the duration it took to type it out on my cell for a FB reply, which is fast especially for a neurotic.