Know Thyself

Nothing in Excess
 
HomePortalFAQMemberlistSearchRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 Feminism

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1 ... 17 ... 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35  Next
AuthorMessage
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 17310
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 52
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Feminism Thu Aug 03, 2017 8:52 am

Value Signaling
Males displaying their resource acquisition potentials to attract females.
Bragging, displaying wealth and health, self-handicapping, displaying sexual desirability by flaunting erotic conquests...are all part of value signaling.
He attracts by appealing to the female's genetic dispositions - her body.  

Alpha and beta male behavior.




Virtue Signaling
Pro-feminine activism, altruistic disposition, agreeableness, supportive emotionally and materialistically.
Unable to compete for the alpha/beta male status, the omega male opts for virtue signaling - the male tells females that he will be a loyal, disciplined friend/lover, a proverbial carpet for them to step upon.
He attracts by appealing to the females memetic pragmatism - her mind.  

Omega male behavior.



Females love the second, intellectually, idealistically, but are attracted to the first, physically, erotically.
This is the contradiction produced by social cooperative unities, where a female under the protective umbrella of a dominant male, has to use inferior males for her in-group threats.
With he external being taken care of, they focus on the internal political, social conflicts.
In over-protective systems, such as our present Modern one, where Nihilism creates an internal bubble that is contradicted by the external, to it, real world, both females and omega males (emasculated males), tend to live in an alternate reality.
Their minds believe one thing, and their bodies, evolved for thousands of years outside the current system, tend to contradict what the are convinced they believe in.

This is pronounced when internally the meme, is nihilistic - it contradicts the real world, which is kept on the periphery, the outside, taken care of by the system, which has taken over the position of alpha - monopoly of masculine traits, abstracted to the point where a child, or a woman, can represent it.
Nihilism, as described in the thread [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] is the memetic, political, internal, in-group, methodology for integrating heterogeneous populations into a stable artificial homogeneous 'whole', where race, sex, and in particular masculinity challenging central authority, is eradicated...at least noetically, intellectually, in the mind, psychologically, much to the relief of inferior males.
Restricting or criminalizing masculinity, satisfies females because their feminine sexual powers are released, only controlled by laws and rules enforced by the institution, and it satisfies omega males, because it eliminates the constant reminder of their own status, and essence, and it eradicates a challenge they cannot compete against.
Omegas make the most fanatic social warriors, and feminists.
Females are placed in a constant state few sexual dissatisfaction, because the males they consciously know are good for them, in a social context, do not satisfy their primal desires, but like women throughout the ages, they endure.

Marxism is where feminism is rooted.
Ironically, feminism creates the elimination of masculinity females then complain about - feminine 'complexity' or the feminine mystique, is a product of this contradiction between nihilistic meme, and evolved genetic predispositions - conflict between mind and body.
Only the human species can the brain develop to the point where it can contradict the physical, the body's needs, desired.
This has been associated with cultivation, with civilization - rising about the brutal state of nature....but herein lie the risks...for an extreme detachment of mind from body is a sickness. It may feel liberating, pleasing, empowering, because the mind is not inhibited by world, as body is.
Nihilism is this psychological disposition to escape the real within the ideal.
In the west this became a dogma, a spiritual movement - Abrahamism...developing into Marxism, Feminism, Liberalism, Trasnhumanism....(positive nihilism)
The same disposition became Buddhism in the east.

Mind, placed in artificial human environments, judges pragmatically in that contexts, and body, evolved in more austere, natural environments, and systems not as detached, not as nihilistic as the present one, has its own, automatic judgment.
Females raised in nihilism have conflicting behaviors, to declared values. This confusion has been attributed to their "complexity"...which is an easy way of insinuating ignorance, without admitting it openly and honestly, or a way of insinuating gnosis, without proving it.
Nihilism, in the west, began when Judaism came in contact with Hellenism, producing Christianity.
This is the only reason Judaism still has relevance, and we still associate it along with Hellenism, with western historical developments.  
It's a virus, infecting a host - memetic virus, parasite.
In the sixties, after an internal struggle over the west, which was the Cold War, Nihilism dominated, having determined which strain would take over the infection.
Identity crisis gradually developed from the Hedonism of that decade.
Presently the symptoms have become full blown and so obvious that even Peterson, and other intellectuals, cannot ignore them....diagnosing them using Abrahamic contexts, Abrahamic manuals.

My manuals are pagan...directly from nature, as it is outside Abrahamic memes, and Modern systems.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I go to the root....before there was Abraham, or any civilization, and I proceed upwards to the present day.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].
I begin in nature, as it still exist on the periphery of our urbanized artificial environments.

Behaviors such as homosexuality and rape, are easily explained when you take them outside present, western memetic contexts, with their corruptions and their indoctrinated prejudices.
Both homosexuality and rape are observed in other species, as are the distinct differences between males and females, and between alpha, dominant males and females, and beta, challenging types, and omegas, submitting, surrendering psychologies.
As distinct and obvious as the psychological differences, manifesting in organic behaviors/actions, between [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]...these designating specialized survival strategies, evolving different organic behaviors, different physical and mental traits (appearance, presence)...just as specialized reproductive roles evolve distinct behavior, with distinct traits, and potentials for them- represented, as form, as organ proportionality and hierarchy.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 17310
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 52
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Feminism Fri Aug 04, 2017 8:17 am


_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 17310
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 52
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Feminism Sun Aug 13, 2017 10:25 am




Paglia is partly right. What she misses is the fact of the male sexual role.
It is a role that must prove itself, by challenging the dominant male, in other words authority, the status quo.
Women cannot do so, because their sexual role is about preserving, nurturing, producing safe, stable social environments to raise their offspring.
A female is always pro status quo, unless she senses a shift in power.
She then finds pride in perceiving this shift and being on the forefront of its coming.

Also why the loss of the European male will not be without severe intellectual consequences.
Consequences that will be denied, dismissed as not happening, then an attempt to correct it with education, with 'proper' nurturing, as the intellectual levels declining.

then there's the Transhumanist hope that this decline can be remedied by outsourcing creativity to machines, or by compensating gadgetry integrated into the human form (cyborgs) so that mankind can finally become a uniform infantile mass of dependence, or a collective of mechanical zombies - Feminization.


_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 17310
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 52
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Feminism Mon Aug 14, 2017 8:36 am



Did anyone say Feminization of Mankind?
Well, for the western man. 
War on Terror is really a war on a bastion of masculinity, as a representation of Allah, the big cock in the vast universal vagina. 
Degenerates will have to reduce all down to emasculated pussies, like them, and make a new population of females sexually dissatisfied and confused as to why they are attracted, pragmatically, to the memetical male ideal, while they hide a secret wet-spot for the natural, genetic masculine ideal. 

Meme contra Gene, when meme is in disharmony with reality, or nature, in other words when it is a Nihilistic meme.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Kvasir

avatar

Gender : Male Virgo Posts : 1402
Join date : 2013-01-09
Age : 33
Location : Gleichgewicht

PostSubject: Re: Feminism Mon Aug 14, 2017 12:29 pm

Satyr wrote:

Meme contra Gene, when meme is in disharmony with reality, or nature, in other words when it is a Nihilistic meme.

The feminist attraction to Islam is a psychological dysfunction, like many, of the absent dominant male. For example, the transsexual disorder in a woman to want to biologically become a man is, in part, the mimetic manifestation in physical form, of the rise of the beta and an extreme overcompensation for them to build up the ideal male in a purely feminine identity within themselves, isolating and abominating its nature entirely. In regards to Islam, for them, it's choosing one aberration for a lessor one; like being sexually attracted to a homosexual man simply because he may act more masculine than a heterosexual. They take what they can get, essentially. This particular nihilistic social activist feminist trend is still new, so i will wait to see how it continues to evolve. As feminization becomes more extreme, so does the sexual behavior of women.

What is certain however, is their loyalties lie with their real long time lover and daddy which is the institution and the State.  And right now, big daddy State wants Islamic cultural infection and wants his white daughter to wed a Muslim and adopt Islamic customs. It seems to me a feminist putting on a burka and virtue signaling has to do more with what her Big Daddy wants and slightly less with that secret wet-spot, even though it plays its guiding part.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 17310
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 52
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Feminism Tue Aug 15, 2017 12:46 pm




Comments:

--- Defending a weaker individual may be alpha, tolerating an inferior individual who declares himself/herself your equal or superior, is not.
Alpha is giving what others deserve, and living with the consequences of this value-judgment.

--- Alpha is being so in tune with yourself, and the world you emerge within that it shows in the way you carry yourself - how you behave.
Others intuitively know.
Overman, in the Nietzschean nomenclature:  to have come to terms with your temporality, your mortality - to not resent your own existence, or its limits, its cost.
Such an individual would dominate without even trying, without intending to, those that resent their own existence, and seek for manmade "corrections", escapes, word-games.

--- Stoic: Spartan minimalism, Doric asceticism, corrupted by Christianity to mean self-denial, self-repression, self-deceit.
On-line Ditionary wrote:
sto·i·cism
ˈstōəˌsizəm/Submit
noun
noun: stoicism; noun: Stoicism
1.
the endurance of pain or hardship without a display of feelings and without complaint.
synonyms: patience, forbearance, resignation, fortitude, endurance, acceptance, tolerance, phlegm
"she accepted her sufferings with remarkable stoicism"
antonyms: intolerance
2.
an ancient Greek school of philosophy founded at Athens by Zeno of Citium. The school taught that virtue, the highest good, is based on knowledge, and that the wise live in harmony with the divine Reason (also identified with Fate and Providence) that governs nature, and are indifferent to the vicissitudes of fortune and to pleasure and pain.

--- Leader - someone who understands the responsibilities, in relation to the accolades, to a degree that he accepts leadership, as necessary, and does not enjoy it.
Platonic philosopher king.
The one who covets, exposes need, weakness, in his coveting.
Like an arts who becomes artistic, calls himself by that name, not because of a necessity, but because he or she covets the admiration, the fame and fortune.
In philosophy: the one who covets the admiration a dead thinker receives, wanting to associate with him, wanting to be like him...but, lacking the mind, the gift, the daemon, the talent, he imitates his style, adopts his metaphors, his language, and declares himself his successor.
He coverts being for inferior others, what the icon/idol was to him - a superior being, a leader, a father figure, an inspiration, a guide, a shaman.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 17310
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 52
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Feminism Thu Aug 17, 2017 10:03 am


_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 17310
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 52
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Feminism Fri Aug 18, 2017 7:40 pm


Peterson and Molyneux are baffled by the double standard: how could they be against Nazism and say nothing against Marxism.
Well?
One was created by a group, and the other slaughtered the same group.  
Peterson's Abrahamism prevents him from seeing the obvious, when he can analyze complex issues.
He has a cognitive blindness, produced by his Abrahamic, Christian traditionalism.

Communists, as Molyneux said, slaughtered ten times more people than Nazis, and in Charlottesville they condemn the alt-right, but say nothing about the post-modern Marxist on the other side.  
The most obvious is right before their eyes.
Decades of brainwashing has blinded them to it.

The "tendency of the post-modern left to become nihilistic", he says.
The left IS nihilistic.
Positive-Nihilism, projecting into the world what it is missing to make it tolerable to cowards and vermin.

Molyneux says "language has been fragmented"...yes!!!
They've been ripped to shreds, pulled from their connections to reality, and converted to meaningless metaphors that any douche-bag can rearrange to construct the most pleasing sentence, implying the most gratifying concept.
Look at ILP.
Words as free-association, expressing internal desire, esoteric motives.
Words rearranged and then declared profound, expressing deep ideas...this is like a moron splashing paint on canvas, or taking a dump on a sheet and placing it in a art gallery, implying that it is profound, and that if you do not see it then there's something wrong with you.
Nihilism's primary symptom is in how it uses art....how it uses words. It exposes their psychosis, their internal trauma, in relation to reality.

Yes, Ashkenazim Jews are gifted in symbols/ words, linguistics, like all feminine minds are.
Who got out and survived Hitler's wrath?
The educated, the gifted with words.
Words are the basis of nihilism.
Nihilism is worthless, impotent, without words - beyond the application and effect of symbols/words.
You increase IQ by using stress...weeding out those who cannot endure, and adapt.
Like you weed out the bad athlete: you push him to his limits, you stress his body, and then see which one's performs at a higher range and consistency.
Necessity is the mother of invention.
Shelter minds and you create imbeciles.
Protect them from reality's "cruelty" and you produce dim-wits, with a lot of data, knowledge, information, and no talent to use it, to apply it...on understanding of it.

Take away a short-hand philosophy, which is what religions like Christianity are, and you leave behind dim-wits seeking meaning and purpose, because they cannot produce it themselves...they need it to be given, to be a given.
Feed them the spiritual nihilism that kept them in check, and you have a disciplined herd, liberate them from this comforting myth and you create mindless free-radicals with nothing to lose, because they can find nothing of value.

Christianity is the mother of Marxism....Marxism minus god.
It requires a higher abstraction....that most cannot produce. The majority need the anthropomorphic, the familiar, the easy.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 17310
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 52
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Feminism Sun Aug 20, 2017 8:25 pm



_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 17310
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 52
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Feminism Fri Aug 25, 2017 12:58 pm



Another casualty of post-modern feminism, and political correctness censorship.
Anything relating to the real, is to be suppressed to accommodate the ideal.
The sacrifice is always of a European male.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
AutSider

avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 1344
Join date : 2015-04-29
Location : Outside

PostSubject: Re: Feminism Fri Sep 01, 2017 10:43 pm

Feminism is about turning women into inferior men and turning men into inferior women. It is the epitome of dysfunction when speaking of gender roles. A factor that makes countries weak and vulnerable to conquest.

Men want to dominate, women want to be dominated.

A feminist society tells women they should dominate, and tells men they should accept their being dominated.

Nobody but the few sick degenerates truly enjoy this.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Stuart-



Gender : Male Posts : 282
Join date : 2014-08-28
Location : -

PostSubject: Re: Feminism Mon Sep 04, 2017 2:25 pm

An argument was made that women made personal sacrifices for feminism in the early years. The example I'm most familiar with is the suffragettes who would starve themselves if necessary. That's a sacrifice, but it's not actually an act that would best be called fighting. It was an appeal to sympathy to those who already valued them. It may have been an effective action in their cause to be allowed to vote. But, consider a real fight; when one side starves themselves the other is not going to protest.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Slaughtz



Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 1762
Join date : 2012-04-28
Age : 27
Location : Brink

PostSubject: Re: Feminism Mon Sep 04, 2017 3:30 pm

If it were a patriarchy by a bunch of sexist men, etc. there would have been an authoritarian crack down and indoctrination response to any sort of 'feminist' movement. If men were really such woman-haters as the foreign women try to make the native men appear as to the native women.

In large part the women had an argument because of racialism - you were giving a black man more rights than white women. And that's how they platformed their message.

Sacrifices to what end, should be a question, anyway. What kind of virtue would the men of the nation have if a couple women, foreign or not, starving themselves would affect their choices on what is best for society and not instead putting them in a 'loony bin'.

Though, the idea of locking someone away for being 'crazy' can only come from the mentally ill themselves - an entitlement to 'sanity', created by a class of sociopathic citizens. Someone who presumes to know what's best for another (a stranger) more than they, instead of being honest about only knowing what's best for their own children at most and only because it is necessary.

The origin of the affections that enabled the 'liberation' was the same which enabled the 'liberation from reality'; nihilism. Knowing whether another is delusional in a nihilistic manner is by having confidence in your own observations more than you do in others'; which requires taking responsibility for yourself.

I suppose the Nihilistic liberation came from men who were exhausted from a struggle within the established hierarchy. Working, lower-class, men (especially non-Anglo, as non-Anglo in the USA had a 'history of discrimination' which was really them not owning the land) getting pressured by both sides: their own wives/women in their class and the pressure of performing for the hierarchy. One side had to give, and the upper-class wasn't, so social/cultural degradation did. Same thing today, with the upper-class deciding to destroy all culture rather than become the path of least resistance for the working class's resentment.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Slaughtz



Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 1762
Join date : 2012-04-28
Age : 27
Location : Brink

PostSubject: Re: Feminism Wed Sep 06, 2017 1:27 pm

Hatred makes a message of love and forgiveness as one of hierarchy and supremacy. And I mean this as an observation of those calling for tolerance and declaring their perceived 'intolerants' as lower on some sort of hierarchy (insulting their character, intelligence, etc.) The question is not who hates or even hates the most, but what justifies the hate. The legitimacy of the hierarchical structure.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 17310
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 52
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Feminism Wed Oct 04, 2017 9:03 am


Apply this to the recent shooting in Las Vegas.
Affluence, material abundance, minus a sense of self, an identity, a connection to reality....an investment in the world.
Feminism destroyed the extended family, and released men into a world, as free, uninterested, devoid of direction, free-radicals, while, at the same time, making women miserable, bitter, bitchy, whinny, spoiled brats with a false sense of entitlement.
Marriage was the technique/technology, a manmade construct, that was supposed to deal with internal social strife, by integrating males into a community, where the leader was a representation of a shared genetic and memetic past.
This only works in homogeneous populations, because in heterogeneous populations this same structure  is disruptive to institutional control.
The male i a threat, because of the differences a male represents.
In heterogeneous systems, like modernity, a male is no longer a kin to the leader in genetic and memetic past...he is his antithesis, and the leader only a figurehead.
Males had to be taken out of the picture to make women become married to the institution - or career women, or strong liberated, as they are called.
The male is superfluous, and a hindrance to this new arrangement.

He either becomes a surrogate mother/female, maternal, where females dominate, or he is excluded, quarantined, debased, ridiculed, or incarcerated if he cannot be rehabilitated to fit into a memetic ideal.
here's the irony....females, being still quite in tough with their nature, find males that submit to these new roles, undesirable, despicable,....they begin feeling superior, under the tutelage and protection of the institution.
She can express her natural advantages, her sexual power, but he is prevented, criminalized for doing so....for even considering it.
His only alternative is to become a sperm-donor, because the new alpha is incorporeal, an noetic, idea, with no substance - an abstraction
No body, so that any-body can become its representative - male, female, child, smart, retard, whatever.
It is only a figurehead...a representation that must be acceptable to as many as possible, have the average mind to carry out simple tasks, and no integrity, to believe in anything he is told to believe in, and to repeat it with conviction.
The sperm-donor is held accountable for his donation....only as a feminine proxy, to nurture in accordance to the only male permitted, the Institution, the child, to indoctrinate it into the institution's values and principles, and do no more.
The child belongs to the Institution, using mother and father as proxies.

The values are incorporeal, unreal, lacking all substance, all reference in nature...in other words nihilistic.
They only exist in semiotics, as symbols/words, repeated between all the participants, so as to share the same principles and values, because these principles and values have no reality outside language.


Females feel it intuitively sense it but have no clue why they are so miserable.
They must accuse someone, blame something, other then what they've surrendered to, or themselves.
Their adopted principles and values are not in error, they are not in error, so it must be something or someone else that is in error.
Degenerate males do the same thing.
Accepting feminine judgment as divine, they adapt to accommodate it, and make themselves attractive, in the process, overcoming whatever genetic deficiencies they inherited, making them undesirable in every other circumstance, outside a pragmatic necessity, or a settling for the best alternative, given the options available to females.
Such inferior males are also acceptable to the institution, because they are docile, they are idiotic, accepting any principle and value that gives them an advantage, lacking integrity, desperate, needy, willing to please others, to become slaves, to others...productive in the institutional sense.
They never question authority, but imitate it, ambitiously trying to become its representative.
The kind of "man-child women, born and raised under institutionalization, would want to marry...a good catch, given the circumstances - a rationally good choice.
But a female's body, evolved in different environments, has a different judgment....forcing females into a miserable existence, as married to what she is not physically attracted to, or forced to remain liberated, waiting for the 'right guy' to come along and sweep her off her feet.
But such a man never comes...or if he does he cannot stay, as he is, for long - the system will not allow it.
if he stays, he will have to adapt and become more modern,. more submissive, more like the men-children she did not go for.
To become a good provider, he must surrender to the institution's authority, give up his rights over his life, and his children, and become the opposite of what attracted Her to him. He must 'grow up' as she would say....and 'man-up'. In other words, sacrifice his integrity, his manhood, to become more useful, more productive, more marketable to the masses, and to the institution, of which she remains a proxy.
In a faceless, sex-less, race-less, void of all past, institution, he must become that, by noetically castrating himself...a choice she will intuitively sense as a change -
"You've changed" she will say....becoming disillusioned with what he has become, because she made him do so.

In her later age, she may go through a middle-age crisis, where she awaken to her non-existence as a substantial entity, a personae, having made of herself, for the sake of the dominant male's desires, a caricature, a character, which she played with a passion.

It's a modern, boy meets...____place your own pronoun...luuuuuv story.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν


Last edited by Satyr on Wed Oct 04, 2017 9:55 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
AutSider

avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 1344
Join date : 2015-04-29
Location : Outside

PostSubject: Re: Feminism Wed Oct 04, 2017 9:36 am

Today I've seen a sticker saying "girl power" and a woman beheading a man. Anybody who knows me knows I advocate for a pretty hardcore patriarchy, and yet If we had it my way I'd never make the reverse sticker, saying "boy power" with a man beheading a woman.

There would be propaganda, yes, but not like that. More like the American 50s traditionalist propaganda, naughty but not murderously and pointlessly violent towards women just for being women:

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

Hostility would be directed outwards, towards our enemies, not our own men and women.

Feminism isn't so much a hatred of men or women as it is a hatred of the natural order and a desire to pervert (invert) it.

Oh and btw, need I even point out how outraged the feminists and the majority of the gynocentric society would be if there WAS such a sticker, except that it said "boy power" and it had a man beheading a woman?

Feminists not sticking to their own standards of "equality" is nothing new, but it bears repeating once in a while.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 17310
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 52
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Feminism Wed Oct 04, 2017 2:06 pm



"Women want to replace men with government."...and inferior men want to become representation of the abstraction, to gain the alpha status through association.
Listen to Paglia endorsing a small piece of my Feminization of Mankind thesis.
I doubt she understands the source, but, at least, she's recently noticed what I saw over 18 years ago, when I wrote the first one-page draft of what was going to grow into a thesis.
Like all dis-eases, it is not immediately noticed, or it is denied as a small couch, an itch, a tiny pain, of no matter...but then the symptoms persist and increase until even imbeciles cannot deny that they are, in fact sick.


_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Anfang

avatar

Gender : Male Virgo Posts : 2703
Join date : 2013-01-23
Age : 35
Location : CET

PostSubject: Re: Feminism Wed Oct 04, 2017 3:13 pm

AutSider wrote:


Oh and btw, need I even point out how outraged the feminists and the majority of the gynocentric society would be if there WAS such a sticker, except that it said "boy power" and it had a man beheading a woman?

Feminists not sticking to their own standards of "equality" is nothing new, but it bears repeating once in a while.

I think they'd actually be less outraged about it than the bottom smacking.
After all many feminists hate other women too, it's not just men that they hate, if it's healthy they will smell it and despise it.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 17310
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 52
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Feminism Wed Oct 04, 2017 5:27 pm


Modern triad...Gender, Race, and Homosexuality...and like Christianity's triadastic God, three aspects of a singular theme...God?
No...Humanity.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 17310
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 52
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Feminism Wed Oct 18, 2017 10:39 pm



How do you attack a foe you fear, and know you cannot defeat face-to-face?
You hit his vulnerabilities.
You exploit his weakness...you seduce his women, and you lead astray his children.
You close-off his presence from his future.

That's how viral bugs deal with what they can never be, and envy, feeling insecure and vulnerable in its presence.
This is how a miser avenges himself against those that catch him in the act of hoarding, and expose his shameless degeneracy.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 17310
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 52
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Feminism Sun Oct 22, 2017 9:18 am



Other than the obvious, this piece exposes the collusion between Hollywood and mass-media.
The peddlers of political-correctness, shaping the morals of Moderns.
these are the same people promoting transexuality as they once did homosexuality, and the delusion that there are no races, or that races are a social construct.
These are the paddlers of post-modernity that is now infecting philosophy in the form of linguistic meaninglessness.
Search under the rock, in crevices, beneath the carpeting, and you'll find the same type of vermin.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
gafr

avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 175
Join date : 2016-05-31
Location : moon

PostSubject: Re: Feminism Wed Nov 15, 2017 6:34 am

I put this post here as i suspect feminism may have something to do with it..

Why do women hate to see men happy? I'm seeing this pattern, whenever a man is laughing, or even merely smiling, they seem to present a hostile response to it even though it isn't even directed at them. They will go out of their way to turn away from such men, or even make a nasty remark.

As competition and power gone to their head?

It just seems a little deeper than just being exposed to a movement.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 17310
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 52
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Feminism Wed Nov 15, 2017 7:04 am

This is based on circumstances.
There are many explanations as to why you've experienced this. I would have to be present to be more precise, so I offer my own general descriptions of what might be going on.

Women want to be the centre of the man's attentions - his means to an end, his muse, his queen.
When others monopolize his attentions and he seems to be enjoying it, she feels she is slipping from the pedestal where she belongs - its Oedipal....daughter feeling jealous of her father's appreciation of others....losing his love.

In my experience women want indirect, psychological control. Their control is not direct and obvious, but indirect and subtle.  
All people hate it when others are happy and they are not. This shows a disharmony given the situation. She is exposing that, for her, this moment is not pleasing, when it is for him, so she wants him to be miserable, in agreement with her own misery.
It might be that she resents him being happy without her being the focus, the source of this happiness.....maybe there are females in the group making him happy, or his mother, or family....then it's a matter of control.
Will she pull control of him away from his mother?
Will she become the centre of a new family? This requires that she become the mother, replacing his.
This is female competition - wife against mother in law.
Showing joy above what she has seen from him when they are alone together, exposes a tension she resents.
She thought his sullen mood was an aspect of his character, but then around his friends or others, he shows mirth that tells her she is wrong...and that she may be what is making him sullen.  

I once used the metaphor of a man as horse and a woman the rider, knowing where to nudge, to kick, to direct the horse.
Females want to be intimate with men, meaning they want to know where his weakness lies, so as to use it to dominate him indirectly, while allowing him the illusion that he is in charge.
When a woman demands from a man to 'open up', to be vulnerable to her, she is asking him to show her, and only her, his soft spots, his soft-belly, for her to nudge and kick.
Weakness seeks an advantage over what is more powerful.
There's a balance in intimacy, between men and women.
A woman needs the man to show his weakness so as to feel safe with him...but if you show her weakness that exceeds her appreciation of her own and she loses sexual interest....because eros needs a bit of danger, for the woman....she needs to feel dominated by someone bigger, stronger, smarter - making her submission less shameful, less insulting.
When she loses sexual interest she is less testing, less aggressive....she becomes your friend.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν


Last edited by Satyr on Wed Nov 15, 2017 7:17 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Slaughtz



Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 1762
Join date : 2012-04-28
Age : 27
Location : Brink

PostSubject: Re: Feminism Wed Nov 15, 2017 7:05 am

Jealousy that they cannot have him. Resentment that they think themselves unworthy of his attention, but desire it. If rumor spreads to him, and he cares, she imagines she will acquire control. If he doesn't care then she will just get more pissed off, or be satisfied she virtue signalled to the institution, abstracted alpha, that protects her. A condemnation supposed to support her through instinctual social behaviors by protecting herself from the alpha suspecting her of eyeing another.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Or she could just hate him for whatever reason, before him being happy was ever an issue.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
AutSider

avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 1344
Join date : 2015-04-29
Location : Outside

PostSubject: Re: Feminism Thu Dec 21, 2017 6:18 pm

An excellent blog post on feminism by Blithering Genius:

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

Feminists like to define feminism as "a movement for the political, social, and economic equality of the sexes". That definition, however, does not describe modern feminism. For one thing, it requires a definition of "equality" to be interpreted. For another, it leaves out the core premise of feminism: that women are oppressed by men. Also, it does not describe what feminists believe nor what they actually do. Feminism is much more complex than this definition suggests.

In this essay, I will describe feminism in terms of its form and function. I will describe the ideology of feminism and show that it is dishonest and impractical. I will also explain the function of feminism: what it does and why.

Although feminism can be thought of as a political movement or as an ideology, it is more useful to think of it as a disease. Feminism is a memetic disease that propagates from host to host. It uses infected hosts to spread itself. This way of looking at feminism involves a role-reversal. We normally think of ideas as serving our purposes, not vice versa. We think of ideas as tools that we use to understand reality and act effectively in the world. We don't normally think of ourselves as being tools of ideas.

To begin, I have to explain the notion of a meme. In "The Selfish Gene", Richard Dawkins coined the term "meme" as an analogy to "gene". A meme is a replicating idea or behavior pattern that propagates from mind to mind and is selected for its ability to do so. Human beings learn new ideas and behaviors from others by communication or imitation. Culture consists of a "meme pool" of ideas and behaviors that are shared by many individuals. Memes compete, metaphorically, for minds. Memes that are good at propagating spread to a lot of minds.

Richard Dawkins introduced the concept of a meme and also the idea of a memetic disease or parasite. Some memes might act like diseases or parasites by using host minds to spread themselves at the expense of the host. Dawkins suggested that religion might be a memetic disease. In that, I think he was mistaken, or mostly mistaken. There are memetic diseases, however. There are memes that propagate at the expense of the host.

To evaluate whether a meme is bad for the host, we must define "bad". Biologically speaking, the purpose of a living being is to reproduce. All other functions of a life form are subsidiary to that fundamental purpose. What makes a disease bad for the host is that it interferes with the function of the host body. Since the ultimate function of a body is to reproduce, anything that prevents or reduces reproduction is biologically bad for the host. This is not how we usually think of "bad" and "good", of course. We usually think of "good" and "bad" in moral terms or in terms of personal preferences. To evaluate memes, however, we must use some other, more objective definition of value. We cannot assume that whatever the host values is good for the host. Values are memes, and the most effective way to control a host is to take over her value system. Thus, for the purpose of evaluating memes as beneficial or harmful to a host, I will use the objective, biological purpose of the host as the measure of value. Any meme that is detrimental to reproduction will be considered to be harmful to the host.

Dawkins suggested that religions are memetic diseases. Let's consider that possibility. Is religion bad for the host? Generally speaking, no. Religions usually promote reproduction, and are thus biologically beneficial. The reason why religion is usually beneficial can be explained by its method of propagation. Religion usually propagates from parents to children. It propagates down lines of genetic descent. Most religions promote reproduction because that is how they propagate themselves. The memetic interests of the religion are aligned with the genetic interests of the host. Both genes and memes "want" the host to have children because both genes and memes propagate in that way. Thus, most religions have evolved to benefit the host.

Memes that mostly propagate from parents to children I call "traditions". Memes that usually propagate in other ways I call "fashions". Traditions are passed from parents to children, usually when the children are young. Traditions usually promote reproduction because that is how they propagate. Fashions are passed between people who interact but are not necessarily closely related. It is easier for a meme to propagate from parents to children than between unrelated people who interact occasionally. For that reason, fashions have to be more persuasive than traditions in order to propagate. Both traditions and fashions are selected for their ability to propagate, but because they propagate in different ways they are selected for different properties. Traditions are selected mainly for their contribution to the host's reproductive fitness. Fashions are selected for their ability to propagate from one mind to another by persuasion.

I am not suggesting that all fashions are harmful to the host. Most fashions are persuasive because they are true or useful to the host. However, fashions can be selected to propagate at the expense of the host, in the same way that a disease germ or parasite does.

Feminism is an example of a harmful fashion. It suppresses reproduction in the host. It propagates mainly from unrelated adults to teenagers and young adults. It propagates because people find it persuasive, although (as I will show) not rationally persuasive. Feminism propagates by plugging into human psychology in a certain way. It uses its human host to propagate itself and then discards the host as a dried up husk -- the proverbial cat lady.

The primary target of the feminist meme is the female mind. Feminism plugs primarily into the female mind, and then uses women to control the male mind. By doing so, it not only uses women, it also uses men and society for its own purposes. That is what makes feminism such an effective meme. Women are the key to controlling men. What is the key to controlling women? Power, or at least the perception of power.

Men pursue sex and women pursue power. That is a generalization, of course, but it captures the essence of the difference between men and women.

The sexual dimorphism between men and women begins with the dimorphism between the sex cells and sexual organs, but it does not end there. That difference led, by natural selection, to other differences. Men and women have different reproductive strategies. To have a child, the minimum contribution of a man is a single ejaculation. The minimum contribution of a woman is to carry a child for 9 months, and in most cases, to look after the child for 10 or more years. The huge difference in the minimum parental investment led to different reproductive strategies. The male has to fight or work for sex, to make up for the low cost of his minimum investment. The female, on the other hand, normally doesn't have to invest any effort in getting sex. Instead, she tries to maximize the male contribution to herself and her offspring. She wants to sell her reproductive services at the highest possible price, while the male wants to get them at the lowest possible price.

The sexes evolved a division of labor that I call the "sexual contract". Men and women evolved to do different kinds of work. Men are physically stronger than women. They are better at fighting and heavy labor. Women get pregnant and have to care for children. Their bodies are shaped to do that job. To succeed at life, men and women need each other. Women need men to survive. Men need women to reproduce. The sexual contract is an exchange of labor between men and women. Women do reproductive work for men by having their children, and in return men protect and support women and children. Human existence has always depended on this cooperative arrangement between the sexes.

The sexual contract is between individuals, not collectives. It is an exchange of labor between a man and a woman, not between all men and all women. Paternal investment only works as a reproductive strategy if the male can identify his own children with a fairly high level of certainty. There is no biological incentive for a man to take care of a woman that he hasn't had sex with, or to take care of children that aren't his.

Until the invention of paternity tests, the only way a man could identify his own children was if they were the children of a woman who was sexually faithful to him. That is why we evolved emotions that bond specific individuals together, such as attachment (love) and jealousy. That is also why we developed cultural norms of female chastity and sexual fidelity. And that is why almost every culture had a socially enforceable marriage contract in which women had to be sexually exclusive to one man. Many cultures had versions of marriage in which men could have multiple wives, but almost none had forms of marriage that allowed women to have multiple husbands. The reason for this asymmetry is that women can easily identify their own children, but men can't. The purpose of marriage was to guarantee paternity, and thus to give men a psychological and biological incentive to invest in their own children. The function of marriage is not to oppress women, it is to assign fathers to children.

The different reproductive strategies of men and women generate both conflict and cooperation. Human sexual emotions evolved to bring about the sexual contract, but also to get the most out of it and to cheat on it in some cases. Evolution selects for whatever leads to reproductive fitness at an individual level. Our emotions evolved to maximize the benefits and minimize the costs of sexual relationships. The male wants to get as much sex as possible for the least amount of protection and support. The female wants to get as much protection and support as possible in exchange for sex. Men want the most bang for their buck, and women want the most buck for their bang. Even though our emotions evolved to bring about cooperation, the sexual contract is a compromise between the conflicting interests of male and female individuals. The potential for both sexual cooperation and sexual conflict are built into human nature.

Now I will describe the ideology of feminism and how it relates to the sexual contract.

Feminism repudiates the sexual contract. Feminism claims that the sexual contract is exploitation of women by men. Feminism either denies that women need men to survive, or it claims that women have an intrinsic right to the protection and support of men. Feminism tends to waffle back and forth between these two views, depending on which is most convenient. The point is not to be rational or honest. The point is to maximize the rights of women and minimize their responsibilities, at the expense of men. It could be said, with very little exaggeration, that feminism demands that women have all the rights and men bear all the responsibilities.

Feminism appeals to the female desire for power. It promises to empower women by "liberating" them from the "oppressive" sexual contract. It promises power without sex, the ultimate free lunch, at the expense of men.

Feminism does not demand true equality of outcomes between the sexes. That would never appeal to women. Women don't want to be 50% of janitors, 50% of garbage collectors, 50% of construction workers, 50% of workplace fatalities, 50% of wartime casualties, etc. Feminism doesn't demand that women do 50% of the dirty and dangerous jobs, or shoulder 50% of the responsibilities of society. That would not be effective propaganda. Instead, feminism demands that 50% of CEOs and elected politicians be women. It demands that women make the same amount of money, on average, as men, regardless of the work they do. Feminism supports its claim of oppression by cherry-picking facts and interpretations. The fact that fewer than 50% of CEOs are women is considered to be proof that women are oppressed. The fact that fewer than 50% of homeless people are women is not considered to be proof that women are privileged. Feminism selects facts to fit its narrative, not vice-versa. The feminist claim of oppression is not an attempt to honestly describe reality. It is a justification for transferring power from men to women.

Although feminism denies the reality of biological sex differences, it implicitly depends on them. Biological sex differences cause the sex differences in outcomes that feminism uses (selectively) as evidence of oppression. Feminists will sometimes claim the superiority of female nature over male nature: that women are kinder, gentler, don't cause wars, and even have some special intuition that is superior to male logic and rational thought. Again, feminism cherry-picks facts and interpretations to promote a view of female moral superiority, either as victims of oppression or as intrinsically superior to men. Women are either helpless damsels in distress or magical beings of infinite wisdom and power, depending on which view is more convenient.

Feminism also appeals implicitly to the sexual contract, even though it explicitly rejects it. Feminism's demand for a transfer of power from men to women is analogous to the transfer of energy from men to women that takes place within the sexual contract. In the sexual contract, men do work for women in return for reproductive services. Feminism repudiates only one side of the sexual contract. Feminism claims that men have a moral obligation to protect and support women without receiving any compensation. Instead of exchanging reproductive labor for the services of men, women should receive those services for free. Traditionally, women were protected and supported by men and society because they would get pregnant and bear children. Feminism demands that women continue to receive special treatment even if they do not get pregnant and bear children.

Feminism depends on the subconscious view that women are intrinsically more worthy of care and support than men, and that the responsibilities of society fall more upon men than women. This view is not only traditional, it is biological. In the sexual contract, a man protects and supports a woman because she will bear him children. He is compensated biologically by her bearing his children and taking care of them. For that reason, men are more emotionally willing to protect and support women than vice versa, and this has become a cultural expectation over millennia. Feminism takes advantage of that biological and cultural norm.

Society has traditionally accepted greater responsibility for the welfare of women than men, because women were expected to forgo career for family, and thus were the economic dependents of men. Caring for widows and orphans was a role that society (the patriarchy) accepted, because of the different roles of men and women, and because society was primarily an organization of men who chose to collectivize some of the risks and responsibilities of protecting and supporting their women and children. In return for this privilege, women were required by society to be sexually responsible: to abstain from sex outside marriage. Traditional sex roles and sexual morality ensured that fathers were responsible for their children, and also that fathers knew who their children were. The extra care and protection that society afforded to women was conditional on traditional sex roles and sexual morality. Feminism demands that society continue to provide women with extra care and protection, but it rejects the responsibilities that went along with those social benefits.

Feminism only rejects half of the sexual contract: the responsibilities that it imposes on women, not the responsibilities that it imposes on men. Feminism still demands that men protect and support women, but they must do it without sexual compensation. Men are now expected to protect and support women collectively, through the agency of the state. Feminism demands the collectivization of the role of men: that the responsibilities of individual men be transferred to society. Society is conceived of as masculine. It is the big father/husband figure that must protect women and provide for them, regardless of what they do. Society is presented as having almost unlimited agency and unlimited moral responsibility to women.

On the other hand, feminism demands the complete sexual freedom of women. Feminism demands the collectivization of one side of the sexual contract and the elimination of the other. Women must have complete control over sex and reproduction, which is usually phrased as "having control over their own bodies". Women should be free to have sex whenever, wherever and with whomever they choose. Feminism demands that society protect women even in the bedroom. Any suggestion that women should exercise caution about whom they bring home is rejected by feminism as "victim-blaming". The responsibility for preventing rape is assigned entirely to men and society. Feminism demands that we "teach men not to rape", while expanding the definition of rape as much as possible. The implicit goal is to free women from any and all sexual responsibilities. The "no means no" slogan of 1980's feminism has been replaced by a demand for affirmative consent that is almost impossible to satisfy. When it is not satisfied, it is always the man, not the woman, who is portrayed as the "rapist". This view implicitly depends on biological sex differences: that men play the active and aggressive role in pursuing sex, while women play a more passive role.

Feminism denigrates motherhood and the family. Feminism's attitude toward motherhood is ambivalent at best and antagonistic at worst. Like most left-wing ideologies, feminism prioritizes economics over other aspects of life. Most feminists view motherhood as something that should be avoided or minimized. Feminism advocates for women to have full and free access to birth control and abortion. Feminism encourages women to choose career over family. Feminism also promotes the collectivization of responsibility for children. Feminism advocates for state-subsidized childcare and parental leave to equalize men and women in the workforce. Feminism demands that having children not affect a woman's career, even though it obviously affects her ability to do work. Feminism does not insist that women completely forgo motherhood -- only that they have plenty of other options.

Feminism advocates for reproductive rights for women but not for men. In Western societies, a woman has the right to an abortion and to give up a child for adoption. A man, on the other hand, does not have the right to refuse the responsibility of paying for a child that he conceives. In many countries, men can be held responsible for children their wives conceived with other men, and they have no legal recourse to sue for paternity fraud. A woman can legally trick a man into conceiving a child, and she can also legally trick a man into supporting a child that he did not conceive. The responsibility for ensuring paternity has been removed from women, but the responsibility of paternity has not been removed from men. Feminism ignores this legal inequality between men and women, because it favors women.

Feminism is not logically consistent, but it is functionally consistent in the following way. It is always pro-female and/or anti-male. Feminists never advocate for men's rights or women's responsibilities. Feminism always promotes transferring responsibilities from women to men, and transferring rights from men to women.

Feminism is a left-wing ideology and it is usually associated with leftist economic policies. It proposes that we collectivize production and protection (the kinds of labor that women need from men). At the same time it proposes complete sexual and reproductive freedom for women: sexual liberation. Feminism combines economic collectivism with sexual individualism. Since the male and female sex drives differ, this effectively gives women control over reproduction and sexuality. Men, on the other hand, are expected to continue working even if they can't exchange their labor for reproductive services from women through the sexual contract. Feminism tacitly assumes that sexual liberation will have no negative economic, social or sexual consequences. Like communism, it promises a utopia that will never be delivered.

Feminism is not a functional substitute for the sexual contract. It isn't balanced. It offers men nothing in exchange for their labor, and so it can never function as the basis for cooperation between the sexes. Feminism is unrealistic and unpragmatic. If feminist ideology were fully realized in a society, that society would collapse. Feminism is not a solution to any problem faced by human beings. Feminism is a selfish meme that exists only to propagate itself, and has been shaped for that purpose.

Now I will try to explain how feminism propagates itself.

Feminism appeals to women because it provides them with a justification for claiming more rights and fewer responsibilities. This plugs into the human tendency to self-promote and self-advocate. As individuals, we naturally seek to minimize our responsibilities and maximize our rights within society. Feminism provides women with an ideology they can use to claim moral superiority and moral credit: that they are oppressed victims, and that as victims they are owed something by society and by men. Many women adopt feminist ideology as a tool they can use to advocate for their own perceived interests.

Feminism imposes a group conflict model on male-female relations. Feminism is an exploitation ideology: an ideology that claims that one class of people is exploited by another, and that power should be transferred from the exploiter class to the exploited class. Feminism interprets individual conflicts between men and women as part of a larger class conflict. People find group conflict models persuasive because they fit a familiar pattern. We are social animals and we have been fighting one another in groups for at least a hundred thousand years, and probably for millions of years. (Our close cousins, the chimpanzees, also engage in group conflict.) Culturally and perhaps biologically, we are wired to perceive group conflicts. Although the male and female collectives are not organized groups, it is easy to perceive them in that way. Sexuality generates plenty of individual conflicts, and feminism encourages women to view these conflicts as part of a collective problem that requires a collective solution.

Because the potential for conflict is built into human emotions, social and sexual utopias are impossible. In sexual relationships, the interests of individual men and women often come into conflict. Such conflicts can be resolved by both sides recognizing that their interests are not perfectly aligned and by compromising to attain a cooperative outcome that benefits both but is optimal for neither. Feminism promotes conflict between the sexes by interpreting compromise and cooperation as exploitation of women by men. Feminism teaches women to be uncompromising in relationships, or at least very demanding. It encourages them to view personal sexual conflicts as part of a larger struggle between men and women, in which women are naturally and historically the underdogs. This view is false. Men and women compete as individuals, not as collectives. However, this view can be persuasive for two reasons. One is that people easily commit the fallacy of composition and attribute properties of individuals to collectives. The other is that it plays to the natural bias toward self-aggrandizing views of reality.

Feminism encourages women to politicize their personal problems, however petty. If a woman is fat or unattractive, that is not her problem; it is due to society's oppressive beauty standards. Every problem faced by individual women is portrayed as systemic oppression of women and as a serious social issue. This absolves women of responsibility for their personal problems. If your personal problems are due to men and/or society (which is implicitly male) then (a) you aren't to blame for them, and (b) someone else is. This directs energy away from solving personal problems and toward "political action", which is usually just the promotion of feminist ideology. This is a vicious cycle. By denying her agency, the feminist makes her personal problems worse, which then creates an even greater need for feminism as an excuse for failure. Feminism does not help women fix their personal problems. It uses those problems to propagate itself.

Of course, feminism does not encourage men to politicize their personal problems, or even to admit them. The personal problems of men are portrayed as due to their own agency, and thus as their individual responsibility. This plugs into the biological and cultural norm of greater male self-reliance and agency. Men are expected to be more responsible for their own welfare than women, for reasons I explained above. Men are less willing to admit their personal problems and failures, let alone politicize them.

Feminism also plugs into the human need to define an identity in relation to others. Feminism becomes an important part of the identity of many women and even some men. We evolved to live in small groups, and so most people find modern society somewhat alienating. Ideologies such as feminism give people a group identity. A group identity gives people a feeling of belonging and it can also compensate for feelings of personal inferiority. Feminists view themselves as part of a community of good people fighting against evil. "Us versus them" and "good versus evil" dichotomies are easy to understand and emotionally compelling. Feminism provides feminists with a group identity and moral narrative.

Feminism offers women a substitute for the traditional female role: they can role-play as damsels in distress. Women want to be damsels in distress, and men want to be heroes who rescue distressed damsels. This is built into our biology and culture. The modern world, however, offers men and women few opportunities to play these roles. The modern world is very safe and comfortable. There is little that individual men can do for women. Women no longer need men, as individuals, to survive. Ironically, this creates a psychological need for artificial female problems and male solutions to them. Women want to play the role of damsel in distress, and men want to play the role of the self-sacrificing hero. Feminism offers both the opportunity to do so.

Feminism depends on ignorance. It ignores the dependence of women on men for survival, it ignores the sexual power of women, and it also ignores its own dependence on modern civilization.

In the modern world women do not need men, as individuals, to survive, but men still need women, as individuals, to reproduce. Of course, women still depend on men as a collective to maintain civilization. Without the work of men, modern civilization would collapse in a few days. But modern civilization is so stable, safe and comfortable that women no longer perceive men as necessary or valuable. What women used to get from men through the sexual contract, they now can get through the market or the state. A woman can purchase all the necessities of life (and more) by working 8 hours a day in a comfortable and safe environment. If she can't work, due to single motherhood or a disability, the welfare state will take care of her. Almost everything that women naturally want can be attained through the market or the state. Women's emotions evolved to maximize the price they get in exchange for reproductive services, so they value their sexuality highly. In an environment where women don't need individual men to survive, most men seem unattractive. Modern civilization gives women a lot more purchasing power in the sexual market than men.

Feminism ignores the sexual power of women. Men have greater physical power, but women have a compensating form of power: sexual power. The stronger male desire for sex gives women sexual power over men. Modern civilization takes away (collectivizes) the power of men, but not the power of women. Thus, in this environment women naturally view themselves as intrinsically superior to men. This makes feminism more persuasive because it makes the sexual contract seem unfair. Female sexuality is much too valuable and important to be given away to a useless, inferior "beta" male. Because women have come to view protection and support as their moral right and society's moral obligation, it seems unfair that they should have to pay for those things, especially with their extremely valuable pussies.

Feminism would disappear instantly in the absence of modern civilization. If modern civilization were taken away, and life were once again dangerous and uncomfortable, men would seem much more attractive to women, and traditional sex roles would once again be a balanced exchange. Ironically, feminism can only exist in a comfortable and safe environment created by men.

Feminism does not appeal to rational thought. It does not come knocking on the front door of the mind. It sneaks in through the back door: the subconscious.

Feminism does not engage in discussion or debate about its core premises, because that would be counterproductive. The core beliefs of feminism are placed off limits to debate and discussion in various ways. One is by tying them to identity. When a belief is part of your identity, you perceive an attack on that belief as an attack on you. Feminism portrays opposing views as physical violence directed at women. Disagreeing with a feminist is "attacking" her. People with opposing views are "misogynists". Arguing with a feminist is a Catch-22. If you win the argument, then you are a misogynist and oppressing women. If you win, you lose, and if you lose, you lose.

Feminism sometimes pretends to be empirical and scientific, but it only accepts the data and interpretations that support its views. Feminism uses advocacy research: the social construction of "facts" that fit a preconceived narrative. Sometimes feminists just blatantly lie. Feminism often uses false statistics and interpretations, such as the "1 in 5" rape statistic, which it places beyond logical or empirical falsification. Those who question a rape accusation or rape statistic are labeled as "rape apologists", as if they are enabling rape by wanting accurate knowledge of reality. Feminism often takes a term, such as "rape", and expands its denotation while attempting to retain its connotations. Drunk consensual sex might be labeled "rape" by feminists and included in "rape" statistics, even though most people would not consider it to be rape. Unlike science, feminism uses vague, emotionally charged terms that tend to cloud reason and prevent rational discussion.

Instead of engaging rationally with opposing views, feminism labels them as "oppression" and demands that they be excluded from consideration. Feminism promotes censorship of opposing views. It also demands that children and young adults be indoctrinated with feminist ideology, in the name of "social justice". Feminism uses censorship and indoctrination to defend and propagate itself.

When censorship isn't possible, feminists will use other rhetorical tactics to shut down debate. One such tactic is selective skepticism, aka "tactical nihilism": the selective use of philosophical critiques of knowledge to reject specific knowledge claims. When feminists are backed into an intellectual corner, they try to escape by going up: by taking the argument to another level of discourse. They use the postmodernist trick of denying truth or rationality whenever it is convenient to do so. This is another kind of cherry-picking fallacy. Feminists use general critiques of knowledge selectively against opposing beliefs, but exempt their own beliefs from such critiques. Likewise, feminists use relativism selectively: to give themselves permission to believe whatever they want, but deny their opponents the same "right" to define the truth. This tactic fits the general pattern of claiming all rights for themselves and placing all responsibilities on others.

One way that feminism avoids falsification is by making few direct claims about reality. In that way, feminism is like most religions. Feminism rarely frames its core premises as explicit claims. Instead, it hides them in the presuppositions of its political demands. For example, "End Rape Culture Now!" presupposes that rape is caused by a cultural acceptance of rape, and that it is the responsibility of society (and men) to change the culture. This is a very effective way to propagate ideas. By packing them into the presuppositions of other statements, feminism propagates its core premises without exposing them to criticism or even to conscious awareness. They must be subconsciously accepted for the language of feminism to be interpreted. This also tacitly implies that the core premises of feminism are obvious truths. We normally presuppose things that are generally accepted as true. By placing its core premises into the presuppositions of its language, feminism implies that they are not only true, but are obviously true and should be taken for granted.

I should clarify that when I say something like "Feminism does X" I am being metaphorical. Feminism is just a system of ideas and behavior patterns. By itself, it does nothing. It consists only of information. Those ideas and behavior patterns propagate from one person to another via communication and imitation. Feminism causes feminists (the infected hosts) to do certain things, which then promote the spread of feminism. When I say that feminism does something, I mean that it causes its hosts to do that thing.

The core premises of feminism are learned and propagated subconsciously. Feminists don't have a conscious understanding of what they are doing. They have just learned certain ideas and patterns of behavior. For example, feminists might employ philosophical skepticism as a rhetorical device, but they aren't interested in philosophical critiques of knowledge. They have just learned to use certain simplified versions of philosophical arguments to confuse people and shut down debate. Essentially, feminists have learned to repeat certain simple ideas and use certain rhetorical devices in certain situations. Their ideas were not acquired rationally and cannot be used rationally. You cannot have a rational discussion with a feminist about feminism. They have just learned a few interaction patterns, and if those fail they will simply end the discussion. This is a surprisingly effective method. Most people aren't careful thinkers. They default to emotional, intuitive problem solving.

Feminism has been effective at capturing not only individual minds, but also institutions. Feminism promotes the view that women are oppressed and need various forms of political and social action to remedy their disadvantages. Protecting and supporting women has always been perceived as a vital function of both society and masculinity. People in positions of power (mostly men) can signal their virtue by adopting feminist ideas and policies. By appealing to elites, feminism has managed to infect the major institutions of Western society: the academy, the media, the childhood education system, big corporations, and government bureaucracies. It now has the means of large-scale indoctrination and censorship.

Feminism has encouraged women to go into the work force, and this has helped to propagate feminism. Women who go into the workforce do not usually become plumbers, carpenters, scientists or engineers. They tend to go into areas such as education, media, government, large corporations and academia. Women are indoctrinated with feminism in school and then they choose careers that enable them to propagate feminism. Also, women who choose career over family see greater value in feminism as a justification for their lifestyle and as a way to demand more benefits from society. This feedback loop reinforces feminism in the institutions.

Feminism is part of a system of other Marxist/leftist ideological views. This memetic system has been effective at capturing the minds and institutions of the West. The academy and the media have grown increasingly leftist and feminist over time. Instead of fulfilling their nominal functions of seeking and propagating truth, they have become propagators for leftist ideology. Government bureaucracies and the childhood education system are also highly infested with leftists, and so are many large private corporations. Increasingly, those on the left look to large corporations in the same way they look at the state: not as something to be destroyed, but as something to capture and use for their purposes. In the West, the ideology of the establishment has become highly leftist, even though it is not yet fully communist or socialist. Leftist ideologies are good at providing a moral justification for the existence of institutional power.

Feminism is still evolving. Over the years, feminism has evolved to become better at propagating itself. There was an earlier version of feminism that really did aim to eliminate differences between the sexes. This earlier form of feminism was equally misguided, but less deceptive. It promoted women working but also men being more involved in child-raising. It promoted women asking men out and paying for dates, at least half of the time. That earlier form of feminism died out and was replaced by Marxist feminism, which was more effective at propagating because, instead of trying to actually make people abandon sex roles, it promoted new versions of sex roles that fit the psychology of men and women. Instead of encouraging women to be more like men, it encouraged women to adopt a different female role: the helpless victim of male agency.

Is feminism harmful to its hosts? In most cases, yes. It is difficult to get statistics on the fertility of feminists, but feminism coincides with low fertility in developed societies, and observation suggests that feminists have low average fertility.

Feminism teaches women to view the role of wife and mother as a form of oppression, and to put careers and sexual liberation ahead of reproduction. Feminism does not explicitly tell women not to reproduce (why would it?), but it has the effect of reducing reproduction in the infected hosts. The low fertility of modern societies is not just due to feminism. It is also a result of birth control and other aspects of modernity. However, feminism both enables low fertility and is enabled by it. Feminism encourages women to have fewer children in various ways: by promoting sexual liberation, by promoting career over family, and by promoting birth control and abortion. Feminism is also enabled by low fertility, because low fertility makes it possible for women to go into the workforce. Women in the workforce then propagate feminism in various ways. Women in the workforce also find feminism more compelling, because they can use it to advocate for their interests and to justify their life choices. Feminism demands that working women receive more jobs, better pay, and social services such as childcare. By advocating for working women, feminism is implicitly advocating against stay-at-home mothers, because the jobs and wealth transferred to working women must come from somewhere.

Feminism insists that women not be evaluated by their sex appeal or reproductive success. Feminism rejects beauty "standards" as arbitrary and oppressive, because they are ideals that most women fail to attain. This ignores the underlying biological reason for norms of female beauty: that female beauty indicates fertility, or in other words, reproductive potential. Feminism rejects feminine ideals that are rooted in tradition and biology, such as the chaste virgin, the loyal wife, and the loving mother. Feminism replaces them with anti-ideals: the slut, the career woman, and the single mother or the childless woman. Feminism validates the choices of women who reject marriage and motherhood. This makes it easier for many women to opt out of reproduction, especially when they are young and high on their sexual power. They discover the emptiness of the feminist life when they reach their thirties, but by then it is too late to do anything about it. Feminism then provides them with a post facto justification for their life choices.

Although feminism is a memetic disease, the explanation of feminism cannot be limited to its memetic properties. To be complete, an explanation of feminism has to include the role of modernity. If life were still a struggle to survive, women would view men as saviors, not oppressors. If women were still having five or more children, traditional sex roles would be inevitable. Feminism can only exist in the environment created by modern civilization.

The industrial revolution freed most people from lives of hard, physical labor. Technology and fossil fuels created abundance as economic growth outpaced population growth. That abundance made it possible for almost every child to live to adulthood. Modernity has, at least temporarily, eliminated the problem of survival in the West and other developed societies. Birth control technologies, such as the birth control pill, have decoupled sex from reproduction. Easy and effective birth control allowed people to have sex without reproducing. These developments were seen by most people as unqualified goods. The industrial and sexual revolutions gave people more power and freedom, but they also created some new problems.

The human emotional system evolved in a environment of scarcity and without birth control technology. Our emotions are not adapted to the modern world. They are adapted to a world in which sex makes babies and most babies die young. Many problems are due to the misfit between our emotions and the modern world. Essentially, modern civilization divorces our emotions from the fundamental problems that they evolved to solve: survival and reproduction. Modernity leaves the human emotional system with its wheels spinning in the air like a car that has been put up on blocks. The engine still runs, but the emotional drives don't take the car anywhere, biologically speaking.

In the modern world, every woman has the means of survival around her, in the form of modern civilization. She also has the means of reproduction within her. Men still have the problem of reproduction to solve, which now appears to them as the problem of getting laid. That problem is open-ended, and it presents men with a difficult challenge. But women have no real problems to solve. Instead of bringing about a paradise on Earth, at least for women, this modern condition causes various pathological behaviors, as the human emotional system spins its wheels without resistance.

Ideologies can harness these powerful emotional drives for their own purposes. They can plug into the human emotional system by defining new, artificial problems and claiming to be the solution to those problems. Feminism is one such ideology. It plugs into the sexual and social emotions that have been disconnected from reality by modernity. It offers women an artificial substitute for a natural life, and many find that substitute compelling. Ideologies such as feminism give their believers a sense of meaning and purpose in life by giving them artificial problems to solve. They project an illusion of progress onto the windshield while using the motion of the wheels to propagate themselves.

Feminism is one of the pathologies of the modern world. The industrial and sexual revolutions have created a condition of per capita energy abundance. That energy has to go somewhere. The use of that energy is directed by emotions. Whoever or whatever can control human emotions can use that energy for its own purposes. An environment with an abundance of energy is ecologically unstable. It was inevitable that some forms would arise that could use that energy to reproduce themselves. Feminism is one such form: a memetic disease that thrives in the modern world in the same way that bacteria thrive on a plate of fresh agar jelly.

Now, maybe someone will say that low fertility is good because the population can't grow forever, and so feminism is good because it promotes low fertility. First, I should point out that this essay is about what feminism is, not whether it is good or bad, or what we should do about it. Having said that, I agree that the population can't grow forever, and that we need low fertility to maintain modern civilization. I don't think that feminism is the best way to solve the population problem, however. I think we should try to solve such problems rationally, by conscious choice and design, not by allowing a memetic disease to infect us. Feminism is not a long term solution to the problem of population growth, any more than smallpox is. Feminism is a disease, although one with non-lethal effects. As such, it will sweep through the human population, as smallpox did, leaving behind a population that is resistant to it. People will evolve resistance to feminism, as they evolved resistance to smallpox. That resistance could be biological, cultural or both, as it was with smallpox. Feminism is not a viable way of life, any more than smallpox is a viable way of life. It is a disease.

The disease model explains the contradictions and hypocrisy of feminism. Feminism pretends to be fighting for women, when in fact it is fighting for itself. That is why feminism blames almost every problem on culture or society (and when it says "society" it means either men or culture). Take the issue of rape, for example. Feminism rejects any practical advice for women on how to avoid being raped. Instead, feminism proposes fighting "rape culture" and "teaching men not to rape". It does this for two reasons. One is to deny that women have the agency to avoid rape. The responsibility of preventing rape must be transferred entirely to men. This fits the general pattern of denying female agency and responsibility. The second and more important reason is that "fighting rape culture" means propagating feminist ideology. Feminism views almost every problem as due to wrongthink, and thus the solution to almost every problem is feminism. Even when feminism proposes legal or institutional changes rather than cultural changes, those changes always expand the scope of institutions that are infected with feminism. This makes sense once you understand that feminism exists to propagate itself, not to solve the problems of human beings. Feminism focuses on cultural change because that is how it propagates.

Again, I am not suggesting that feminism is a conscious agent that has beliefs and acts on them. Feminism is a meme complex: a system of ideas and behavior patterns that evolved to propagate itself. Memes that are good at propagating together become adapted to each other and eventually form a coherent unit of reproduction. Over the years, the feminist meme complex acquired various useful memes and incorporated them into itself. It acquired memes that are good at capturing social institutions, memes that are good at defending ideologies from criticism, and various other ideas and behavior patterns. A system of memes emerged that is self-reinforcing and good at propagating itself from mind to mind. The fit of form to function is not the result of conscious design. It is the result of evolution.

Feminism is dishonest, impractical and irrational, but it is persuasive. Feminism infects female minds via irrational methods of persuasion. It then encourages women to change their behavior in ways that suppress reproduction and help to spread feminism to other minds. Infected women become meme propagators rather than gene propagators. Through women, feminism makes demands on men and society. It uses women, men and society to propagate itself.

Feminism is a memetic disease.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Kvasir

avatar

Gender : Male Virgo Posts : 1402
Join date : 2013-01-09
Age : 33
Location : Gleichgewicht

PostSubject: Re: Feminism Thu Dec 21, 2017 11:09 pm

Good find on the essay. I'll happily add it to my collection of other books and essays on feminism.

This stood out to me:

Quote :
Feminism does not appeal to rational thought. It does not come knocking on the front door of the mind. It sneaks in through the back door: the subconscious.

He does a good job connecting the biological ramifications of the feminist meme to its cultural dysfunctions of emotions and sexual energy. What this virus exploits is latent sexual nature between the genders, which is why it has become embedded into cultural psychology with little resistance. The Judaic tactic.

Feminism however, is not anti-man. It is anti-woman, anti-feminine; female nihilism. Men are simply the conduit of its nihilism and the ones who suffer, because they inevitably have to suffer from it, on a natural sexual basis. The female womb is contaminated by this mental disease, making most females unattractive to men regardless of the quality of their sexual appeal, and this is one of the negative biological links to this mimetic virus subverting sexual customs and desires.

A society of feminization must progress on the current of female demands and ultimatums no matter how absurd, that is its logical function. Hence, such movements we see now such as this present "MeToo" movement of sexual victimization of any woman who wants to chime in with accusations of any man she wants. No man is safe in his masculinity anymore. Its all open season on men based on whimsical feelings and delusions, and petty power obsessions that artificial words and online superwaves of communication satisfy. The virus is now rampant, inexorable.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Slaughtz



Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 1762
Join date : 2012-04-28
Age : 27
Location : Brink

PostSubject: Re: Feminism Fri Feb 02, 2018 6:58 am

Victims get paid. Women look for power. Power, to a woman, is getting more for doing less. Money does that. The disabled and weak are victims. Women create their own "man" in their image with taxes and their votes. Let us vote on what makes something a chimpanzee and not a crocodile, next.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
AutSider

avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 1344
Join date : 2015-04-29
Location : Outside

PostSubject: Re: Feminism Fri Feb 02, 2018 10:08 pm



The difference between the "truly oppressed" and the parasites who merely want to take over the system they haven't built and don't have to capacity to build or maintain on their own is that the former will want to separate themselves from their "oppressor", while the latter will demand the "oppressor" to surrender power (but to continue doing all the work).

An example of the former are white nationalists, who want to separate themselves from non-whites.

An example of the latter are the non-whites who come into white countries and demand power in them, and feminists who don't want to and aren't capable of creating anything of value on their own, like many non-whites, but merely want to parasitize off of what others have created.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 17310
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 52
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Feminism Tue Feb 13, 2018 7:09 pm



Paternalism is the new name for capitalist oligarchs.
Daughter rebels against her own father, and becomes a wife to the State.
No real man can ever live-up to the ideal, or compete with an abstraction.
Biological men are insufficient. They fail to be the ideal.
Women wonder why....and they either blame men or themselves.
Clueless.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 17310
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 52
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Feminism Fri Feb 16, 2018 9:50 am

Only a Jew is tolerated to speak about uncomfortable truths...



If a European male says the same thing he's a 'Nazi'.

Ironic that his Jewish identity is a product of an inversion...matrilineal not matriarchy is the inversion of the Indo-European identity which is patrilineal and patriarchy.
His Jewishness, his identity, is passed on from mother to daughter, and not from father to son.
It's why Abraham is tested and told to sacrifice his own begotten son....and not his wife.
Abrahamism has a one Male....God.
All biological males are His representations......and all females are his family, are his wives.
The chosen males are keepers of his harem. They only act on his behalf because he is spirit, meaning idea, and lacks corporeality.They are his inferior representatives.
Abrahamic god is a cuck, and when he is not, as with the Christian story, he makes the biological male a cuck.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Feminism

Back to top Go down
 
Feminism
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 31 of 35Go to page : Previous  1 ... 17 ... 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35  Next
 Similar topics
-
» Dissecting Feminism in a nut-shell
» Antony Hegarty - Future Feminism

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Know Thyself :: AGORA-
Jump to: