What is feminism, really, about? Is it about equal rights for both women and men? Is it about women's rights? Female supremacy?
I'm going to show that it's mostly about female supremacy - a revenge against the masculine.
Let's start from the beginning. Feminism became popular in the West around the 60's. Women started protesting alleged oppression against females due to the sinister patriarchy. According to many feminists, house work, raising children, vaginal penetration, etc are forms of patriarchal oppression and rape. Gender roles, to them ( feminists ), are viewed as mere social constructs that have no relation whatsoever to biology/nature. Males and females are, essentially, equal in their eyes.
Now to delve deeper beneath the surface, let's take a look at the psyche of this feministic ethos. What is its nature? It is nihilistic, anti-nature; a resentment towards the superiority and domination of the masculine, the males. These feminists are hyper-aware of their own weakness and submissiveness in relation to the masculine ( their dependence upon males ) thus, they seek to demonize and eradicate masculinity in males, to emasculate them. They seek to level the playing field, to equalize. This desire for equality is not a be all end all no matter how many times they insist it is. Equalization is a mere stage in their ascent to power. It's akin to how a boxer will trick his opponent into lowering his guard in order to have a clear and effective strike. They seek power just like all other humans, but they will hide under the pretense of equality to mask their true intentions, to seem benevolent.
Many of these feminists have had bad experiences with their fathers, ex-boyfriends, and males who raped them. lets dissect the feminist rape victims. What do they always say rape is merely about? POWER. This is a classic case of projectionism. These feminists are so hyper-aware of domination/submission - of power because it is, actually, what they are all about. They seek to reign supreme and dominate males. Yes, rape does contain elements of power, domination/submission, obviously, but that doesn't mean rape is merely about dominating and degrading females. That would be like saying a thief that mugs some elderly lady for her purse was a mere case of some misogynistic power-trip as opposed to a desire for cash. Many feminists even go so far as to claim that rape has nothing at all to do with sex or lust, but that it is a mere case of the misogynistic power-trip.
It's no secret to many of us here that many if not most feminists are misandric and seek female supremacy. They are so vocal about it, yet the mainstream liberal media lies about it. Many feminists have been trying to emasculate boys and men in various ways. One major way they have been doing this is by demonizing masculinity. Boys are no longer allowed to be aggressive, dominant, competitive, rough, etc. Now it's ideal for mothers to make their sons wear dresses, lip stick, nail polish, and other feminine things. Genders are mere social constructs after all, right?
Another form of emasculation these radical, misandric feminists employ is the promotion of the absurd idea that most females are sexually attracted to beta-males as opposed to alpha-males.
And then the rarer, but still existent form of emasculation some feminists try to employ is literal castration. Does national castration day sound familiar? Guess who created the idea? You got it! Feminists.
I could go more into depth about other secondary details, but I feel I have established the gist of feminism in a nut-shell. But to reiterate and conclude, feminism is, ultimately, characterized by a resentment towards the masculine and the will to power via female supremacy, and male degradation, emasculation. It's inherently nihilistic ( anti-nature ).
Last edited by Primal Rage on Sun Nov 03, 2013 5:46 pm; edited 4 times in total
Just another flavor of Marxism. Bitter intelligentsia saw how communist economics failed, and moved to the social sphere. There is exists a balance. Muslims are overly patriarchal. The basis of civilization consists of the sexual virtue of women. Only people who are born from Jewish mothers are considered actual Jews. So a bit of matriarchy can't hurt. Germanic tribes had females on the front lines occasionally. I see no problem with female heads of state. Many have probably done quite good of a job. Cleopatra for instance personified the Egyptian relationship with Rome. In regards to the motives of these people, I would like to think they hate the cards they where dealt in life, and project that hate else where. It's all extremely hypocritical, because it has no sense of proportion. Criticizing video games should be 999999th on your list of dealing with womens problems. Also ironic since it lends it self to the likes of cultural perspectivism, when associating Western patriachy to primitive societies.
These feminists are hyper-aware of their own weakness and submissiveness in relation to the masculine ( their dependence upon males ) thus, they seek to demonize and eradicate masculinity in males, to emasculate them.
Don't underestimate women - I find it to be very important to judge the opponent as accurately as possible, no under and no over-estimation. Women, in today's western world, don't depend much on men. The tide is slowly rolling over but they are still in a very favourable position. Yet, it's in times of difficulty that we get better. In other words, when the going is tough it makes one stronger (or breaks one) and when life is easy then we become weaker.
An organism develops and adapts to the circumstances, so do the sexes. On average, over long timespans, there shouldn't be an advantage or a disadvantage to either being a man or a woman because if life is tough on an organism, then he'll adapt, that includes psychology, 'self-reflective' psychology. The whole idea that there is an imbalance over the long haul would be nihilistic. A snake doesn't envy a bird - both are what they are. If the life of a snake becomes more difficult then it will try to adapt and those which can 'bear' the existence of being a snake will go on and live. To bear it would be the minimum.
I don't think women are 'aware' of their weakness and submissiveness to men.
In these times, feminine qualities go a long way - it's the masculine strengths which are dismissed because they aren't very useful in a highly ordered, regulated, high population density, protective environment where a woman can get a child and raise it on her own. The resources are provided by the society as a whole - no individual man required. They aren't weak and they don't feel weak. They feel entitled because people are granting them their titles. There is a saying here - "Someone who isn't complaining isn't well." Here's my observation - People who are advocating their weakness aren't weak at all. They just have no shame to manipulate you in that manner. Why should they - it seems to work - it works as long as they get away with it easily.
The feminine is comfortable with being submissive. That's not a weakness in itself and it doesn't make the submissive person angry. It's that very submissiveness that makes a submissive person being comfortable with being dominated.
Feminism is about supremacy, yes. But that kind of supremacy is making women just weaker every day on a personal, individual level. Men have now more of a reason to grow tougher and control their weakness for women and their own feminine nature.
When I speak of women being weak, inferior, and dependent, I'm referring to a more primal context. In nature, a woman by herself is a sitting duck. She can easily fall victim to some savage that wants to fuck her brains out and then eat her; she has miniscule physical strength juxtaposed with the average male. A lone male in the wild stands a way better chance even though it's still in his best interest to remain in a tribe; the average male has evolved to endure the harshness of nature. In this sense he is superior to the female. Also, the male has superior mental fortitude in relation to the average feminine.
Last edited by Primal Rage on Mon Nov 04, 2013 10:45 am; edited 2 times in total
Ephemeron
Gender : Posts : 37 Join date : 2012-09-22 Location : down here
When I speak of women being weak, inferior, and dependent, I'm referring to a more primal context. In nature, a woman by herself is a sitting duck.
What you consider weakness in women, is a result of domestication. Were we to strip away all the pretensions, expectations and other such nonsense about women one fact remains: They are formed to endure pain of a nature that men will never know the likeness of.
In nature, every female species is just as capable of defending herself and her young except during pregnancy, and actual labor. Once she has given birth, her protective powers and urgency in the matter actually surpass that of the male. Just step between a bear cub and its mother, or wittness the urgency that the female spider protects her nest of young. But it is no mistake that everything in nature has some means to preserve their life whether it be claws, fangs, or poison. Of course women too possess all of these, albeit in a more subtle and refined way and we men err when we breed weakness into the race and put them in neat little boxes.
Mother nature is female. Sole purpose of sustaining itself. More in tune with instincts. Well documented fact, that all over the world mothers lift cars in order to save their child. Insect tribes all have the queen as top of the ladder. Reproduction is key. Females are the most valuable asset. Represent collectivism or the will of the greater good.
The male is Anti-Christ. More unique and individual. Set out to conquer the world or die. Male expandability is key. He is Apollo set out on the impossible mission to defeat Dionysus. Will fail, yet loves the battle.
Aliens is so good, because at its essence it's about two alpha females clashing i out, over the survival of their kin. That's female empowerment. This stuff is mind-control. Feminism is fiat.
What we need is some good ole anarchy. Then the more genuine power relationships will start to reveal themselves. Obviously any woman would want to rule the world, but any man would enjoy ruling it MORE. That's what needs to be recognized.
Anfang
Gender : Posts : 3989 Join date : 2013-01-23 Age : 40 Location : Castra Alpine Grug
Men have on average a much higher potential for physical strength and speed. One just has to look at the data of various athletes. No emotional, child saving, super powers will compensate for that.
When I said, women aren't weak then that is in relation to the environment and compared to men in said environment. Civilization, large group sizes, law and order enforced by an abstracted god like power... that's an environment which women are better suited for that's why we see more and more feminine men walking around.
Adaptability is one thing - but males are also about creating their own order, not bowing to what is established. Their own order is just the extension of their selves. Creating their own family and values - tribes and so on. That puts a limit on group sizes. That makes the hierarchies taller and not flatter. Flat hierarchies are about integrating and mingling within large group sizes, bringing individuals closer together. In a modern state the individual is easily replaceable with another idiot who can easily be trained because the ideal is the sameness ('equality') of all individuals.
Equality is about sameness. Both are just words but what is trying to be achieved by policies under the name of equality is sameness - so that's what equality actually means when it's being advocated.
reasonvemotion
Gender : Posts : 681 Join date : 2013-01-09 Location : The Female Spirit
Media myths of an infertility epidemic and man shortage defy statistical information. Men attempt to live up to the expectations of masculinity, but society is not living up to its end of the bargain, economic pressures, globalization, make it difficult for men to live up to their expected roles as providers, so traditional masculinity continues to collapse. Once valued male attributes are no longer honoured or rewarded. Women also suffer. Feminism having promised women a stronger sense of their own identity, have given them little more than an identity crises, (from Backlash, Faludi). She writes, "You may be free and equal now, but you have never been more miserable. It, Feminism, has effectively robbed them of one thing upon which the happiness of most women rests - men".
I agree, Reasonvemotion. Feminism has made women miserable too in certain aspects. A female that desires a traditional role as a stay at home mother is often ridiculed and scorned in feminist circles.
Like a fluid, women just flow wherever there is least resistance.
Ever wonder why feminists endlessly whine about white men, but are completely silent about Muslim men? Well, look no further than the quote above.
Feminist literature like tgwtdt warns us about rampant misogyny among Swedish men. Hmm, I wonder why it's Swedish and not Saudi men they are so concerned about.
Last edited by Laconophile on Mon Nov 04, 2013 8:06 pm; edited 1 time in total
It's like a child who only whines at people who give in to it. Why would a child protest a stern steadfast adult? That's stupid. Instead it's going to call the whipped parent a big meany, because it works.
Obviously it's a blend of both to varying degrees. To much either-or mentality, not enough genuine truth seeking. Don't associate your ego with your ideas. Don't feel powerful in proving others wrong.
Sorry if I appeared too overruling. I'm not trying to contradict anybody. I'm trying to underrule, to go to the root.
It's true that feminism is in bed with marxists and anti-whites and non-whites, and that it has been promoted by some shady elites. It's also true that feminists are mostly bitter ugly women and spinsters jealous of white men's prominence and penises.
But the root of the matter is that men - the orderers - are supposed to resist such entropy.
The raw material of feminism - ugly bitter masculoids and spinsters - have been around since the beginning of history. Only recently have men stopped laughing at them and started taking them seriously.
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37201 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
Yes, men are the weak part. This is why I claim that men are feminized.
Strength is a measure of weakness. Feminism is rooted in a world-view men came up with.
Females, as always, follow. they submit to the strongest or the most popular: to quality or quantity. How a particular female submits and to what, is determined by her own intellectual and spiritual qualities.
Weaker females, more feminine ones, are prone to submit to quantity; the stronger ones, the smarter ones and the more masculinize ones prone to submit to quality. Ironically it was male systems which suppressed female natural genetic and memetic filtering roles that permitted bad genes to enter the bloodlines. The consequence was that growing numbers of effete, inferior males and females were protected and allowed to perpetuate inferior genes, resulting in them being lees able to discern superior from inferior memes.
These are now the most passionate supporters of feminism or react with feminist tactics, see MRA.
Satyr wrote: " Feminism is rooted in a world-view men came up with."
This is where I part ways with you, Satyr. I believe that females are the ones that came up with Feminism; it emanates from their resentment towards masculine superiority. But, of course, it's possible that male economic elitists and Jews manipulated its flow in directions which can benefit them.
Nobody came up with it. It's a automatic societal response to economic prosperity. Look at the world today and see how there's a clear correlation between poverty and patriarchy. Just as the Dark Age Crusaders where by a level of margins more masculine than the later wealthy Romans. Europe's downfall was the greed caused by the feminization which kept it in a constant state of internal warfare. In order to economically compete with each other more and more feminism became required. If they would of competed as a united force with other civilizations, then masculinity would of remained. That never became necessary because they where to superior. Rome had real foes like the Central Asians and Persians. Christianity was great in order to unite Europe against the Muslim hordes, but it gave to much power to each and every individual. Seeing people as divine souls instead of mechanical beings. This created wealth and thus a domino effect of feminization.
Now most people are not aware underlying causes of their beliefs. Do not judge the sinners for they know not what they do.
Do you know what heaven is? Salvation.
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37201 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
Feminism is the logical follow through of a nihilistic ideology which places all men beneath God, the alpha male, and equates them as sinners ....all equally able to save themselves from reality. It is also remains true to the logic that appearance does not matter and that there is some hidden, soul, some binding uniform spirit.
If one pushes the logic further he must also come to the conclusion that all divergences are superficial and illusions, where animal, bug, and man are one and the same. Having turned sex into a pastime, a hobby, a choice, having sex with children, animals or vegetables is equally normal. It's God masturbating.
These ideologies originated in the most advanced and populated city states. Ancient Egypt, India, and China. Confucius was the most philosophical, Brahmans where pantheistic, and Egyptian High Priests where remarkably focused on death, also conceptions of evil. Those where the three originators of it all. I don't think they could of influenced each other much either, in the first stages anyways. Although the Hindu mutation of Buddhism did vastly influence the Confucius civilization, perhaps naturally because it was so philosophical and needed its spiritual void to be filled. The Roman religion could never mutate into nihilism, due to it's origins, to far of a stretch. So once they became to over-saturated and wealthy of a city state, it seems only natural that a cult of Jewish and Egyptian origins would aberrate the natural order. If you watch the movie Pi, you'll recognize Judaism has a lot to do with math. The Egyptian mythology has especially a lot to do with cosmology.
This is the actual Christianity as initially intended. Pretty sophisticated and well thought out stuff. How did it all go a stray? The Roman civilization had an indigenous religion, that suited only it self, just as the Greek Empire who previously collapsed. It was not a civilizational religion, but this was, and Rome burned before it really got going. Then it mutated and went through rapid changes; through economic ups and downs. Buddhist and Hindu civilizations and have virtually stayed the same over all this time, not enough growth, or collapses, to make it anything happen.
