Feminism

"Sure men treated women as domesticated animals that they own. But women treated men as grazing and gathering resources that they can exploit."

That's the ouch from today's session. lol

— Curt Doolittle (@curtdoolittle) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Looks like the exploiters are dominating the west - Americanism - and the owners are dominating the middle-east.

I've been trying to figure out why women have such a problem with this. It's because (a) it means they would have to analyze emotions/intuitions (and can't). (b) it means they would lose their primary weapon of influence (they do, they would). [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— Curt Doolittle (@curtdoolittle) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Analysis reveals what is concealed.
Knowledge may or may not lead to understanding; understanding may or may not lead to wisdom.
Understanding demystifies. those who depend on mystification do not like it.
Demystification reduces many of life's simple pleasures, like sex, and dancing, and absolutes.
Of course one can still partake without being overcome, sacrificing performance and immersion.
There's always a part of the mind that remain outside the participation - an indifferent observer.

How is it even a matter of choice in an entirely deterministic universe?
There is no gender, 'cause it's a social construct, so it ain't a woman's right or issue.
Haven't they heard that men can now become pregnant?
What if, instead of Jill, Jacks gets pregnant and wants an abortion to continue his lifestyle choices, which aren't even his own?
These antiquated stereotypes are tiresome.

Positive benefits are guaranteed, Negative costs are optional, see? The female reproductive psyche in its primal form. The partially eugenic tendency for selecting male efficiency in eliminating costs made dysgenic.

Female's reproductive success is more or less guaranteed whereas the consequences of their choices were usually absorbed by the greater family/community making them less cognitively conscious of consequences or at the very least extremely risk averse/denying. A "cost" only is meaningful when there is no determined beginning or end.

Yes, the collective - via institutions and technologies and techniques - must reduce the female's risks and biological costs so that she can become more masculine in her attitude and social powers.
Feminization of man includes the pseudo-masculinization of women, because you can reduce the superior to an inferior state but you cannot raise the inferior to a superior state, you can only teach it to imitate what it can never be.
Female psychologies are more pliable. Their psyche is naturally a follower - exercising her power indirectly, through manipulation.
Feminizing males leaves a gap which females need to fill - penis envy is a complex never explored - so females begin to imitate what they understand of masculinity, which they learn from pop-culture.
Females become caricatures of masculinity - hypermasculine - because when you imitate something you don't understand you always exaggerate - see how children imitate adult behaviour.

They cannot imitate masculine creativity and thinking outside the box, or challenging conventional beliefs, without becoming caricatures.

If choice can be manipulated whether physically or subversively then does it really exist at all? Can any man be completely indifferent to their own sexual instincts/existential mortality to not attempt to curb it in their favor to some degree?

At this point, the concept of choice largely seems to be used as a tool for the social control of competing males by justifying the success of ruling males, yet as we can see through the MRA/MGTOW movements there seems to be a dissatisfaction with this system. They might hide it under justifications of abuses of the system but i think INSTINCTUALLY, they lack respect for the ruling elite men/social "alpha males" who have no problems with the modern order. They endlessly target modern women by undermining the evidence of their agency which implies that the real target of their grievances is and always has been other MEN.

They continue to refuse to engage these men and call them out for their cowardice in their refusal to prove their superiority through combat/violence and instead rely on the judgements of sheltered females who might choose superior qualities but qualities that are often never put to the test in a lethal environment. This resentment is similar to that of the Capitalist or his inheritors whose dominance depends on military/police providing him the "safe space" he needs to dominate, power through proxy.

It doesn't matter how many intellectual justifications are made as to how modern dominance is a proxy for ancient dominance, men only respect action and as long as modern "alpha" males continue to indulge in their safe environment, no real man will accept this form of "superiority". The less intelligent men might not be able to think outside the box but they can still FEEL outside the box.

Ah, now it makes sense.

The "pill" was just an extension of other medieval and pre-modern civilizational technologies that served to favor domesticated feminine men over rebellious masculine men, and of course who else would be its creator but a man from the most feminine tribe of all...

Guess ill have to start adopting this strategy... not.

Impulso Oscuro wrote:

Ah, now it makes sense.

The "pill" was just an extension of other medieval and pre-modern civilizational technologies that served to favor domesticated feminine men over rebellious masculine men, and of course who else would be its creator but a man from the most feminine tribe of all...

Everything makes sense with Evolutionary Psychology.

It makes sense that women would be attracted to the alpha when ovulating and the beta when not...when they need a sucker to help them raise the offspring the alpha seeded.
Watch documentaries of chimpanzees.

Impulso Oscuro wrote:

Guess ill have to start adopting this strategy... not.

If you want to be the rug she steps on...the "nice guy"....
A "bad boy" is characterized by indifference...not aggression, vulgarity, but indifference - this is considered "confidence".
Deal with females as if they were dudes.
Sexual neediness comes across as weakness, and, like I've said, whatever is below what she has evaluated herself as being - a tricky thing to evaluate - is what she looses attraction towards.
Men tend to over-estimate female weakness, or what a woman thinks of herself, so they show weakness because women tell them they "like sensitive guys".

Satyr wrote:

If you want to be the rug she steps on...the "nice guy"....
A "bad boy" is characterized by indifference...not aggression, vulgarity, but indifference - this is considered "confidence".
Deal with females as if they were dudes.
Sexual neediness comes across as weakness, and, like I've said, whatever is below what she has evaluated herself as being - a tricky thing to evaluate - is what she looses attraction towards.
Men tend to over-estimate female weakness, or what a woman thinks of herself, so they show weakness because women tell them they "like sensitive guys".

Well indifference is not a feminine trait and given the fact that most females are either on the pill or delaying their mate selection in favor of careers or their own inflated standards, it only practically serves one targeting younger or generally non-western women, whom would be the ones who most appreciate such a quality.

Sexual neediness might come across as weakness, but without understanding why it exists and being willing to overlook it as a symptom of a foreign tribe's attack upon one's people, their own standards serve as the death knell of their own people.

The chosen know that women would rather die than to settle down, and have weaponized this instinct against the west.

Everyone knows what is "ideal" but we don't live in "ideal" times, we live in times of single mother households, we live in times of feminine fathers, we live in times of decreasing sexual experience in youth, we live in times of having to deal with other races, we live in the modern world, and despite wishing to remain true to the ancients, sometimes we must understand and think inside our sphere of existence, and be willing to compromise so we can rebuild, or else face annihilation.

I hypothesize that the 'pill' affects female hormone level and that has to do with their unnatural acceptance of feminine/postmodern "men", along with the much more pragmatic explanation, that feminine males tend to compensate deficiencies with money/income, which allows women a steady source of surplus income to raise children with.

EDIT:

Also it's common knowledge and common sense to know that Eugenicists invented contraceptive technology, so keep that in mind when it comes to birth-control.

Æon wrote:

I hypothesize that the 'pill' affects female hormone level and that has to do with their unnatural acceptance of feminine/postmodern "men", along with the much more pragmatic explanation, that feminine males tend to compensate deficiencies with money/income, which allows women a steady source of surplus income to raise children with.

EDIT:

Also it's common knowledge and common sense to know that Eugenicists invented contraceptive technology, so keep that in mind when it comes to birth-control.

Thinking about Heisman, given that many of those "Eugenicists" were likely of Anglo decent, they probably shared the same frame of victimhood that the chosen have, and great victims do think alike. I think its ironic that such a movement even existed among them despite their eternal moralizing over being conquered by the Normans. It would make sense that given how feminine they were, and how masculine their opposition was, that they would develop contraception as a means of expressing their continued resentment towards them because i doubt they were explicitly created for the sake of controlling the black population.

What victims psychology shares is fatalism - messianic spirit is group fatalism. The idea that it has been ordained by a universal agency - god, absolute order etc.
Destiny - American "manifest destiny," Jewish choseness.
What victims, also, share is rebelliousness against nature; sense of resentment towards their fate.
Schizophrenia - compartmentalization. On the one hand to believe all is preordained and they have a central role in what has been determined and on the other to bear it like a unwanted burden, to resent what has been preordained.

How does it manifest?
As a hatred of all earthly order; hatred of natural order, of all man-made order.
Their rebelliousness destroys what stands in the way of divine destiny.
Protestantism is a protest against human mediators, human authorities, so it is closest to Judaism and finds in Americanism a self-destructive synthesis.
The feminine spirit of undermining earthly, biological, tangible masculinity, so as to submit to omnipotent/omniscient, perfect, ideal masculinity.
No real man can ever match their ideal male.

They await the "true messiah" who will destroy these earthly pretenders, their imperfect mediators, finally unifying them with the one, which is the nil.
In Kabbalah this mythology becomes a mission to liberate divine sparks.

It all reeks of Catholicism to me.

Keep-in-mind that Christians were Roman plebian slaves, enthralled to Cæsar, and then to the Pope, in 0AD, in 500AD, in 1000AD, in 1500AD, in 2000AD, today is no different. Christianity/Protestantism can only be properly understood as lesser than Catholicism. Roman, and then European serfs, were made to obey their authorities. Those Authorities were the Diocese and Archbishops. The 'Protestant Reformation' failed, essentially. Because in "interpreting" the Bible however you like, doesn't mean you are free, or that you've escaped the system that has dominated for millenniums now.

The Christian God is multi-faceted, is it Jesus Christ, Crucified, is it His Father, or is it not the kaiser of Rome???

Jews used Christians early on as pawns to their own rebellion against Rome, countless attempts to Liberate Jerusalem from the military and physical power of Rome.



In terms of Eugenics, it scales from the top-down. Surely those at the top want to "thin the herd", they admit this openly. Those underneath them, the New Age Priestly class, are happy to oblige, as self-hatred and nihilism are intrinsic in the Eugenicist movement. Oscuro has a point. It's about self-hatred and self-annihilation. Those are the predicates for the use of force, to implement and then mandate, poisons which will ultimately sterilize, maim, or euthanize others.

It's a pattern that cannot be avoided or ignored, just as thousands of years ago, Torturers were very happy to unleash their Sadism against those charged with heresy by the Catholic Church, The Church. The One and Only Church.

Jarno wrote:

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

Is that video on youtube anywhere... I wanna read the comments lol

This was newsworthy.

perpetualburn wrote:

Jarno wrote:

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

Is that video on youtube anywhere... I wanna read the comments lol

haha, seems like everyone does

In nature the limit to female sexual power was the costs/risks associated with her reproductive role.
Paternalism served to replace this restriction with an ideal - with its morals and institutions, e.g., marriage, reducing natural costs and risks.
Nihilism eliminates paternalism but maintains the technologies of restricting risks and costs by abstracting masculinity - paternalism - into an faceless ideology that nullifies biological, i.e., natural identifiers.
This adjusts the female's genetic/memetic filtering agency forcing males to adjust/adapt or be excluded from the gene pool, in accordance with institutionalized morals, ideals - memes that negate all natural identifiers.
Feminization.
Males are forced to adopt feminine methods of seduction. Those who cannot - males with a pronounced masculine essence - are excluded, and those with a more pronounced feminine essence are included - or those that can, at least, fake it, conceal, manipulate, undermine, etc....all feminine tactics.
Some effete, beta males, see this as an opportunity to outperform those males they could not have in the past by making of themselves the ideal emasculated male that agrees with the prevailing modern/postmodern ideal.

Paternalism restricted both female and male sexuality.
Romanticism was a way of restricting masculine promiscuity and marriage is a technology that evolved to restrict both male inter-group competitiveness and female insidious sexual power.
As I once told that imbecile that was once the main youtube representative of the MRA movement - Stardusk - by denouncing paternalism - virtue signaling to females - he eliminated the only way he, and those like him, could ever pass on his genes, and the only way the majority of modern males could have ever existed.
The truth is that without Paternalism most people alive today would not have existed at all.

Of course this limit on sexuality was more detrimental for females who only have sex as their source of power - their control over the ovum and their relative control over who has an increased probability of fertilizing it, viz., her concealed menstrual cycles, her orgasm, etc. all serve as mechanisms of increasing insemination probabilities.

Another function of Paternalism being negated by modern/postmodern nihilistic social/moral norms:
Marriage did not only integrate as many males - and females - into society, making them investors in its weell-being but it also served as a way of establishing family alliances - genealogical - creating a network of individuals that expanded the individuals options.
Americanism - hyper-individualsim - eliminates this network forcing the individual to create and maintain his/her own. A network that cannot match that which includes mutigenerational connections.
The individual is disconnected form his genetic past forcing him to submit to institutional ideals/morals.

In heterogeneous societies - dominating in modernity - the pater is a undesirable influence over children that the state wants to integrate into tis value systems and standards. Children with no fathers have no competing source of ideals, and so adjust to the prevailing norms, or seek alternatives in anti-estalbihsmsnet social structures to express their animosity towards a a missing father figure. Their hatred towards the state - distrust, rebelliousness, anarchy, hyper-skepticism etc. - is rooted in their resentment towards their own fathers.
Institutionalization is a relief for them.
They either see in it a absent father-figure or a masculine archetype they can rebel against so as to complete their maturation process. But the institution and the ideal it represents may be abstract and so the individual cannot transcend it so he remains trapped in adolescent rage toward a father he cannot overcome.

Obviously the only one that can be certain that the children are of her lineage would be the one in control over who fertilizes the ovum and when.
Women are buyers males are sellers. This is why cultures (memes) founded on a specific kind of survival and reproductive strategy would adopt matrilineally lineage whereas cultures (memes) adopting an opposite tactic would adopt patrilineal lineage as the identifier.
Nihilistic ideologies (memes) denying reality – to whatever degree and selectively – would opt for the feminine, not only because females are easier to indoctrinate – due to their reproductive strategy – but also because males would be problematic if they remained non-invested, free-radicals.
Free-spiritedness refers to individuals – mostly males – that for one reason or another could not or refused to invest in the culture they were born into.
Incels, for example – the majority of such non-invested males – and males on the top 3% of intelligence – "Intels" let's call them, e.g., Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard and on and on the list goes – don't reproduce when Paternalism is eradicated and sexual power is returned to females.
The effort required to seduce (deceive), or bribe (support), or coerce (trick, seduce), a female long enough to pass on your genes is too much for either Incels to pay or for Intels to justify.
Paternalism converts this effort into a family dowry and/or stipend. Both sides of the family absorbing costs and risks so as to preserve the union of man/woman.
In modern/postmodern conditions this natural power is multiplied by manmade – male invented – technique and technologies that reduces the cost/risks of female reproduction to a minimum – in postmodernism the collective is forced to absorb these costs/risks rendering all forms of superiority obsolete, so as to produce the desired Utopia of perfect parity.

Satyr wrote:

and males on the top 3% of intelligence – "Intels" let's call them,

lol, clever

Satyr wrote:

As I once told that imbecile that was once the main youtube representative of the MRA movement - Stardusk - by denouncing paternalism - virtue signaling to females - he eliminated the only way he, and those like him, could ever pass on his genes, and the only way the majority of modern males could have ever existed.
The truth is that without Paternalism most people alive today would not have existed at all.

Not only that, but the men who voted for female emancipation are ironically likely the very forefathers of many Incels today.

Many Americans think the generations that preceded the Baby Boomers to have been wiser, but the fact that they allowed the emancipation of women without even a war is a testament to their stupidity and sheltered state.

Perhaps this has been said before, but i think Christianity attempted to turn the multiplicity of men into either the Socially dominant (Alpha) or Socially submissive (Beta) types, who both effectively play a feminine role compared to the church/state/institution. It is these two types of men who flourished back then and who still do so now, with the Alphas taking the youth and the Betas taking the spinsters today. The simplification of men filling only two social roles aided Christianity in the efficiency and quantity of its social structure at the cost of quality. Delta and Sigma men could still attain mates but the former often received a woman above their own quality and the latter received a woman who rarely inspired him.

Today Sigma and Delta men have been relegated to the status of Omegas for both not being able to compete in the social environment whether by choice or ability.

The shift was from genetic competitions to memetic competitions. Males fighting over who will be socially successful, rewarded with money symbolizing their social value, so as to attain females.

It attempted to make male competitiveness constructive to the system, rather than destructive/disruptive.
Competing males produce goods and services as they struggled to outperform each other and attain female favours.
But this only works when marriage is stable - monogamy.

As religion became less popular it also "liberated" men and women from ancient traditions - technologies - such as monogamy and marriage, as a consequence the majority of males were excluded, as they would have been in nature, only this time it is worse.
The male lives to suffer his exclusion (incel) and females are supported by male created insinuations and technologies to reduce the risks and costs associated with their gender role to a minimum - as I said, by distributing risks costs in the collective.
Irony - male competitiveness leads to male obsolescence. The benefactors women who can practice their sexual power while being sheltered from the natural limits of this power by institutions and technologies males create and maintain.