Feminism

This all interconnects with several of the psycho-naturalistic concepts which as of current have been reported across different threads here.
The innocence or here and now behavior exemplary of the female nature is consolatory, and even appreciative, but in the grand scheme its consequences are not, especially for the prideful skeptic who cannot accept deception, regardless of intent of good will.
The female will tell you what she thinks would be of optimal interest founded not on the evidence of the matter but instead on standards of what she believes sensed from the situation will cause the least pain.
What she thinks is helping can actually be detracting.

Supra-Aryanist wrote:

This all interconnects with several of the psycho-naturalistic concepts which as of current have been reported across different threads here.
The innocence or here and now behavior exemplary of the female nature is consolatory, and even appreciative, but in the grand scheme its consequences are not, especially for the prideful skeptic who cannot accept deception, regardless of intent of good will.
The female will tell you what she thinks would be of optimal interest founded not on the evidence of the matter but instead on standards of what she believes sensed from the situation will cause the least pain.
What she thinks is helping can actually be detracting.

This can be true of most women, and is certainly true for most women who are treated as property and not taught logic and reason, and are not empowered to take care of their family. Those who always follow the lead of their male and adopt all precepts he puts forth will be only a follower and therefore not learn how to open her mind to honest and open discourse with her mate. It is a heroic man that can treat his wife as an equal and understand that her grace and wisdom can help him temper his ego and make him a better leader for his children and his community. Almost all great leaders in history have a female mate who is empowered to help them achieve greatness. Men who do not are seen differently, they are often seen as tyrants or fools because of their missteps that could have been prevented had they had consul that had the whole family unit, the whole community unit in mind when helping him hone his ideas and skills.

It is true that most women are selfish, and I am not a selfless woman by any means. I do what's best for my family because our success is paramount to my happiness, and sometimes that means that I have cruel words for my mate and my children when they are being weak and cannot move forward, but that is also part of the compassion that elevates them. It is a balance for sure. I am not always the comforter, but I am always the alpha female who does what needs to be done to have all her family succeed.

I always let my mate pull out my chair for me, I always take his arm, I always let him open doors for me. I do this not because it makes me feel like a princess, I do it because I know that he feels the protector and when he feels strong, we are stronger together. I also let him order for me when we go out to eat on occasion. He knows my tastes because we communicate very well, and I trust his judgment. I don't do it because I am owned but as a sign that I trust in him and that makes him more confident. And confidence is important to success in life.

Arditezza, I respect your attitude, but aren't females, generally, attracted to males who dominate them? It does not have to be an extreme, master-slave relationship where the female just obeys whatever the male tells them, but isn't a certain... inequality of power and authority necessary to keep the female interested in the male? If her man begins treating her as his equal, and if it is in nature of females to search for superior genes and dominant males, won't she begin searching for a new one?

But I do agree that women shouldn't mindlessly submit to any male, but only to a worthy one... make him work for it. It filters out the less competent ones. All organisms are selfish, there is nothing shameful about that IMO, pretending that one is high and mighty and selfless is what I find disgusting.

Arbiter of Change wrote:

Arditezza, I respect your attitude, but aren't females, generally, attracted to males who dominate them? It does not have to be an extreme, master-slave relationship where the female just obeys whatever the male tells them, but isn't a certain... inequality of power and authority necessary to keep the female interested in the male? If her man begins treating her as his equal, and if it is in nature of females to search for superior genes and dominant males, won't she begin searching for a new one?

But I do agree that women shouldn't mindlessly submit to any male, but only to a worthy one... make him work for it. It filters out the less competent ones. All organisms are selfish, there is nothing shameful about that IMO, pretending that one is high and mighty and selfless is what I find disgusting.

See, I think the issue we might have been getting wrong all these years is the sense of ownership and dominance. He is a dominant male, but he holds no dominance over me other than being a leader by the examples he sets. We seem to think that aggression and control are the way to keep a woman in check, but most women I have met who are treated this way are unhappy and they feel more trapped.

You have the same point in the "but only to a worthy one... make him work for it." and that's the real key. I am with my husband because he is a leader, an alpha male, a brilliant thinker, a good role model for my children. I am with him out of the respect I have for him which he has earned, and he is with me for the same reason. He respects my intellect, my creativity, the way I raise our kids, the ease of communication and my prowess in the bedroom among other things and he reminds me of these things often by the way he treats me. He doesn't have to assert his authority over me to make me stay, he simply embodies all of what I want in a provider and he stays because I embody all that he wants in a caregiver.

Most males who take a very aggressive domineering stance with their women usually have some insecurities that they haven't resolved, and the dichotomy of false confidence and dominance betrays itself easily in time of stress or trouble. Those males that score unusually high on the Social Dominance Orientation scale of Social Dominance Theory, have tendencies to abuse that power, cause physical/emotional abuse, and have many extra-marital affairs. They continue to need power and once they have completely dominated a female, she no longer provides that challenge they need to be in power. Often it trickles to any children they have as well.

My husband does not have to assert power or authority over me for me to most often accept his opinions and decisions. I am faithful, loyal and always by his side out of respect. I've never thought of cheating on him, I've never tried to subvert his power over guiding our children, I don't have to manipulate him to get what I want/need because I know how to ask for what I need and he is open to discourse with me about meeting my needs to keep me happy. Is he dominant over me? Yes, but because he's earned my respect not because he has to assert any power at all.

Arditezza wrote:

My husband does not have to assert power or authority over me for me to most often accept his opinions and decisions.

Of course he doesn't, he already did.

It is empowering to run with blood running out of your vagina - try it, why not.

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

I support the liberation of women, but for my own selfish reasons and only to the extent it benefits me .

In conservative societies, all women adopted a dignified attitude and at least tried not to appear whorish. It made it hard to judge the true quality of the woman because they all tried to appear virtuous due to social norms imposed upon them. But liberating all women, giving them the chance to act as degenerate as they can, makes such judgments on their quality much easier as all the whores go out in public naked with 'slut', 'not asking for it' or whatever written all over them, along with their male counterparts, the desperate, degenerate manchildren.

So I would propose that once a couple of months or a year, people are allowed to walk through the town on a designed pathway away from children and have their naked parade, and that by law nobody would be allowed to try and prevent them.

Hence Casanova was such a good Casanova (as the saying goes today); he understood the promiscuous nature of the many women with their classy mannerisms covering their essential slut-urges.

Dumb sheltered bitches, they literally think, as one said, that to be stoned to death for being raped is the same as being called a slut in a by the police protected Western country where there are no consequences for stupid behaviour.

And those F(A)GTOWS are not going their own way, they are excluded from the genepool; look at those ridiculous, ugly, effeminate weaklings with their gender-issues. Some fucked up shit in America, they are pushed in the way which fits their genetic dysfunctions and yet still desire that they could be as much as a hedonistic player as the other Manchildren – don’t act as if you had a choice and took the option with Noble intention to turn your back on other kind of degeneracy, you had no choice.
MGTOW is a comforting refuge for Manchildren’s genetic defective failures.
Western degeneracy truly needs a hard slap in the face and should not be given the option to shelter behind Big Brother but face their actions and stupidity and cowardice.

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

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

Quote :

Apparently, Straight White Men are the TRUE enemies of the new 'civilization' of 'progress':  The California Green Party is attracting controversy after posting an image on its official Instagram page which promotes “free slaps” to be metered out to ‘straight white men’.

The photo shows two women sat behind a table which is covered with a banner that reads “Finally! Free Slaps For Cisgendered Straight-identified White Men.” The image is supposedly designed to draw attention to ‘rape culture’, a perennial obsession for feminists and liberals that has been vehemently debunked.

Note: As REAL Mexican molesters and rapists pour over the US border, no word from 'feminists' about that. No word about the Rape of European women by the Muslims and Africans who are pouring into Europe--no, just accusations of 'racism' of those who actually expose the rape, crime and murder committed by these (non-White) scumbags. Therefore it's clear: They don't care about Rape--they care about demonizing the High-IQ Sperm of Straight White Males.

The word “cisgendered” means someone who identifies as the sex they were born and has become a pejorative term used by social justice warriors to denounce those with “cis privilege.”

The post attracted numerous irate comments, including from one woman who remarked, “Why is it just cis white straight males??? How is that NOT offensive. Are they the only ones (raping). I’m a rape survivor and I hate this.”

“My rapist(s) weren’t just white straight cis males,” she added. “The person who molested me as a child was a woman, the guy who raped me when I was 19 was black.”

“I thought this only existed on tumblr?” commented another individual.”I fully support the Green Party but someone needs to bitch slap these people.”

“This would be a human rights violation if any other group mentioned,” added another respondent.

Of course, the photo is completely sexist and racist, but leftists claim that it is acceptable to behave like this towards men and white people in general because social justice warriors fundamentally don’t believe in equality, adhering instead to a bizarre form of oppression olympics where certain genders and ethnicities are deemed more special than others.

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

The traditional gender roles, women being the caretakers of the house - housewives concerned with the family's internal well-being while the men deals with the external world, nature, and providing for the family are present even in today society, but on a different, larger scale.

Yes, true, women have been liberated from the so-called middle-man, you average Joe, but they are ever so dependent on the system, the state protecting them and providing for them - sheltering them. The system now has truly taken on the role of an abstracted alpha male, dealing with the external world for the female, hence it is predominantly males who occupy the more physically/mentally demanding and dangerous, masculine roles of dealing with world and nature - policemen, firemen, construction workers, military, agriculture, farming etc. while females are still dealing with the stability and cohesion of society's internal structures, and mostly work in supportive roles - the house simply extended from the particular man's private home, to the home of the abstracted alpha male - the state, the entirety of society becoming her new house she takes care of while the man remains in charge of dealing with the external world and providing resources.

Thus the modern, liberal female may no more be a housewife, but a 'societywife'...

Yes....the alpha-male position is monopolized by the institution, the State, making all women under its care its service-maids.
They are essentially married to the State, but because the state is an abstraction, with a figurehead (which could be anybody since it is simply a figurehead: male/female/child, just as long as it is representative of the average), and cannot perform physical duties it uses male instincts for sexual gratification to perform their duties for it, and then takes over the raising of the children.

All children are the State's children, and like all good parents, fathers, it raises them according to its values, its principles. It fertilizes their minds with its ideals.
In homogeneous societies, traditional ones, the father was automatically the representative of the communal values, principles, and the King the leader, was simply the head of this shared meme.
In Modern heterogeneous systems the father is a hindrance to the System's motives, and so if he is excluded from the rearing of the children, or relegated to the position of surrogate mother - the child raised by two female mothers, one a biological female the other an emasculated male, and increasingly by same-sex unions where both sexes are essentially feminized.

The biological father, the male, only acts as a sperm donor, and then must settle for mothering duties. The fatherly duties are exclusively taken over by the institution, teaching the child its ideals, and the basic functions it needs, the rituals, to be useful.
In Modern systems this is increasingly the performance of automatic, ritualized, functions, based on precedent, repeated actions, a pool of knowledge, and specialized (autistic) understanding.
An average intellect suffices to memorize and to perform automated prescribed tasks.
This explains why females are doing so well in school these days.
no creative thinking is necessary, no value judgments.
The specialist is focused upon one discipline, and then is advised by a pool of recipe, prescribed, functions, precedent - it repeats the methods performed before and functions within the desired parameters of mediocrity.

The child need not have a knowledge, or an intimate identification with its past, its nature, its heritage. In fact this is detrimental to its harmonious integration within the State ideals, and its ambitions, goals, understandings.
The more cleansed, brain-washed, of its past/nature, and its heritage, the child is, the more easily it can be trained/educated, shaped to function with Social norms.
The family is a institution that is no longer needed, in fact in heterogeneous systems, in globalized environments, where you must integrate populations with different racial and traditional backgrounds, the elimination of the family, as a factor, helps the institutionalization of generations to come.

Now you understand the basic premise of The Feminization of Man.
nihilism is how the brainwashing, the cleansing, the reduction of the organism to a clean slate (tabula rasa) is performed. The opposite of what these moderns claim, it is the system that must train the mind to not identity with its race, and its sex.
The social construct is not gender, or sexual identity, but its elimination. - eugenics on a subtle level.
Gender is the application of sexual roles, as they have evolved, within social environments - genes applied into memes.
In Nihilistic memes this genetic factor is denied, rejected, leaving a half-wit, a half-man, a lobotomized individual, a schizophrenic.

This is the big farce of liberalism.
They sue words to denounce, ridicule, primordial identifiers, and in the process they create paradoxes, conundrums, psychosomatic distress.
How do they explain why appearances do not matter only when it comes to humans, and yet still matter in all other contexts?
how do they explain species evolution if no divergence in mind and body precedes it?
how do they explain evolution only affecting body and not mind, while also pretending to not be Dualistic thinkers that separate mind from body?

They can't, so instead they mystify concepts?
Human becomes mysterious, magical, and so different rules apply here than they do for all other species.
The concept itself is stripped of its reproductive, sexual, meaning.
It is turned into a pure noumenon - an abstraction.

They slander all concepts by reducing them to word games.
They promote radical skepticism, and cynicism.
They reduce identities to their lowest-common-denominator so as to find a shared foundation.
They disconnect noumena, using words, form their phenomenal references, turning them into pure idea(l)s, which can be subjective since there si no objective phenomenon to eliminate all possible interpretations of it.

It is good how Whites are pushed more and more toward each other; now the psychological division has reached its end-point and thus ''minorities'' are excluding them from the agenda which started to divide our people in the first place - the irony.

Small processes, like the change of table manners and language (will quote much more on that) will gradually change the whole on how we look upon the world, how we inter-act with each other; especially with the media around us and global connections, we could have already noticed how 'we' (the common people) became more open, direct in certain manners related to gender, race and morality.

About SlutWalks

They accept the term 'slut' applied to them, moreover, they label themselves sluts and that's how they try to remove any negative connotations of the word, by trying to make it appear as something normal, something that they themselves accept applied to them.

And they think that if they remove all the negative connotations from the word 'slut' that men will begin accepting and respecting 'sluts', aka, female promiscuity as the norm, instead of the deviation from it.

So if it becomes acceptable to be a 'slut' then being promiscuous will surely be accepted, right? WRONG.

In reality, what I assume would happen if they actually succeeded in their retarded mission (which they won't) is that 'slut' would just become a synonym of 'woman' and men would simply come up with a new word to designate a promiscuous, unreliable female.

You can only stretch the boundaries of human nature so far... I doubt that the world in which men generally approve of promiscuity is very possible, it literally goes against the core of male sexuality to treat promiscuous women seriously and with respect.

Another transparent feminist attempt at changing reality by manipulating language/words.

Interesting background; looks like a zoo regardless of racial representation: Mericah, the land with the culture selling cultures as vacation Ideals, gender issues, mongrelized masses in class and race - projecting their McDonalds mentality upon the world.

An interesting read

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

Feminism or good fun?

perpetualburn wrote:

Feminism or good fun?

Survey polls that Irish men are the sexiest in the world.

Lyssa wrote:

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

Quote :

It won’t, not unless men get their act together, have their power taken from them and behave themselves. I mean, I would actually put them all in some kind of camp where they can all drive around in quad bikes, or bicycles, or white vans. I would give them a choice of vehicles to drive around with, give them no porn, they wouldn’t be able to fight – we would have wardens, of course! Women who want to see their sons or male loved ones would be able to go and visit, or take them out like a library book, and then bring them back.

Lol, the little literary geese have gone rabid.

The reasoning behind male/female differences is simple it follow.

There is no absolute division, only gradations.

we begin with the necessary definition, clarifications, which will cast a light upon the matter.

Ordering, is a restriction of chaos - whether you define chaos as complexity or as randomness in inconsequential.
Order, by definition, is the limitation of possibilities, if possibilities is space/time.
Whenever you use the term "order" you are implying a limit to the possible, or a description of the probable - probability being what is more possible than not.

An organism, is an ordering, which is the exclusion of possibilities and the nurturing of particular probabilities - this is what ordering means.
A gene is a packet of data (knowledge, experiences). It imposes a order, a limit on the organism's development. It tells the energies, the patterns, participating in what we call organism, what do do and how to do it - it is authoritarian.
Order is authority.
Mutations occur, due to world (environment) which contradicts the organism's ordering.
Some mutations are beneficial, some detrimental, some neutral, having no impact, or latent, remaining dormant until some environmental condition triggers them.

Now, let us proceed to male/female.
Male/Female are description of specialized sub-types, of the sexual, reproductive, category human.
Each specialized type develops, is directed by genes, to construct the particular organs to the degree necessitated by this determined role.
A female has the corresponding male testicles developed differently, and to a different degree, as ovaries; a female also has a penis, developed only as much as is required, or does not inhibit her role, and it is called a clitoris.
Each and every organ participating in the organization we call human has corresponding male/female expressions and applications.

This also includes the brain.
To assume that the same does not apply to brain development as applies to every other organ of the body is idealistic and rubbish - guided by a motive, and a desired conclusion.

Masculine/Feminine refers to this psychosomatic totality evolved to facilitate a particular reproductive role.
Any variant, mutation, has to be compared to the primary function of sexuality, and how well it contributes or inhibits it.

Gender, is the application of said sexual roles within a socioeconomic, cultural context.
It is not invented by man, it is manipulated, sublimated, redirected, suppressed, given symbols etc., in accordance with a human idea(l): a desired objective.
again, not all objective, idea(l)s are equal.
Some accentuate, some contradict the past, which is the sum of all nurturing we call nature.
Some are life-affirming, in harmony with genes, some are contrary, try to nullify, contradict, this genetic inheritance.

We can say that Modern idea(l)s insist on pretentiously faking parity, made easy with compensating technologies and techniques, dependent on precedent, or recipe thinking/acting, on deferring/referring to "experts", the next step from the older priestly class, creating the illusion of equality, of parity.

I think this fits in this thread, its ok, someone might have posted it before since its 3 months old video.

Now I watched it through and I think its retarded if you have to appeal to the lowest common denominator, (telling couch potatos to man up, lol)

15 Feminist contradictions.

Jarno wrote:

I think this fits in this thread, its ok, someone might have posted it before since its 3 months old video.

Now I watched it through and I think its retarded if you have to appeal to the lowest common denominator, (telling couch potatos to man up, lol)

He makes good points. Men thinking they need to become sensitive like women become "politicized" (i.e. feminized). Although I don't think women generally want a "real man"... a real man is distant, and women can only take this for so long...It's why marriage is so ridiculous for a "real man"...She says to herself, I want a real man(someone distant) but I want to chit chat all the time too (and this is just as "real" and necessary to her)...

The female turning away is the natural resistive energy being expressed in physical form once she has acknowledged the acknowledgement of herself by something she finds unattractive, the expression on the face confirms the nature of the unattractive perception in relation to emotion.

When a female is intoxicated with love, her friends act as a filter, a rational vote or otherwise. A supporting, safety net to help her balance during the intoxication, a shoulder to cry on. If things go bad or good, the safety net eventually turns into a trampoline. Things going good is relative to the smoothness of admiration with no conflicting interruptions coming from the man or the friends.