• sorry I was away, will make a post on why soon

So what is feminism, just a virus?

#1
Is it just some debilitating mind virus that needs to be destroyed somehow, as opposed to a malicious plot against men, or civilization, etc.?

I mean, it could be both; sometimes viruses can be used for biological warfare. But we see that they can also spread back to the attackers. The Jews, for instance, haven't been immune to feminism either, except where they've had right-wing religious Jews in power (like in Israel).
 
#2
That's true, it puzzled me for a bit when I saw videos of how feminism is actually affecting Israel as well.

I would agree that it is both a plot against men/civilization and it is in the form of a virus that can be difficult to control. It's a lot easier for them to prevent the other issues affecting most countries (i.e. They can wall it off from refugees) but it's more difficult to protect it from ideas.
 
#3
Jim points out that it's what girls are taught at age 12 that really kills their fertility rates.

I think it's that at age 12, girls start learning stuff like algebra that they would only need if they were going to have a career. They need to know fractions so they can cook, but they don't need to know higher math unless they're going to be an engineer or sociologist or something. The cause of population decline « Jim's Blog
 

Caamib

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
#4
Feminism is more of a gangrene of society. Read Mikraite - Human Evolution More focused on incel but explains feminism quite well. Feminism is always brought upon by men, not women. In sane societies women don't turn to feminism and don't think about feminism.
 
#5
Corporations make a lot of money from feminism. Women competing with men for jobs = cheaper workforce. Women also spend a lot more money. Even if a woman doesnt have a job she can spend money she got from a divorce, welfare or her betabuxxer.
 
#8
Feminism is entirely the fault of men. When men structure society so that it is in women's evolutionary interest to be sluts, then women will fight for this right, and this is feminism. For more, see my post In Defense of Feminism.
A good post altogether, but with glaring problems. I think attempting to explain these issues by making recourse to evolutionary explanations is misguided itself, but it's worse yet that this is so often used to justify any given phenomenon "because adaptation produced it"; female nature should not be praised or defended because it simply is - in fact in its pure form it is the most immediate example of entropic, chthonic evil in human life.

What I do find refreshing about this post though is that it recognizes, contra looks reductionists, that female sexual preferences are very much unfixed. It is true that to a large extent female sexuality is simple opportunism, whereby they attempt to secure for themselves men favored by the current social order, whatever it might be. But it is not far until it becomes obvious why this is nothing to be celebrated. Female sexual selection is not anchored on firm ground - again, remember that female nature is fundamentally entropic - and neither is the given social order. We see, then, that the female's "wisdom" in producing "adapted" offspring operates on an irrecoverable lag - she produces "successful" progeny who then grow up in a world fundamentally different from the one her urges considered in their myopia (quickly put, think of the "good times make bad men, bad men make bad times..." formula).

There are certain elements of female sexuality I believe are fixed as well - at the core, they have an animal attraction to stupidity and vulgarity that the best of them, even many of them when in conservative societies, manage to subdue. I am sure you are very familiar with Fisherian runaway selection; this is the end result of non-opportunistic, genuinely sexual selection where women are given free reign to "choose" certain definite features according to the caprices of their destructive lusts.

Feminism is indeed the product of a dying civilization, of men who have given up; but as such there should be no question of defending it. Just as unbounded male nature results in rigidity, plunder, and acquisition, unbounded female nature results in formlessness and decay. The two essential elements of the human sex form a dialectic that reacts violently when disturbed in either direction - in each case, the men of a culture "deserve" their women and vice versa - and now both share a common misery.

Also, if they were genuinely selecting toward the maintenance of the current society, they would be doing a really bad job of it. The modern world and its corrupting material comforts requires legions of thankless stewards who keep the technological machine running. As you can very easily tell by the rapid decline of intelligence in modern countries (happening endogenously too, not just because of immigrants) and the abysmal fertility among the educated - and could probably guess from female preference for unintelligent, oversocialized loudmouths - the type of man will be nearly extinct sooner rather than later.
 

fschmidt

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
#9
A good post altogether, but with glaring problems. I think attempting to explain these issues by making recourse to evolutionary explanations is misguided itself, but it's worse yet that this is so often used to justify any given phenomenon "because adaptation produced it"; female nature should not be praised or defended because it simply is - in fact in its pure form it is the most immediate example of entropic, chthonic evil in human life.

What I do find refreshing about this post though is that it recognizes, contra looks reductionists, that female sexual preferences are very much unfixed. It is true that to a large extent female sexuality is simple opportunism, whereby they attempt to secure for themselves men favored by the current social order, whatever it might be. But it is not far until it becomes obvious why this is nothing to be celebrated. Female sexual selection is not anchored on firm ground - again, remember that female nature is fundamentally entropic - and neither is the given social order. We see, then, that the female's "wisdom" in producing "adapted" offspring operates on an irrecoverable lag - she produces "successful" progeny who then grow up in a world fundamentally different from the one her urges considered in their myopia (quickly put, think of the "good times make bad men, bad men make bad times..." formula).

There are certain elements of female sexuality I believe are fixed as well - at the core, they have an animal attraction to stupidity and vulgarity that the best of them, even many of them when in conservative societies, manage to subdue. I am sure you are very familiar with Fisherian runaway selection; this is the end result of non-opportunistic, genuinely sexual selection where women are given free reign to "choose" certain definite features according to the caprices of their destructive lusts.

Feminism is indeed the product of a dying civilization, of men who have given up; but as such there should be no question of defending it. Just as unbounded male nature results in rigidity, plunder, and acquisition, unbounded female nature results in formlessness and decay. The two essential elements of the human sex form a dialectic that reacts violently when disturbed in either direction - in each case, the men of a culture "deserve" their women and vice versa - and now both share a common misery.

Also, if they were genuinely selecting toward the maintenance of the current society, they would be doing a really bad job of it. The modern world and its corrupting material comforts requires legions of thankless stewards who keep the technological machine running. As you can very easily tell by the rapid decline of intelligence in modern countries (happening endogenously too, not just because of immigrants) and the abysmal fertility among the educated - and could probably guess from female preference for unintelligent, oversocialized loudmouths - the type of man will be nearly extinct sooner rather than later.
Where did I justify anything or celebrate anything? I defend feminism because it "just is" (in degenerate cultures) and it is pointless to criticize anything that just is. You may not like the nature of cockroaches, but you can't change it, so don't complain about it.

I don't believe that women "have an animal attraction to stupidity and vulgarity". If this were the case, civilized men would never have existed.

I discussed Fisherian runaway selection in a post that my post linked to - Human Evolution - which you need to read to fully understand my position.

My core point is to stop worrying about feminism and instead worry about building a new patriarchal culture.
 
#11
Where did I justify anything or celebrate anything?
Whole first paragraphed smacked way too much of praising the "wisdom" of female desire, in particular this line:

In other words, men have no right to doubt women's mating choices in terms of genetic suitability.

The text states that sexual selection is a dynamic process that women use to "adapt" the species to its circumstances. It also holds the human society and the natural world as in a state of constant flux, something from which the woman and the validity of her intuition are apparently exempt. It identifies woman as some kind of stable locus around which the world is determined, when in fact the opposite is more true.

I defend feminism because it "just is" (in degenerate cultures) and it is pointless to criticize anything that just is. You may not like the nature of cockroaches, but you can't change it, so don't complain about it.
I hear this line way too often and I don't buy it. There's always value judgments lurking in what pretend to be simple descriptions of the world "as it is". Consider the naturalistic fallacy, which some of this text reminded me of.

The point is not to "change" women, it's to limit their ability to make choices. You advocate for a return of patriarchal culture, so obviously we agree here - it's just that I have no intentions of defending women. There are bad things about them that should not be allowed to come to expression.

I don't believe that women "have an animal attraction to stupidity and vulgarity". If this were the case, civilized men would never have existed.
I think it's facile to assume that sexual selection has always been the decisive factor in molding a new generation of men. Environmental selection due to things like predation, food access, and weather were almost certainly more important factors for almost all of human history, until the advent of settled cultures - and likely later. Moreover, mating decisions are not always (rarely, in fact) made by females. Rape, arranged marriage, kidnapping, etc. were much, much more common than "her choice". To say nothing of pure chance/genetic drift. It is a curious anachronism, in fact, to extend sexual selection as the prime human filter across all of history.

This gets into many different things as well that are sort of beyond the scope of this discussion. If women were able at some point to produce honorable, civilized, talented, etc. men, these men that they selected for apparently weren't so honorable, civilized, or talented that they could prevent themselves from making society "degenerate" or whatever else.

I discussed Fisherian runaway selection in a post that my post linked to - Human Evolution - which you need to read to fully understand my position.

My core point is to stop worrying about feminism and instead worry about building a new patriarchal culture.
I am familiar with your position and we agree on most things. I think the points where we disagree are due to the fact that you seem to be a panentheist and identify God's will with what simply "is" - which I am decidedly opposed to.

My intention in making this post was to identify some demonstrable facts and points on which we both agree, then use those to demonstrate why women "making the right (value judgment) choice" is ludicrous.

@Shred Hed Have you read this essay I wrote in 2014? Forgive the somewhat bad grammar, it's a huge essay written by a non-native speaker. The story of your incel – an inconvenient truth
I'll read it at my earliest convenience.
 
Top