How Feminism Became The West's New Moral Authority

[Basman]

3 hours ago, Xonas Pitfall said:

I do not fully understand why some men are so intensely concerned about women being promiscuous. For decades, many men openly pursued sexual access to women, often disregarding consent or boundaries. So why is it suddenly a major concern when women exercise sexual choice on their own terms? Why does autonomy create anxiety where coercion once did not?

Because people who sleep around a lot are a lot less likely to stay in a monogamous relationship.

It goes both ways for guys who think this. It's in part a rejection of the shallowness of hook-up culture and treating people as disposable napkins.

3 hours ago, Xonas Pitfall said:

The same question applies to marriage. Marriage was often described as a burden for men, something to avoid or resent. "The old ball and chain" = wife and kids. Now, men express disproportionate concern about women choosing not to marry or not to have children. Why the sudden shift? Where did these strong “concerns” for young women’s life choices come from?

Men statistically benefit more from marriage than women and children are fundamental to the continued survival of society. That's no minor thing to gloss over.

3 hours ago, Xonas Pitfall said:

Suddenly, porn became a massive moral crisis when women started joining platforms like OnlyFans by choice, controlling their own content, setting their own prices, and keeping their own profits. Now it is framed as societal decay, exploitation, and an emergency that must be stopped.

It's not wild to discourage young dumb women from casually becoming sex workers. Especially when you consider that only 2-5% actually make any money. There was a very exploitative marketing push to get young women to make porn on OF.  

4 hours ago, Xonas Pitfall said:

It reminds me of when some men suddenly became “women’s health activists” the moment more plus-size models began appearing in mainstream media during the body-positivity movement. In reality, it often seemed less about health and more about frustration that beauty standards were shifting away from what they personally found attractive.

It's unhealthy and dangerous to promote being overweight. Several fat positivity influencers have died at a relatively young age from being fat. And it's absolutely about saying that being fat is no worse than a conventional body in a sort of post-modern way. Why else do you think fat-positivity is targeting primarily fat women and not fat men. Because obese women feel unattractive, and rightfully so. Post-modern fat-positivity is magical thinking and silly. 

A lot of these arguments tend to have a resentful and algorythmic twist when made, granted, but the steelman are valid criticism of these trends. Generally there is just a lack of solid blue in these fantasies that feminism tends to peddle. You can't have your cake and eat it too, fat ass. 

[Elliott]

8 hours ago, AION said:

Don't turn my precious thread in a soy boy shit show

So, in your opinion, are soy boy feminist liberals the pump n dump type, or alpha conservatives?

Edited 12 hours ago by Elliott

[Lila9]

How feminism can be authority if the world is still controlled by patriarchal values? By competition? By heraechy? By men being mostly in power?

 

[AION]

2 hours ago, Lila9 said:

How feminism can be authority if the world is still controlled by patriarchal values? By competition? By heraechy? By men being mostly in power?

 

We live in a matriarchy.

And I don't get your comments about competition and hierachy.

Those are more prevalent in female dominated groups since women always tend to compare each other.

 

5 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

It was that way to begin with 🤣

Don't tell me you can read estrogen levels too

4 hours ago, Elliott said:

So, in your opinion, are soy boy feminist liberals the pump n dump type, or alpha conservatives?

Soy boys are low testosteron men who can't compete with those men so they turn on their own sex hoping for pitty sex from the other sex

[Natasha Tori Maru]

8 minutes ago, AION said:

Don't tell me you can read estrogen levels too

ROFL - I can sniff it out  

[Lila9]

35 minutes ago, AION said:

We live in a matriarchy.

And I don't get your comments about competition and hierachy.

Those are more prevalent in female dominated groups since women always tend to compare each other

Men are those who do dick measuring, competing with other men because of ego. And women are forced to compete with other women in order to survival In the patriarchy, but competition is not a feminine thing.

If we are a matriarchal society, why the most powerful people in society are men? Where are our powerful matriarchs? 

Edited 8 hours ago by Lila9

[Xonas Pitfall]

7 hours ago, Basman said:

Because people who sleep around a lot are a lot less likely to stay in a monogamous relationship.

It goes both ways for guys who think this. It's in part a rejection of the shallowness of hook-up culture and treating people as disposable napkins.

That is exactly my point. Where was the public outcry and dramatic social concern when men commonly had double families or cheated on their wives? It was practically a cultural trope. The husband leaving his wife for a younger woman, the maid, or the secretary was treated as a punchline. There are entire popular films built around that storyline. Back then, it was not framed as a global crisis of male promiscuity. It was brushed off as “male nature.” No one was holding emergency discussions about men’s moral decline. No one was organizing think pieces about how male sexuality was destabilizing families.

And where were the conversations about women’s loneliness then? When women sacrificed years of their lives for their husbands, only to be abandoned, where was the concern about a “female loneliness epidemic”? Where was the social panic about the emotional and financial consequences for those women?

The same pattern shows up in education. When women were excluded from universities, denied the vote, and kept from literacy and professional life, it was not framed as a social emergency. It was presented as natural. Men were “naturally” the educated providers, the independent ones. Women were “naturally” domestic and dependent. Now that women are entering universities in large numbers, becoming financially independent, and in some cases outperforming men academically, suddenly it is framed as a crisis because men are “falling behind.” Now it is a societal emergency. Now we need urgent discussions, task forces, and concern panels.

If we are going to call past imbalances “natural male nature,” then why is current male disengagement not treated the same way? Why is it not described as men being “naturally wired” to retreat into video games, online echo chambers, red pill forums, and pornography? Why does it suddenly require intervention and sympathy instead of being dismissed as biological destiny?

Quote

Men statistically benefit more from marriage than women and children are fundamental to the continued survival of society. That's no minor thing to gloss over.

That was not the dominant cultural narrative in the past.

For decades, marriage was framed, especially among men, as a loss of freedom. The bachelor party was literally marketed as a “last night of freedom.” Sitcoms and stand-up comedy were built on the joke that the husband was trapped, domesticated, and sacrificing his wild, independent life. The cultural archetype was the avoidant who wanted variety and saw marriage as a concession. Women, meanwhile, were stereotyped as the ones pushing for rings, stability, and children.

Now that more women are delaying or rejecting marriage and children, the narrative flips. Suddenly it is a crisis. Suddenly it is “decline,” “loss of femininity,” “selfishness,” or “societal collapse.” Now there are urgent conversations about birth rates, tradition, and what women are “supposed” to want.

So which is it?

When men resisted marriage, it was independence. When women resist it, it is dysfunction. When men avoided fatherhood, it was freedom. When women question motherhood, it is moral failure.

Quote

It's not wild to discourage young dumb women from casually becoming sex workers. Especially when you consider that only 2-5% actually make any money. There was a very exploitative marketing push to get young women to make porn on OF. 

Again, this is what keeps proving my point.

Where was this sudden level of concern for young women when porn industries were openly exploitative? When pimps operated in plain sight? When modeling agencies recruited teenagers and quietly funneled them into predatory environments? I do not remember endless viral debates, newspaper headlines, or daily podcast outrage about women being coerced, trafficked, and manipulated at scale.

But now, when women can enter platforms by choice and control their own income, suddenly it is a moral emergency. “Is OnlyFans destroying society?” “Should we ban it?” When women are lured into cults or exploited by powerful men, the reaction is often dismissive. They are called naïve, attention-seeking, stupid. “Why should I care?”. But when women independently profit from the same desirability that was exploited for decades, now it is framed as corruption, decline, and societal collapse.

In a world where figures like Andrew Tate, Diddy, Trump, Epstein, and countless cult leaders operated for years while exploiting young women and girls, often with protection, wealth, and influence shielding them, it is hard to take any claim seriously. Millions of women were harmed in systems that thrived for decades before facing consequences, if they ever did. And then we are told we live in a “matriarchy.”

Yet we are supposed to believe that men are overwhelmingly concerned about women’s morality and safety. If that concern were truly consistent, it would not appear only when women gain agency. It would have been just as loud, just as relentless, when women had far less power and far fewer choices. That inconsistency is the real issue.

Quote

It's unhealthy and dangerous to promote being overweight. Several fat positivity influencers have died at a relatively young age from being fat. And it's absolutely about saying that being fat is no worse than a conventional body in a sort of post-modern way. Why else do you think fat-positivity is targeting primarily fat women and not fat men. Because obese women feel unattractive, and rightfully so. Post-modern fat-positivity is magical thinking and silly.

And again, this goes back to the same inconsistency.

Where was this intense concern for women’s “health” when the dominant beauty standard was extreme thinness? When hyper-anorexic bodies were promoted as sexy, cute, and ideal? When very young women were pushed into porn or modeling because their youth was fetishized? When increasingly unrealistic beauty standards were amplified through filters, cosmetic procedures, and digital editing, to the point that many men cannot even tell what is real anymore?

At no point during those eras did we see the same level of widespread moral panic about women’s health. There were no constant viral debates about how damaging those beauty standards were to women’s bodies and mental well-being. There was no collective emergency about the harm of impossible thinness, cosmetic overuse, or sexualizing barely adult women. But the moment an overweight woman appears confidently in media, suddenly it becomes: “We need to promote health. We care so much for our women.”

To be clear, I am not arguing that poor health should be promoted or that obesity has no risks. That is not the point. The point is the selective outrage. The concern often appears only when women’s bodies fall outside of what certain men personally find attractive.

Historically, when a body type was desirable to men, even if it was unhealthy, extreme, or exploitative, it was normalized or celebrated. When a body type is undesirable to them, it becomes a crisis, a moral issue, a threat to society. That is why claims of pure concern for “health,” “morality,” or “protection” can ring so hollow. If the standard were truly about well-being, it would be applied consistently across all harmful trends, not only when women stop conforming to a preferred aesthetic.

Quote

A lot of these arguments tend to have a resentful and algorythmic twist when made, granted, but the steelman are valid criticism of these trends. Generally there is just a lack of solid blue in these fantasies that feminism tends to peddle. You can't have your cake and eat it too, fat ass. 

It is reasonable to care about health. It is reasonable to care about promiscuity. It is reasonable to care about hyper-sexualized self-promotion. I agree that these things deserve scrutiny, discussion, and regulation.

What feels disingenuous is pretending that personal preference and moral panic are the same thing. If you truly cared about women’s health, dignity, and safety, that concern would be consistent. It would not appear only when women behave in ways you personally dislike. It would not disappear when harmful trends align with what you find attractive. Real care is comprehensive. It does not fluctuate based on aesthetics. What this often comes down to is wanting women to conform to specific standards that you find most appealing. When they do not, it becomes framed as cultural decline, moral collapse, or proof that feminism has gone too far. Women’s autonomy becomes the scapegoat for broader frustrations.

Again, in light of all these sexual trafficking scandals (Diddy, Tate, Epstein, and so many others) women should feel horrified at how many young women can be exploited, raped, abused, killed, and allegedly cannibalized, unspeakable things, while the perpetrators take years to face consequences. These men operated with money, status, connections, with institutional protection. They moved in elite circles. They were shielded. Justice was delayed over and over again.

And somehow we are supposed to believe the real issue is feminism? What feminism, exactly?

The problem is that abuse at high levels of power can persist for years before accountability catches up, if it ever does. So when people say society is a “matriarchy” or that feminism is the root issue, it sounds detached from reality. If women were truly running everything, how did so many of these systems operate for so long?

[Kid A]

6 hours ago, AION said:

We live in a matriarchy.

So that’s why around 65–75% of top leadership positions in Western countries are held by men, 60–70% of members of parliament in Western countries are men, and women earn on average about 10–15% less than men in Western countries. Makes sense.