How Feminism Became The West's New Moral Authority

[Elliott]

3 minutes ago, AION said:

She is on an ego trip, which is the real problem

Bro, you haven't given one real answer to any of 20 questions, in YOUR thread. This is an incel bitch-rant.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

2 minutes ago, AION said:

She is on an ego trip, which is the real problem

Nice dodge my man - how about you answer @Elliott's question.

[NewKidOnTheBlock]

I fucking hate everyone on this thread, except for a few exceptions LMAO hate these types of topics as well

[Xonas Pitfall]

Hahaha, @NewKidOnTheBlock is the saviour! 

Free my sanity. Keep me away from rage bait. I am calm now.

Ommm 🧘‍♂️ Ammm 🌿 Oooom ☁️ Hum 🕊️

[Natasha Tori Maru]

1 minute ago, Xonas Pitfall said:

Hahaha, @NewKidOnTheBlock is the saviour! 

Free my sanity. Keep me away from rage bait. I am calm now.

Ommm 🧘‍♂️ Ammm 🌿 Oooom ☁️ Hum 🕊️

Pretty much  I don't even get angry with these threads though - more confused as to how people just suck up internet rhetoric with no critical thinking or assessment. Algorithms most likely. Also, we tend to just echo group think of the top 5 people in our lives...

It is like people enjoy self-bamboozling >.<

[Elliott]

2 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

Pretty much  I don't even get angry with these threads though - more confused as to how people just suck up internet rhetoric with no critical thinking or assessment. Algorithms most likely. Also, we tend to just echo group think of the top 5 people in our lives...

It is like people enjoy self-bamboozling >.<

I don't think even most conservative men think like this, it's just the terminally online.

[NewKidOnTheBlock]

20 minutes ago, Xonas Pitfall said:

Hahaha, @NewKidOnTheBlock is the saviour! 

Free my sanity. Keep me away from rage bait. I am calm now.

Ommm 🧘‍♂️ Ammm 🌿 Oooom ☁️ Hum 🕊️

There is no avoiding this, unless you use specific social media with maximum carefullness (probably Youtube only); I've noticed Youtube can be pretty flexible in this way and can be curated much like ones mind; it's an interesting case of mimicking ones inner world. However it is utterly impossible with other social media to avoid this shit, every woman and a man with a buthole keeps spewing about this to get attention. From both sides of the spectrum. The only way to avoid losing your sanity is to have so much life that you stop caring but let's be honest, that's not really the case for anyone here lol

I just hate that your private life is so linked to politics, it's all so politiced nowadays; I don't believe in the right way or want to be perceived as righteous or any of that shit, or change all that much, so these topics just keep irritating me, it's like a Chernobyl backround radiation; eventually the effects of daily exposure will manifest themselves in worse health LOL

[Kid A]

4 hours ago, AION said:

Because they are better at their job. It is not because of their penis but because of their hard work and competence. Men tend to work more hours than women so it is no rocket science. What is there not to understand????????? Come on you are smarter than this. 

I explained why, by definition, we live in a patriarchy: Men hold the majority of political, economic, and institutional power. Your response is an explanation for why it is that way, not an argument for why we live in a matriarchy…

[zazen]

6 hours ago, AION said:

That is not my experience. In men dominated groups there are always brotherhood with some exceptions while in female dominated groups there is always strive, gossip, hierachy and posturing.

Women are more emotional in my experiece too so that makes it harder for them. Female dominated societies never survive if men stop doing their job. It is not in female nature to sacrifice for society, it is always me-me-me like how you are doing right now.

Look at this video and compare how females work together on the island versus how males work together. This is what happens if men are not there to help

Men and women are different, and naturally disparities show up. Progressives mistake is in thinking all disparity is unjust, trad cons mistake is thinking those disparities and differences are ''just the way things should be'' and that no deviation should be tolerated ie women/men belong only to their specific roles.

Sexism is assigning moral superiority or inferiority based on those sexual differences - but its neither. It's just a matter of function downstream from biology, that produces generalities. Those generalities shouldn't be fixed prisons for either sex, but neither should they be ignored or attempt to be abolished ''women can do anything a man can do, and better'' rhetoric. There are real material constraints on both sexes that come in the way of either sex doing what each is able to do, to the level the other sex can do it more effortlessly.

On the survival video for example - women tend to favor non-confrontation and consensus (which takes time) rather than clear hierarchy that is contested or seen as unfair - so in a survival scenario where time is of the essence men self-organise into a hierarchy quicker and are okay with a clear leader to follow and get on with things (in general). Also there's a clear bias towards physicality and strength in that environment which would favor them winning.

5 hours ago, Basman said:

@Xonas Pitfall 

Bro, that was the 60s. Most men who make the kind of criticisms you see of feminism and progressives today wheren't even alive then. Sins of the father much.

It' true that the unhealthy snd ungrounded aspects of modern feminism is due to a lack of a healthy blue core. Stop being such a cry baby. 

 

None of us including you or Raze are even advocating for some past abusive system of ''patriarchy'' they think we are lol

It's simply that external constraints have been removed through development (pill, internet, education) and now internal constraints on behaviour have more importance in maintaining certain norms that stabilise society - which is the domain of culture. Oppressive norms have been dismantled, but healthy norms haven't replaced them to the same degree.

 The same culture that rightly brought about equality of dignity, law, and opportunity is spilling over into equality of outcome and identical sameness.  Cultural shifts aren't just celebrating removal of constraints but are encouraging / tolerating reckless behaviour in absence of those constraint  - simply because its exercising newly won ''freedoms''.

People can understand how a unregulated free market leads to a winner take all effect, but don't apply it the sexual market place (ooo i'm objectifying now - just get the point lol). Libertines are economic socialists but sexual capitalists. Obviously these things shouldn't be coerced either (enforced monogamy like Jordan Peterson once spoke about) but the wider cultural conversation should just lean towards long term planning, stability, and modesty (not prudeness) - for both men AND women.

Both sexes should together discourage certain kinds of media being so prevalent. There's a difference between being free to do something, and being told by a wider discourse that you will find freedom in and through doing that act. Technically we'r allowed to sleep around with as many people - doesn't mean fulfillment or stability will be a consequence of it.

 

Edited Friday at 02:56 PM by zazen

[zazen]

On 11/02/2026 at 3:39 PM, Elliott said:

 

Conservatives have never been about chastity, just read the Bible as evidence. It's always been hypocritical manipulative lies.

 

Why would people have revolted if it was good?

 

If you read any sort of 1st hand history you'd know the horrors women regularly endured, during the "chaste" period. Google the witch trials for heavens sake, that was by "Puritans".

Of course no denying any that.  The hypocrisy doesn’t prove ideals didn't exist - every system establishes ideals we fail to live up to consistently - just like the ideals of today when the West backs Israels ethnic cleansing and all the other things it does whilst talking of human rights and promoting democracy. Same with Muslims who do everything under the sun then decline eating pork at the restaurant lol

On 11/02/2026 at 3:39 PM, Elliott said:

Sex trafficking was a bigger industry than today, Louisiana was a French colony where France sent their trafficked girls and convicts

For sure:

 

On 11/02/2026 at 3:39 PM, Elliott said:

It's wild that you would point to Islam for a conversation on women's treatment. Mohamad having 23 wives and concubines.

Not saying abuses didn't exist amongst Muslims, just like everywhere in the world especially in the past, and still today unfortunately. Islam actually gave women provisions and protections (legal personhood status, inheritance, rights etc) over a thousand years ago - the same standard we celebrate in the West today as recent ''developments''. No wonder Western women had to revolt. Coverture laws in English common law literally erased a woman's legal existence upon marriage - her property, earnings or ability enter contracts all became her husband's.

The things Western modernity actually introduced that are genuinely new like mass political structures (nation states), industrial economies etc aren't so much moral achievements but material developments. With that also came better state capacity, institutions and enforcement mechanisms of laws and ''moral principles'' - such as treating women better by acknowledging their worth. But Islam had already introduced those moral principles millenia ago - despite material development lacking. Many cases of women winning in court over various affairs, inheritance etc in the Ottoman records etc - the ability to challenge men in court or be recognized legally wasn't even available in the West until recently.

Even if we go by voting rights not existing for women in Islam - voting based democracies didn't exist anywhere so there's no way it could have. And even by that metric - large Muslim nations allow women to vote and have had women presidents whilst the beacon of freedom and liberty still hasn't (US). People still cherry pick Tali bro's as evidence of the exception when majority of Muslims and Muslim nations don't agree with their approach: 

The later videos of the women critiquing Saudi Arabia and or Iran if it comes up (haven't seen them) are right to do so. Those are frankenstein interpretations of Islam that are now thankfully changing. There's wide variation among Muslim's implementing Islam with a few core pillars remaining intact. Even with the punishment aspect - there's plenty of context behind applying them (including the entirety of the sharia). They were rarely applied (chopping hands for stealing) and mostly worked as a deterrent at a time when they didn't have prisons etc. 

That girl brought up the very reasonable point about the needy and starving being punished for stealing. A quick google AI search:

''Suspension During Famine: Umar ibn al-Khattab, the second caliph, famously suspended the hadd (cut-off) punishment for stealing during a year of famine.

Need as Doubt (Shubhah): Islamic jurisprudence holds that necessity, such as stealing to survive, creates a "doubt" (shubhah) that invalidates the application of the maximum punishment.

Ruling by Scholars: Renowned jurists, including Ahmad ibn Hanbal, confirmed that the hand is not cut for theft when the act is driven by necessity during times of hardship.''

Developments in the West have definitely helped loosen the rigidity of gender roles and norms - but it's not like women in Islam were barred from economic roles either. The economies back then were just not developed to the same degree. In fact many women including the prophets wives ran successful businesses / were merchants and scholars that were revered and taught in positions of authority. 

His first marriage was monogamous and lasted 25 years till his wifes death (he was 25, she was 40). If his primary driver was sexual desire or accumulation of women that makes no sense. People try to imply things to him for the fact he had multiple wives - such as his lust or greed or desire for young pure women. 

From AI:

''They were widowed, vulnerable members of a war-torn society. Marriage was the welfare system. There were no pensions, no social services, no safety nets. Marriage was protection, status, and survival.

In tribal Arabia, marriage was the primary way to form alliances. For example: Marriage to Juwayriya bint al-Harith led to:

Her entire tribe being freed from captivity, hundreds of people gaining freedom, her tribe becoming allies instead of enemies

Marriage to Safiyya bint Huyayy helped reconcile former Jewish tribal enemies and integrate them peacefully. Marriage to Aisha bint Abi Bakr strengthened the bond with Abu Bakr, his closest companion and future leader.

These marriages stabilized a fragile society. They were state-building marriages.''

 

Guess even enlightened homeboy couldn't spin that many plates and had to cap it at 4 in the end.

Ignore her proselytising at the end. So cringe and stupid when Muslims do that:

 

On 11/02/2026 at 3:39 PM, Elliott said:

Do you know what 'woman' means? (I'm not making the gender argument here)

Wo•man

What does this word mean? I'm not talking about gender or transgenderism.

https://www.quickanddirtytips.com/articles/the-history-of-the-word-woman/

Cool link. I would go by the definition of biological reality, not psychological reality where people identity as women or experience themselves as women.

 

Edited Friday at 05:22 PM by zazen

[Elliott]

3 hours ago, zazen said:

 

Cool link. I would go by the definition of biological reality, not psychological reality where people identity as women or experience themselves as women.

 

The point was, words evolve. "Man" meant every human, women were called "wif", men were called "wher".

Take a guess as to why wife means married now, and man means penis. Guess hard

 

 

You guys just need to get out into the real world and meet people. Women, feminists, love us. Get off broTube, why did the crisis magically correspond with the rise of social media. It's why the same people that are maga are "alpha", both are brainwashing for clicks.

Edited Friday at 08:46 PM by Elliott

[Lila9]

10 hours ago, AION said:

That is not my experience. In men dominated groups there are always brotherhood with some exceptions while in female dominated groups there is always strive, gossip, hierachy and posturing.

Women are more emotional in my experiece too so that makes it harder for them. Female dominated societies never survive if men stop doing their job. It is not in female nature to sacrifice for society, it is always me-me-me like how you are doing right now.

Look at this video and compare how females work together on the island versus how males work together. This is what happens if men are not there to help

This is not true. Men are even more toxic toward other men. Yes, they have the bro code, but it is shallow and very hierarchical, and the only purpose of this bro club is to exclude women and other marginalized groups to keep the control and the power in their hands, rather than actually connecting to their humanness and forming genuine connection. Otherwise, men wouldn’t complain about the loneliness epidemic.

Women usually develop better relationships with each other, deeper ones, because women are usually more emotionally intelligent.

Men are not that emotionally intelligent because of male privilege, which allows them to survive in society and receive all their human rights while being immature idiots.

Haha, and dude, women can always learn to do male jobs. Stop sharing the same cherry picked video I have seen you incels share over and over again as if it means something.

Men's job is a matter of skill. Yes, it may be more difficult due to a different physique, but women are quick learners and good leaders. Even science says so.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kevinkruse/2023/03/31/new-research-women-more-effective-than-men-in-all-leadership-measures/

Most of male dominated professions like science and tech deliberately exclude women (by hostile behavior towards them) due to mysogeny and fear because they know that once women will feel free to enter those fields, these insecure males are doomed. 

You and your friends actually need to start learning real leadership skills from women rather than looking up to immature idiots you worship, who teach you nothing but exploit you shamelessly, and you accept it like the submissive idiots you are.

That’s why many men have unconscious resentment of women. Women have lots of power given by nature, and insecure, weak men like yourself always try (with stupid passion) to destroy women, to take their rights, because this is the only way you can deal with women: by taking their rights. You FEAR equality. Women are so powerful that you need to take their human rights in order to feel good in yourself.

You, the “non-emotional” men, are actually very emotional, it turns out. Insecurity, hatred of women, entitlement, anger, grandiosity are emotions, fyi.

Society is controlled by lunatic men, and it hurts everyone, including you, and if you don’t understand it, I’m sorry, I don’t know how to help you.

Edited Friday at 07:14 PM by Lila9

[Basman]

23 hours ago, Xonas Pitfall said:

@Basman What are you advocating for? What I mentioned is very real. There are plenty of red pill and incel communities that openly think this way and actively promote these ideas on podcasts and across media platforms without any shame. I also brought up the exploitation earlier because it directly relates to this. I don’t understand how my comments are considered irrelevant. I’m interested in hearing your stance.

I agree that movements can sometimes swing too far in one direction or another. But overall, I don’t see why feminism would be framed as the biggest problem in society right now, or as some kind of “new moral authority” in the West.

It feels similar to when people blame transgender individuals for the supposed decline of society, while those who actually hold the vast majority of power and authority continue to act without accountability. When people at the top control most institutions, wealth, and political influence, it’s hard to see how marginalized groups are the primary cause of broader social or economic issues.

Your arguments where whataboutisms. Those steelman arguments I made are valid criticisms of certain trends of feminism.

Your not even willing to engage with the thought. Feminism is a sacred cow to many of you. The anger is palpable. I have never said I'm implicitly against women or feminism. 

[zazen]

On 13/02/2026 at 5:30 PM, Elliott said:

The point was, words evolve. "Man" meant every human, women were called "wif", men were called "wher".

Take a guess as to why wife means married now, and man means penis. Guess hard

 

 

You guys just need to get out into the real world and meet people. Women, feminists, love us. Get off broTube, why did the crisis magically correspond with the rise of social media.

The point is yourself, @Lila9 and @Xonas Pitfall are assuming that men who discuss the current structural incentives and culture shaping how society interacts with those incentives in a negative way - are simply emotional incels who haven’t touched grass. Despite you guys commenting the most emotional rants here.

The point is that a breakdown in certain norms are being discussed, perhaps wrongly or too simply. But the implications being drawn from this “dangerous thinking” is that “men” now advocate for or want a return to the same oppressive norms of the past. It’s easy to defeat a strawman argument no one made with white knight energy and feel heroic, than deal with nuance.

The point is lack of substantive engagement with the points, just like with me responding to you on the topic of Islam to which you have no response. This challenges most of the Western liberal stance of the West in particular being ahead on the spiral dynamic ladder - celebrating achievements in acknowledging women’s moral worth that were already the case over a thousand years ago by a non Euro-centric civilization. 

@Lila9 The point is that not all disparities come from “patriarchal oppressive insecure men”.  There are differences and preferences between sexes that lead to different outcomes even in an egalitarian society with equal rights and opportunity. This branch / later development of Feminism overextends itself and misuses / misapplies the concept of equality. See the video I shared above on “are men and women equal” and the following article: https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20190831-the-paradox-of-working-in-the-worlds-most-equal-countries

**

The major point is that external structural constraints on sexuality have been removed through development (contraception, internet, education and urbanisation) and are no longer coming back. We evolved for one environment but live in another - ancient instincts, modern environment.

Hardware / structure / material reality removes and sets limits - software / culture / psychology plays within them. Like the chicken or the egg scenario - what caused what first..cultural feminism or structural developments? In an interconnected reality mostly both.

Red piller trad cons simplistically blame feminism for today’s issues whilst downplaying the shift in incentives a modern environment brings. I think most aren’t actually against classical feminism (1st-2nd wave, equal rights and opportunity) but are opposing progressive feminism (latter 3rd-4th wave, equal outcomes + challenging / breaking of norms specifically around sexuality).

The red pill is men attempting to understand a dating market that’s rapidly changed because of those forces (structural and cultural) - often by embittered men who those changes don’t favour and who inevitably fall prey to simplistic, reductive conclusions.  The reason red pill and pick up emerged in the West is due to those conditions.

If we clearly aren’t dismantling modernity to go back to cave dwelling that put hard limits on our instincts and nature - then only culture can now constrain the worst of our instincts to stabilise society. We have an evolutionary mismatch that only culture can patch over through adaption. Culture usually lags, and during that lag there is turbulence - current time of transition.

The cultural zeitgeist has so far been overcorrecting and indulging natures instincts through the frame of liberation. Any critique of that culture is seen as calling for regression to the past. Mostly likely as a protective reflex - because those freedoms were very hard won (rightly) and want to be protected. The critique largely isn’t about the freedoms but how to exercise them. Men could be more sophisticated in how they critique instead of being crude women bashers.

The solution obviously isn’t to swing the other way culturally - but is to find a nuanced balance only culture will bring because of irreversible structural changes. We need to adapt by normalising new norms for a new environment - not just a breakdown of all norms that are then indulged in as freedom and liberation.

Today’s environment requires far more conciousness and cultural nurturing to be healthy because of the evolutionary mismatch it’s created - across the board from sex to our diet. Culture influences how we deal with our environment, hence men and now even women increasingly critique progressive feminism’s breakdown of sexual norms. The answer isn’t red pill, progressive fem pill, or trad con pill but maybe God or wisdom pill. Issue is wisdom doesn’t scale.

**

Civilisation isn’t an end point but is a continuous effort to nurture our nature to better ends. The foundation of any serious civilization isn’t and has never been unobstructed freedom of nature, but is instead constraints on the worst of our nature - that allows for higher freedoms as a result. Unconstrained freedom is chaos, that requires order - but order requires structure, which brings coordination, which inevitably brings hierarchy as a function.

Civilization then is simultaneously about constraining domination (within hierarchy) and chaos (which results from having no order or hierarchy). Civilization is fundamentally a constraint system designed to stabilise human cooperation - but Western discourse has childishly elevated freedom and the individual to such a degree that any mention of “constraint” is now viewed as tyranny or repression. 

 

Edited 16 hours ago by zazen

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@zazen

24 minutes ago, zazen said:

Red piller trad cons simplistically blame feminism for today’s issues whilst downplaying the shift in incentives a modern environment brings. I think most aren’t actually against classical feminism (1st-2nd wave, equal rights and opportunity) but are opposing progressive feminism (latter 3rd-4th wave, equal outcomes + challenging / breaking of norms specifically around sexuality).

I tend to agree with this. I do not know your understanding of 4th wave feminism, but to my understanding, much of it has the propensity and hazard of crossing over into misandry. I do not even consider 4th wave feminism to be really acheiving anything as positive as 1/2/3rd. I feel like the first 3 waves focused on women defining themselves and their sovereignty. And 4th turned outward to trying to dismantle and confront power structures/hierarchy. Equality of outcome is questionable to me, obviously it depends on what we mean. But I see it suppressing incentive structures, requiring force and ignoring natural variance. The real tension comes from the fact that we are simply not all the same.

I can see why people argue for it - it can reduce extreme inequality, can prevent inherent advantage compounding forever and can help stabilise societies. It is usually the costs that come into question. 

I do not consider myself a feminist because I do not agree with all of the sentiments of 4th wave. And I openly admit my understanding of it is limited.

Edited 15 hours ago by Natasha Tori Maru

[Kid A]

2 hours ago, zazen said:

The point is yourself, @Lila9 and @Xonas Pitfall are assuming that men who discuss the current structural incentives and culture shaping how society interacts with those incentives in a negative way - are simply emotional incels who haven’t touched grass. Despite you guys commenting the most emotional rants here.

This is your perspective. For some of us, it’s obvious that those who claim we live in a matriarchy without having any arguments for it are by far the most emotional ones.

[Elliott]

4 hours ago, zazen said:

The point is yourself, @Lila9 and @Xonas Pitfall are assuming that men who discuss the current structural incentives and culture shaping how society interacts with those incentives in a negative way - are simply emotional incels who haven’t touched grass. Despite you guys commenting the most emotional rants here.

The point is that a breakdown in certain norms are being discussed, perhaps wrongly or too simply. But the implications being drawn from this “dangerous thinking” is that “men” now advocate for or want a return to the same oppressive norms of the past. It’s easy to defeat a strawman argument no one made with white knight energy and feel heroic, than deal with nuance.

The point is lack of substantive engagement with the points, just like with me responding to you on the topic of Islam to which you have no response. This challenges most of the Western liberal stance of the West in particular being ahead on the spiral dynamic ladder - celebrating achievements in acknowledging women’s moral worth that were already the case over a thousand years ago by a non Euro-centric civilization. 

@Lila9 The point is that not all disparities come from “patriarchal oppressive insecure men”.  There are differences and preferences between sexes that lead to different outcomes even in an egalitarian society with equal rights and opportunity. This branch / later development of Feminism overextends itself and misuses / misapplies the concept of equality. See the video I shared above on “are men and women equal” and the following article: https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20190831-the-paradox-of-working-in-the-worlds-most-equal-countries

**

The major point is that external structural constraints on sexuality have been removed through development (contraception, internet, education and urbanisation) and are no longer coming back. We evolved for one environment but live in another - ancient instincts, modern environment.

Hardware / structure / material reality removes and sets limits - software / culture / psychology plays within them. Like the chicken or the egg scenario - what caused what first..cultural feminism or structural developments? In an interconnected reality mostly both.

Red piller trad cons simplistically blame feminism for today’s issues whilst downplaying the shift in incentives a modern environment brings. I think most aren’t actually against classical feminism (1st-2nd wave, equal rights and opportunity) but are opposing progressive feminism (latter 3rd-4th wave, equal outcomes + challenging / breaking of norms specifically around sexuality).

The red pill is men attempting to understand a dating market that’s rapidly changed because of those forces (structural and cultural) - often by embittered men who those changes don’t favour and who inevitably fall prey to simplistic, reductive conclusions.  The reason red pill and pick up emerged in the West is due to those conditions.

If we clearly aren’t dismantling modernity to go back to cave dwelling that put hard limits on our instincts and nature - then only culture can now constrain the worst of our instincts to stabilise society. We have an evolutionary mismatch that only culture can patch over through adaption. Culture usually lags, and during that lag there is turbulence - current time of transition.

The cultural zeitgeist has so far been overcorrecting and indulging natures instincts through the frame of liberation. Any critique of that culture is seen as calling for regression to the past. Mostly likely as a protective reflex - because those freedoms were very hard won (rightly) and want to be protected. The critique largely isn’t about the freedoms but how to exercise them. Men could be more sophisticated in how they critique instead of being crude women bashers.

The solution obviously isn’t to swing the other way culturally - but is to find a nuanced balance only culture will bring because of irreversible structural changes. We need to adapt by normalising new norms for a new environment - not just a breakdown of all norms that are then indulged in as freedom and liberation.

Today’s environment requires far more conciousness and cultural nurturing to be healthy because of the evolutionary mismatch it’s created - across the board from sex to our diet. Culture influences how we deal with our environment, hence men and now even women increasingly critique progressive feminism’s breakdown of sexual norms. The answer isn’t red pill, progressive fem pill, or trad con pill but maybe God or wisdom pill. Issue is wisdom doesn’t scale.

**

Civilisation isn’t an end point but is a continuous effort to nurture our nature to better ends. The foundation of any serious civilization isn’t and has never been unobstructed freedom of nature, but is instead constraints on the worst of our nature - that allows for higher freedoms as a result. Unconstrained freedom is chaos, that requires order - but order requires structure, which brings coordination, which inevitably brings hierarchy as a function.

Civilization then is simultaneously about constraining domination (within hierarchy) and chaos (which results from having no order or hierarchy). Civilization is fundamentally a constraint system designed to stabilise human cooperation - but Western discourse has childishly elevated freedom and the individual to such a degree that any mention of “constraint” is now viewed as tyranny or repression. 

 

We were talking about chastity and how women shouldn't work. You're bringing other threads or delusions into this one. We explicitly asked for specific structural issues, and all that was brought up was chastity, and "the system is MaTrIarchIAl nOw." "fourth wAVe!!!!"

You act like we have a magic wand. Society evolves, and no one on here is promoting misandry, meanwhile, you are promoting misogyny.

You guys are assigning "foUrTh WaVe feMINisM" to some dispersed social media comments and then yelling "youre just being emotional!!!" At anyone that asks for an example. You haven't provided any example, because there are no legitimate ones of the feminist movement promoting misandry or harming of men. @zazen you've completely lost your shit emotionally in this thread, you've posted NOTHING even factually adjacent, you've only posted what you(or more likely, your handlers) feel into some prose meant to make some esoteric appeal that lacks ANY example.

If you were blue collar, christian, and white, you would be maga, you would be arguing that immigrants are stealing our livlihood. Your hate and arguments against women are no different.

Edited 12 hours ago by Elliott

[zazen]

5 hours ago, Elliott said:

We were talking about chastity and how women shouldn't work. You're bringing other threads or delusions into this one. We explicitly asked for specific structural issues, and all that was brought up was chastity, and "the system is MaTrIarchIAl nOw." "fourth wAVe!!!!"

You act like we have a magic wand. Society evolves, and no one on here is promoting misandry, meanwhile, you are promoting misogyny.

You guys are assigning "foUrTh WaVe feMINisM" to some dispersed social media comments and then yelling "youre just being emotional!!!" At anyone that asks for an example. You haven't provided any example, because there are no legitimate ones of the feminist movement promoting misandry or harming of men. @zazen you've completely lost your shit emotionally in this thread, you've posted NOTHING even factually adjacent, you've only posted what you(or more likely, your handlers) feel into some prose meant to make some esoteric appeal that lacks ANY example.

If you were blue collar, christian, and white, you would be maga, you would be arguing that immigrants are stealing our livlihood. Your hate and arguments against women are no different.

No one’s said women shouldn’t work or that they should be chaste virgins. You’re seeing guys trying to troubleshoot / analyse the situation - and taking their descriptions as prescription. No one’s advocated for anything yet - Xonas only just asked Basman what he’s advocating for on the previous page. Many of you are simply assuming we have the worst solution as a default.

Many guys don’t know the solution and are simply trying to make sense of things - let them, and help them. Thats why I made the distinction between different kinds of feminism - as everyone using the word and thinking different things in their head. I bet everyone here agrees more than they disagree on. It just takes some precise language to avoid being strawmanned.

For example feminism isn’t solely the reason for today’s problems. It can’t be blamed for removing constraints that industrialisation, economic and technological advancements independently would have removed. But culture definetely can and does influence the norms we legitimise in those new environments - once constraints no longer exist.

Material development removes limits and changes the environment, which changes incentives and behaviour as a result. Culture adapts or maladapts after the fact. What’s contested is that the later strands of feminism maladapted to the new environment by indulging in those new freedoms - sometimes in toxic ways with misandry seeping in as Natasha has mentioned before.

Yes society evolves - I said that when I mentioned we’re in a transition where culture has to adapt to the new environment. I said the solution isn’t to regress to a toxic past but to have a balanced cultural approach and healthier norms be normalised. Sleeping around as female empowerment isn’t a healthy norm for example - neither is Andrew Tate or hookup culture where men revolve their life around bedding women.

I pointed out red pill can have simplistic, reductive conclusions and you say I’m promoting misogyny lol read the comments your responding too. Then that I’ve lost my shit emotionally - I’ve commented 3 or so times on this thread calm as a cucumber.

Meanwhile a few pages back @Nercohype said all right wingers are subhuman and you said an efficient solution is to imprison guys with dangerous rhetoric against women as their basically a terrorist group.

Ya’ll have used terms like incels, subhuman, terrorists - and emotionally ranted against positions no one even made but that were only ever assumed - and yet we’re emotional? LOL

Raze and Basman have been completely measured. AION somewhat too although he’s over generalised - but he hasn’t had some meltdown.

5 hours ago, Kid A said:

This is your perspective. For some of us, it’s obvious that those who claim we live in a matriarchy without having any arguments for it are by far the most emotional ones.

Making a innacurate claim is simply making an inaccurate claim - doesn’t mean it’s an emotional argument. True though that we don’t quite live in a matriarchy.

I think the matriarchy / patriarchy framing is too simplistic to use today - or it requires nuance as its domain specific with each sex dominating certain area’s more than the other. But there’s no closed exclusionary system of “classical” patriarchy today where women are legally barred access - even if we still get different outcomes with men disproportionately in top positions. All things being equal even in egalitarian societies like Nordics we see unequal outcomes. That’s what I commented to Lila above - not all disparities are due to injustice.

There can def be social barriers ie discrimination - but that’s a very tricky things to handle ie social engineering outcomes. Top positions at least today seem to largely be due to selection pressures - by definition most men don’t even occupy the top positions. Those who do get there through massive filtering of those that are more high risk, high energy, willing to sacrifice work-life balance, work long hours and are ruthlessly ambitious. Women aren’t silly enough to seek out that sort of a life - most men aren’t even cut out for it.

Men are overrepresented at both extremes - top and bottom. While women are increasing in the middle.

 

7 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

@zazen

I tend to agree with this. I do not know your understanding of 4th wave feminism, but to my understanding, much of it has the propensity and hazard of crossing over into misandry. I do not even consider 4th wave feminism to be really acheiving anything as positive as 1/2/3rd. I feel like the first 3 waves focused on women defining themselves and their sovereignty. And 4th turned outward to trying to dismantle and confront power structures/hierarchy. Equality of outcome is questionable to me, obviously it depends on what we mean. But I see it suppressing incentive structures, requiring force and ignoring natural variance. The real tension comes from the fact that we are simply not all the same.

I can see why people argue for it - it can reduce extreme inequality, can prevent inherent advantage compounding forever and can help stabilise societies. It is usually the costs that come into question. 

I do not consider myself a feminist because I do not agree with all of the sentiments of 4th wave. And I openly admit my understanding of it is limited.

Agree also. The definitions of each wave get a bit blurry for me also - but directionally it seems correct that the former stages were about removing unjust barriers whilst the later stages / strands and offshoots are trying to remove disparate outcomes they view as unjust.

One is equality of law and opportunity which is settled, the other is seeking equality of outcome which requires social engineering to achieve and constantly maintain - because there won’t ever be equal outcomes, that are downstream from our own differences, including differences between the sexes that exist - but that we aren’t prisoners of either.

[zazen]

Been a while since Teal Swan. A new vid of hers that’s relevant here:

 

Edited 8 hours ago by zazen

[Elliott]

20 minutes ago, zazen said:

 

Did you watch the OP video, she says women should only be homemakers

 

 

On 2/8/2026 at 11:44 AM, AION said:

The egoism of our time

It is always me me me.

It is important to not get gaslighted and keep your own frame

Being anti main culture boils down to keep your own frame and giving it away

Women have a six sense sensing your frame. I was playing with this yesterday and if you 100% believe in your own frame and don't ping, weak men and women attack you, just for existing

If you are not constantly being shit tested by women and weak men you are doing something wrong.