How Feminism Became The West's New Moral Authority

[Elliott]

"Men need help making sense of this"

Men need to just go out and socialize with well-adjusted people and talk to women like humans, you'll find a woman to marry, just respect her and if she doesn't respect you, leave. Most women are great.

It's really that simple. All this overcomplication is just ways people try to make money on the internet off vulnerable guys.

 

Don't be a jerk, don't be a creep, don't go out to get laid by trying to get a girlfriend, do not intermix these things, they're two different activities.

[AION]

40 minutes ago, zazen said:

 

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

 

I'm not going to lose my shit over these kind of people. They don't know what they are talking about and it is always me-me-me.

[Xonas Pitfall]

The problem with these discussions is that I cannot tell which claims are actually being made. The position keeps shifting, which makes real debate impossible.

For example, AION initially said we live in a matriarchy, and people responded by explaining why that claim is false. Then the response became, “That is not what we are claiming, we are just saying men and women are different. The system isn't working, it needs change.” Sure, but different how, exactly? Or, he said, “the egoism of our time, it is always me, me, me,” that sounds like a moral complaint, but it does not actually specify a position. What would a society with "less egoism in women" look like in practice? What behaviors would change, and which ones would be discouraged?

I am not denying that differences exist. The issue is specificity. There is a huge gap between a modest claim like “women are shorter on average than men” and a sweeping systemic claim like “we live in a society ruled by women,” or “the world is ruined by female egoism”. Those are not even in the same category.

What differences are actually being asserted? How large are they? In which domains do they matter?

The same problem appears with proposed solutions. Statements like “there should be less promiscuity,” or “families should be more stable” are things most people already agree with. The real disagreement is about the methods.

For example, some people might argue that women should return to traditional roles. Others disagree with that approach. That is where the actual debate is. But unless you clearly state whether that is your position, and why, the discussion never reaches the point where disagreement can be meaningfully evaluated. You need to make concrete claims about systems, causes, and proposed changes. Otherwise, we just end up talking past each other.

Edited 11 hours ago by Xonas Pitfall

[Elliott]

1 hour ago, Xonas Pitfall said:

The problem with these discussions is that I cannot tell which claims are actually being made. The position keeps shifting, which makes real debate impossible.

For example, AION initially said we live in a matriarchy, and people responded by explaining why that claim is false. Then the response became, “That is not what we are claiming, we are just saying men and women are different. The system isn't working, it needs change.” Sure, but different how, exactly? Or, he said, “the egoism of our time, it is always me, me, me,” that sounds like a moral complaint, but it does not actually specify a position. What would a society with "less egoism in women" look like in practice? What behaviors would change, and which ones would be discouraged?

I am not denying that differences exist. The issue is specificity. There is a huge gap between a modest claim like “women are shorter on average than men” and a sweeping systemic claim like “we live in a society ruled by women,” or “the world is ruined by female egoism”. Those are not even in the same category.

What differences are actually being asserted? How large are they? In which domains do they matter?

The same problem appears with proposed solutions. Statements like “there should be less promiscuity,” or “families should be more stable” are things most people already agree with. The real disagreement is about the methods.

For example, some people might argue that women should return to traditional roles. Others disagree with that approach. That is where the actual debate is. But unless you clearly state whether that is your position, and why, the discussion never reaches the point where disagreement can be meaningfully evaluated. You need to make concrete claims about systems, causes, and proposed changes. Otherwise, we just end up talking past each other.

I believe all of them, except AION, have claimed that the feminist movement is what ended chastity in our culture and brought on casual sex. This is false revisionist history, extra-marital sexual escapades have been common and well documented throughout our culture even back into the bible. STDs like syphilis were epidemic levels in the 20s, 50 years before 'the sexual revolution', al capone died from it. Several u.s. cities major business was brothels for 100 years, Europe has brothels hundreds of years old.

Edited 10 hours ago by Elliott

[Natasha Tori Maru]

1 hour ago, Xonas Pitfall said:

The problem with these discussions is that I cannot tell which claims are actually being made. The position keeps shifting, which makes real debate impossible.

For example, AION initially said we live in a matriarchy, and people responded by explaining why that claim is false.

This. 

As far as I am concerned the premise was debunked by countering the claim we live in matriarchy.

Everything else is just slippery sidestepping ego stuffs  

[Hojo]

Its a matriarchy that expects men to lead. Patriarchy is silenced and deemed 'sexist'. So patriarchy is stopping communicating and the matriarchy is not taking the patriarchys place. Therefore stalemate.

Men are absolutely being feminised and demasculated.

Calling people retards, being mean and angry is masculine we are not allowed to do that anymore. 

You will rarely see a man tell another person how to speak or what he can and cant do. Feminists do this non stop.

If a man dosent like what someone says they will insult them or not listen, A woman will tell them they cannot be what they are, if we have to listen patriarchy is done. After that matriarchy has to lead but they wont, too bad all its defined by is what the patriarchy does.

Its like conservatives talking points being anti liberal. If your entire field, is anti other field, your field has no ground and dosent actually exist. This is where the stalemate comes from.

When you turn your theories and beliefs into policing the patriarchy turns into your bitch and it cant fight back.

If I made the statement 'All men are retards' I would not get banned. If I made the same statement against woman I would be banned or warned. Where is the bias? In the matriarchy. This is where the policing comes in.

Against the men other people would say 'haha true' or maybe 'Maybe you are'

Against the woman the response would be 'You cannot say that and you are evil for saying that.'

Men who are online alot literally dont know what to say anymore to woman IRL cause they are confused and dont know how to be themselves anymore.

This is why I say just ignore them, if something happens it happens. If it dosent it wouldnt have made you happy anyway. Men are thinking way too much when thier minds should be silence. Thats how God intended mens minds too be. Not policed into submission.

Men need God not woman. God being total self acceptance. That is anti feminist. 0 policing of the self. The policing leads to confusion.

Edited 9 hours ago by Hojo

[Natasha Tori Maru]

I don't think it is either (matriarchy or patriarchy) - something new is forming imo

[Raze]

A matriarchy can’t form because women still demand the special privileges they get from patriarchy, they just want to deconstruct the parts they don’t like. That’s not how balanced systems work so it just results in confusion and chaos in which case feminists just double down and blame men.

We see this in liberal feminist culture being toxic and unsustainable socially with high rates of mental illness and collapsing fertility rate. Rather than address this they just want it to spread.

The American black community is one example of this, they didn’t have any real defenses to it (aside from a significant amount of religiosity) since they relied on the left movements due to discrimination, and they didn’t build up a lot of wealth and stability to have a more managed decline since they only got more equal economic participation relatively recently.

Socially, the American black community got hollowed out. Massive single parenthood rate, tons of chaos with radical beliefs and gangs filling the void. From what I heard dating in that community is a nightmare. I see a ton of black women and men actually brag about dating outside their culture and moving elsewhere. Lately white people are following a similar trajectory, theirs is just less extreme because they had built up advantages before hand since they didn’t have the same repression / had a longer period to grow power and wealth as a group.

Really what a lot of feminisms cultural push was, was a minority of mentally masculine women resting the feminine cultural role and wanting the roles of men and women to be the same. Since women are mostly feminine and follow masculine leads they followed these women.

Feminism became more democratized and included more normal feminine women however it just becomes incoherent because it is more about them just rationalizing their vibes and feelings creating hypocrisy and double standards that don’t make sense and rather than having concrete specific goals instead have vague demands and periodic hysterias. 

Edited 8 hours ago by Raze

[Natasha Tori Maru]

1 hour ago, Hojo said:

You will rarely see a man tell another person how to speak or what he can and cant do. 

I cannot stop laughing. Don't even know what to address here. 

Jesus lord I pray to thee ROFL

[Raze]

1 hour ago, Hojo said:

 

You will rarely see a man tell another person how to speak or what he can and cant do. Feminists do this non stop.

 

If you want to be taken seriously you need to not be so generalized.

I get what you’re saying, there is definitely a thing about women being more prone to tone policing as a way to enforce social order.

https://expression.fire.org/p/male-students-show-more-tolerance
 

Quote

Male students show more tolerance for political enemies than females show for their own allies

However just blanket saying you “rarely” see this is wrong, there are many examples of men doing this as well.

You need nuance or your point will get dismissed out if hand if people can instantly think of many counter examples.

Edited 8 hours ago by Raze

[Kid A]

3 hours ago, Hojo said:

If I made the statement 'All men are retards' I would not get banned. If I made the same statement against woman I would be banned or warned. Where is the bias? In the matriarchy. This is where the policing comes in.

Against the men other people would say 'haha true' or maybe 'Maybe you are'

Against the woman the response would be 'You cannot say that and you are evil for saying that.'

You're a man. There's a big difference between attacking your own gender and the other.

Also worth mentioning that this is a very male-dominated forum and women are a small minority here. Which is something I understand better and better for each day I spend here...

[Natasha Tori Maru]

6 minutes ago, Kid A said:

You're a man. There's a big difference between attacking your own gender and the other.

Also worth mentioning that this is a very male-dominated forum and women are a small minority here. Which is something I understand better and better for each day I spend here...

I see lots of lack of objective thought, critical thinking + extreme bias. 

I don't have the time or energy to police it all. Plus, I pick my battles. Some users have proven they just want to present their thoughts and not engage in a good faith discussion. Sad but... 'Tis what it is. 

I really appreciate those who bring some reality to the situation though ! 

[Basman]

We don't live in a mathriarchy. That's a gross exaggeration. Women are too a certain extent a protected class, similair to immigrants and black people, which is why there is a bias and a double-standard for not talking shit about women too much. 

[AION]

7 hours ago, Xonas Pitfall said:

The problem with these discussions is that I cannot tell which claims are actually being made. The position keeps shifting, which makes real debate impossible.

For example, AION initially said we live in a matriarchy, and people responded by explaining why that claim is false. Then the response became, “That is not what we are claiming, we are just saying men and women are different. The system isn't working, it needs change.” Sure, but different how, exactly? Or, he said, “the egoism of our time, it is always me, me, me,” that sounds like a moral complaint, but it does not actually specify a position. What would a society with "less egoism in women" look like in practice? What behaviors would change, and which ones would be discouraged?

I am not denying that differences exist. The issue is specificity. There is a huge gap between a modest claim like “women are shorter on average than men” and a sweeping systemic claim like “we live in a society ruled by women,” or “the world is ruined by female egoism”. Those are not even in the same category.

What differences are actually being asserted? How large are they? In which domains do they matter?

The same problem appears with proposed solutions. Statements like “there should be less promiscuity,” or “families should be more stable” are things most people already agree with. The real disagreement is about the methods.

For example, some people might argue that women should return to traditional roles. Others disagree with that approach. That is where the actual debate is. But unless you clearly state whether that is your position, and why, the discussion never reaches the point where disagreement can be meaningfully evaluated. You need to make concrete claims about systems, causes, and proposed changes. Otherwise, we just end up talking past each other.

The thing is that it is impossible to understand women. Even the smartest people that lived said it is impossible to understand women. It is one of the great enigmas that still exist. So it is much better to focus on what WORKS (for men dealing with women) instead of truly understanding them.

Egoism in feminism knows know limits and that is because they are the gate keepers of sex and reproduction. So basically now they have autonomy they are the game makers and they chose scumbags over good options and then say "all men are scumbags" while they are the ones who reward them. Humanity is losing a lot of valuable time having to deal with women's bullshit.

Just look at how much time men spend to learn game and trying to get pussy. This time could be used for great innovations. And when these men finally find a women they get robbed 50% of their assets which women will spend on stupid shit.  

Although I'm painting a very bleak image soon, the tables will turn. Most women are childless and alone:

And with technological developments like AI sex robots, the stats for women will even get worse. Most men put up with bullshit for sex. But if those same guys can get sex with perfect human replicas of 18 year AI old robot blondes, why would those same men take bullshit of a 30 year old egoistic feminist? I wouldn't.

Obviously men will still seek relationships with real women but it wouldn't be from  a position of horniness and desperation since they would get the sex from AI sex robots. And only engage with women from a position of strength. Since they wouldn't be the gate keepers of sex anymore.

Another paradigm shift will be when tech is so advanced that we don't need women for reproduction. This will be the second wave of "Menism" where we free ourselves from the shakles of slavery for women. 

Edited 3 hours ago by AION

[Hojo]

@Kid AI have never told a woman to not say something. @Natasha Tori MaruProtected class is not reality thats bad faith.

Edited 2 hours ago by Hojo

[Hojo]

@RazeInteresting graph, it shows liberals trying to be more tolerant are actually less tolerant. While conservative who are less tolerant are actually more tolerant. While being more tolerant towards race and diversity you become less tolerate towards free speech and by being less tolerant of race and diversity you become more tolerant of freedom of speech.

On further looking at the graph you can actually see matriarchy and patriarchy built into the graph. On the conservative side (patriarchy) You can see the men are most tolerant for free speech and their wives support the husbands are therefore more prone to freedom of speech. And on the reverse liberal side (matriarchy) you can see the woman being less tolerant of freedom of speech while the male counter supporting them shortly behind.

We can see what patriarch and matriarch ultimately lead too in this graph.

Conservatives are freedom of speech, limited bodily autonomy of their counterpart on the patriarch side.

Liberals are freedom of bodily autonomy, but limited speech for their counterpart on the matriarch side.

Because men are more physical and woman are more mental.

This is ego.

Edited 2 hours ago by Hojo

[zazen]

7 hours ago, Elliott said:

I believe all of them, except AION, have claimed that the feminist movement is what ended chastity in our culture and brought on casual sex. This is false revisionist history, extra-marital sexual escapades have been common and well documented throughout our culture even back into the bible. STDs like syphilis were epidemic levels in the 20s, 50 years before 'the sexual revolution', al capone died from it. Several u.s. cities major business was brothels for 100 years, Europe has brothels hundreds of years old.

There was no antibiotics then and it could spread through a small number of highly promiscuous people. But it doesn't mean it was normalised in society at a cultural level - more so tolerated at the margins hence brothels. The bible describing something is different to it prescribing it or endorsing it.

Material advancements (pill, industrialization, internet, social media / dating apps) removed limits and changed incentives around chastity.  But culture largely either embraces the removal of those limits and approves / disapproves of what behaviour is then normalized in that new environment.  Modern society expanded freedoms faster than new stabilizing norms could emerge to exercise those freedoms responsibly.

When men are asked to point to structural issues they get stumped largely because its not so much structural but cultural. There's no collection of visible law we can point to. It's the same way how post-civil rights racial discrimination still exists - people can be structurally free (by law) yet the culture can remain hostile or not healthy - which that takes time to evolve.

In the same way - the general cultural discourse around and about men isn't healthy, and now even discourse about women isn't healthy with red pills emergence. We're in a toxic feedback loop.

Movements outlive their initial intent - and once their core goals are achieved they need to find new paths to go down to survive. Feminism later grew offshoots that are deemed as unhelpful or unnecessary.  The need for equal outcomes (rather than opportunity) or challenging norms around sexual behaviour - by removing any norms around it instead of having healthy norms take their place.

It matters what is normalized rather than what is merely tolerated at the margins of society. For example - adults going to a cabaret show or burlesque behind closed doors where camera's usually aren't allowed - is different to Nikki Manaj twerking at a superbowl with the whole nation watching,  including children.

Edward Bernayes marketed cigarettes to women as a identity of liberation ''torches of freedom''. Today slutification is marketed as freedom and empowerment. Men can't objectify women but they can objectify themselves because its liberating when they do it - despite objectification still occurring.

A good test is to imagine being father to a daughter then ask - what kind of society would we want her growing up in? What would we want to be seen as normal by the wider culture. 

We actually need some haram police - some shame is a healthy tool for stabilizing society. It's either the hard way by force (actual haram police like in Iran or Saudi Arabia), or the soft way by cultural and social conditioning that approves or disapproves of certain behaviors. Western society removed the harsh way but also doesn't want the soft way because it ''hurts feelings''. Accept everything, pluralism until hitler gets voted, don't be so JuDgMeNtAl - no, its called discernment.

Edited 2 hours ago by zazen

[Hojo]

@RazeThe reason I think is woman having men care about feelings is a survival technique. As brutal as it is.

Edited 2 hours ago by Hojo

[AION]

46 minutes ago, Hojo said:

@RazeThe reason I think is woman having men care about feelings is a survival technique. As brutal as it is.

Men are naive. Although men have the capacity to be more rational in general, in relationships it is a different story. In relationsihps men are the more emotional ones while women can be ruthlessly rational from an egoistic hypergamous standpoint. It is not a build in survival technique but (toxic) feminist indoctrination through media, movies and schooling. Although feminism has some points, nowadays it is mostly overdone, toxic and ego/power tripping. Redpill is ego/power tripping too. There needs to be a need a new kind of pill movement that syntheses the truth. But we are far away from that point.

Even Leo Gura who campions the truth has swallowed all of his words about women and doesn't tell the truth about women anymore because he is sick and tired and frankly doesn't care enough about the truth in this regard.

Edited 1 hour ago by AION

[Hojo]

@AIONI am talking about before society. They had to convince men that there was something inside the body that was being harmed as a survival technique. Picture a primative man beating a woman and the woman shreaking sounds and the primitive man looking at his bloody hand and seeing that he has harmed something and self reflecting that there is something inside of the body. And the woman going there is something in here that has feelings you cant just do things to me whenever you want I have feelings.

With the primitive man it was like I beat you or you beat me and thats it. With primitive man and woman it had to be different. They would have had to convince primitive man by creating feelings in the man.

Edited 1 hour ago by Hojo