How Feminism Became The West's New Moral Authority

[Natasha Tori Maru]

1 hour ago, AION said:

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.

From everything I read from you regarding women, he appears to understand women to a greater extent than you. 

The difference is you appear to be unaware of the bias and misunderstanding in your own thoughts. 

Experience and age will help you. 

Edited Monday at 12:50 PM by Natasha Tori Maru

[Elliott]

7 hours ago, zazen said:

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.

Again, feminists OPENLY, PUBLICLY, OPPOSE and criticize pump n dump, it's  CONSERVATIVES that promote it. Your both-sidedness is fucking retarded standard conservatard protocol. You just can't get off of your incel rant against feminism, feminism NEVER promoted pump n dump, conservatives have ALWAYS promoted it(see the bible), despite quiet murmurs against it.

I'm done talking to you about this, you're dogmatic and emotional about it(not your demeanor, your lack of critical and rational thinking). You have a homosexual idealized view of conservatives just because once a year one guy out of 50 million murmurs that people should be chaste, meanwhile the other 49 million guys and 364 days, they hypersexualize everything and promote pump n dump. Everything conservatives say in terms of morality are contradictions, they/YOU live in a constant state of cognitive dissonance. Feminists ALWAYS vocally opposed objectifying people, you're deluded and just regurgitating that idiot Muslim you always post.

 

American Psychological Association (APA)

https://www.apa.org

Sexual hook-up culture

Feb 1, 2013 — Hookups began to become more frequent in the 1920s, with the upsurge of automobiles and novel entertainment, such as movie theaters. 

 

See the conservatives in this reply.

 

Edited Monday at 05:44 PM by Elliott

[zazen]

44 minutes ago, Elliott said:

Again, feminists OPENLY, PUBLICLY, OPPOSE and criticize pump n dump, it's  CONSERVATIVES that promote it.

Again - read the comment your responding to where I said ''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.''

There's variation among feminists (classical, liberal / progressive) and conservatives who've both deviated from their origins. Right wing red pill bro's aren't the same as traditional conservatives. It's like saying Muslims promote terrorism when its nutter offshoots like ISIS.

The sex positive strand of feminism doesn't advocate to be "pumped and dumped" but removing the stigma and breaking norms around sex unleashed dynamics that produce exactly that. It delivered apex male utopia while thinking it was liberating women, chad-enomics.

This is all of us using the same blanket term feminism talking past each other:

55 minutes ago, Elliott said:

Sexual hook-up culture

Feb 1, 2013 — Hookups began to become more frequent in the 1920s, with the upsurge of automobiles and novel entertainment, such as movie theaters. 

Hooks up increasing isn't the same as it being a hook up culture. A behavior existing or increasing in the past isn't the same as that behavior being culturally mandated or normalised.

Just like my comment said - structural changes happen that change behavior via new incentives ( in this case cars and theaters ). Culture adapts to that new environment after the fact - signalling what new norms are accepted or not. In that time the wider culture still had certain norms to restrain behaviour.

A drive in date in a culture that expects courtship leading to marriage isn't equivalent to tinder hookups in a culture that celebrates no shame around body counts and has songs like WAP go mainstream. My boomer parents actually had their first chaperoned date at the theater and are still together today.

In the past men didn't and couldn't just go around bedding the whole town easily. There was still cultural stigma and the expectation that hookup and sex means your now ''serious'' and on the way to Church to do vows. Today it's netflix and chill, and hope you aren't ghosted.

 

1 hour ago, Elliott said:

I'm done talking to you about this, you're dogmatic and emotional about it(not your demeanor, your lack of critical and rational thinking).

Your done having your strawmen arguments blown over. I've said there's a middle way of balance we need to culturally come to, to manage a modern environment we aren't evolutionary adapted to.

We evolved for one environment and are living in another. ''Modern society expanded freedoms faster than new stabilizing norms could emerge to exercise those freedoms responsibly.'' 

The path is narrow.  Sensible people saying we need to constrain our behaviour and erect at least some walls gets conflated with we need to erect the same old walls that were overly repressive - which is is itself a lack of critical thinking and rationality.

 

[AION]

3 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

From everything I read from you regarding women, he appears to understand women to a greater extent than you. 

The difference is you appear to be unaware of the bias and misunderstanding in your own thoughts. 

Experience and age will help you. 

I don't think he changed his mind. He just stopped talking about it because; I'm paraphrasing here; he got sick and tired of debating with women on this forum. 

 

[Lila9]

On 2/15/2026 at 0:01 PM, zazen said:

@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

I see.

There are inherent biological differences between the sexes.

I.e., different genitals (no further explanation needed), different physiques (one has more muscle tissue while the other has more fat tissue), different hormonal cycles (women have a 28-day cycle in which energy changes during the month, some days energy is stable, some days energy is high, some days energy is lower, and some days energy is very low, while men have a daily cycle in which energy is high during the day and lower at night every day), etc., etc.

This is widely agreed upon by feminists. no feminists claim that this is not true. One would need to be very detached from reality not to see it.

There is no argument about this, correct?

The issue is that the system, which is patriarchal, yes, even in “the most egalitarian countries” in Europe, is still tailored more to the male physique, which still discriminates against biological females.

Labor performed by males is more rewarded and valued globally than labor performed by females.

Male-dominated professions like engineering, tech, and science are considered more valuable, while female-dominated professions like nursing, teaching, and social work are considered less valuable and therefore less paid. While we all want educated children (the next generation) and healthy people in society, we value those professions less when they performed by women. Why?

Additionally, women do more unpaid labor by doing more household chores than men and raising children, which affects their careers, and as a result, they remain poorer than men.

When women attempt to succeed in male-dominated careers, they are very likely to receive more hostility, sexual harassment, and sex-based discrimination due to biological factors such as motherhood and the menstrual cycle.

If we are talking about a truly egalitarian society, it can never be tailored to a male physique alone.

It should be tailored to the physiques of both sexes and, in general, any group other than white men - like disabled people, for example.

So, the article doesn’t prove anything about the unsuccess of feminism. It only proves that patriarchy persists, and the solution is deeper than just law-level equality.

Also, for true equality, we need men to want to be equal to women. It’s not enough for women to strive to be equal to men. Men also need to develop more emotional intelligence to be able to share the burden of emotional labor that women do. Men also need to be able to take care of children and do house chores. If women can work, raise children, and do house chores at the same time, men can too. If men don’t strive to be equal to women, no matter how many laws there are, it wouldn’t work. We need two to tango.

 

On 2/15/2026 at 0:01 PM, zazen said:

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. 

 

"Equal rights" doesn’t mean becoming a man. It means receiving the same human rights as men: the freedom to vote, to choose, to receive an education, to possess property, to earn, etc. It started with the first wave of feminism, which didn’t necessarily want to destroy patriarchy.

It just wanted the right to compete with men in the patriarchal system in order to spread privilege more equally, if that makes sense.

First-wave feminism did a lot of good for women, but it was mainly white women wanting the same freedom as white men.

However, it doesn’t fully work because the problem is deeper. The issue is deeper, and the solution must be more complex than simply granting equal rights by law. It is a nice beginning, but not the end.

This is why feminism continued through four waves. Each wave developed feminist ideas further and added more nuance to the previous waves.

Feminism evolved over time and adjusted itself to reality with constant backlash. 

The First Wave

The goal: Legal equality, the right to vote, property rights, access to education.

The backlash received from patriarchy: Claims that women are too emotional or irrational for politics (funny when it comes from men), mockery in the media, and portraying feminists as anti-family or unnatural.

The Second Wave

The goal: Workplace rights, reproductive rights, protection from domestic abuse, and opposition to pornography (arguing that it sexualizes inequality, normalizes violence, and trains men to see women as objects).

The backlash received from patriarchy: Rigid beauty standards, which were promoted and monitzied by capitalism; the porn industry further develops, which alienates women from their bodies and objectifies them for the male gaze, for mere comsumption, women internalizing this and not feeling connected enough to their bodies, constant stress, eating disorders, and mental health issues among women.

The Third Wave

The goal: Body positivity and sex positivity (emphasizing women’s agency and sexual autonomy), rejection of narrow beauty standards, rejection of the male gaze, and recognition of how race, class, and sexuality affect women differently (i.e., women of color are more oppressed than white women, LGBTQ women are more oppressed than hetrosexual women).

The backlash from patriarchy: Claims that feminism is no longer needed because women already have legal rights. Claims that feminism has gone too far.

Sexualization and commodification of feminist messages by capitalism in order to sell products, culture wars, and red pill/manosphere backlash.

The Fourth Wave

The goal: Bringing awareness to how widespread sexual harassment is in workplaces and powerful industries, shifting the shame to the attacker rather than the victim, accountability for abusers, believing and supporting survivors,

 body autonomy, reproductive rights, equal healthcare access/treatment, critique of porn expectations and unrealistic beauty ideals, critique of the “motherhood penalty” and “fatherhood bonus”, unpaid care labor, concerns about femicide and gender-based violence, which are seen as systemic issues.

Backlash from patriarchy: The manosphere (Andrew tate alike alpha bros), claims of “cancel culture” and “feminism gone too far”, political pushback against women’s reproductive rights, increased online harassment and misogyny targeting women, framing feminism as anti-male, promoting rigid gender roles, dismissing structural inequality.

Why is there always backlash to feminism? Note that feminism has valid goals. None of them involve killing, raping, controlling men, or harming men for no reason. The most “horrible” thing is holding men accountable for their bad treatment of women. 

It is more about freedoms that men receive without question and take for granted, while women do not. When women request the same form of freedom, fair treatment, and respect, they receive massive backlash. Why?

This is because the system, which is patriarchal, wants to preserve itself. The men (and some women) in this system work to preserve the system, because of various reasons: socialization, survival, conformism, fear of change, privilege, lack of critical thinking, ignorance, etc.

I would argue that the pickup and red pill movements emerged as a backlash to feminism, as an attempt to regress and revive the past, to preserve the gender roles of the past simply because they served men more than women.

This is anti-evolutionary. Historically, marriage has always served men more.

They made a bargain with the devil. The patriarch is a corrupted and inauthentic individual. He sold his soul for privilege in this hierarchy of power, where his freedom is guaranteed and his lineage continues, regardless of his character or genes.

He sold his humanity, his femininity, his compassion, his humanness, his eros, his intuition.

Today, after 4 waves of feminism the trurth is very obvious: men who follow patriarchy are not attractive to women, especially women who have deconstructed patriarchy, aka feminists, and see through its BS.

These men are not attractive not because they are bad-looking or not rich enough, but because they lack eros, which is life energy connected to feminine energy. They have too much logos (connected to masculine energy) and so little eros. This is boring. And it make them so dumb. 

If you read male characters written by women, they have lots of eros because they are at peace with both their feminine and masculine sides. No internal conflict.

 Regular men in the patriarchal system lack it. They are boring conformists and submissive to other powerful men. This is not attractive, I’m sorry.

Feminine and masculine energy are not uniquely possessed by men or women, both have them, and in women both energies are intertwined.

When you repress your feminine energy and force the other gender to repress their masculine, you end up with toxic and codependent gender roles, which are unnatural and inhuman, even if they are called “traditional.”

And if they are set to benefit only you while oppressing the other gender, don’t be surprised when you receive backlash. You deserve it!

Therefore, the solution for all young men who struggle with dating is to deconstruct patriarchy, learn how it it hurts them and women, connect to both their feminine and masculine energy and reclaim their full humanity: stop watching porn and objectifying women, talk to real women, learn leadership and organization skills from women, develop emotional intelligence, cultivate real relationships with people, and cultivate some eros.