Feminism

What is feminism? Like any good dessert, it has a surface and then a center.

The surface is this good-sounding idea of “equality.” We make women equal to men, and then everyone is happy. We all share.

Underneath that, there’s the problem that equality doesn’t relate to reality. Nothing in reality is equal. In reality, people take different roles and work together toward a goal.

When we look deeply into feminism, we see its center: a demand that women come first, using the justification of equality, at the expense of men. It’s women gaming the system for their own personal demands.

If extrapolated, this leads to a society where everyone does what they individually want, with no shared cooperation and no goal. In other words, anarchy. The ultimate freedom. And yet, the ultimate freedom to have chosen dysfunction.

With no goal in common, every transaction becomes a bribe and there are no social standards. You spend more of your time on society, working around its dysfunctions, avoiding offense, honoring all the petty people, than you do when social standards are high.

A man eschews a committed relationship with a woman to live on his own terms? How dare he put his own needs first? He must be a man-child.

Even women who don’t identify themselves as feminists feel extremely awkward when confronted by a typical Red Pill question: “What do you bring to the table in terms of dating and a relationship?”

Feminists tore up their side of the social gender contract and are desperate to keep men upholding their unbroken side of that contract. – The Private Man

While the above is true, in a broader sense it’s not correct. Feminism wants men to become slaves to women; the response however of “I refuse to serve” is to give up slavery, but also give up on civilization itself.

This means that the dysfunction spreads and ultimately you have to live in a more disorganized, less functional and less rewarding society. It’s like spiting your nose by cutting off your ears, or some other self-destructive but seemingly satisfying revenge-activity.

When MRAs demand equality, they are becoming a masculine form of feminism. They want equality for all men, and all women, which leads to a further denial of reality. In reality, no one is equal, remember — just like in the army, a corporation or even a primitive tribe, we all have roles. Equality destroys that.

The mirror image of feminism that MRAs desire will “feel good” for a little while, until they realize they have just empowered feminism and made a mockery of masculinity at the same time:

For the 1st time, Mary Kay has awarded the pink Cadillac to a man.

Jim Cundiff from Garden City, MI was awarded the most coveted award Mary Kay can present to their consultants.

“You’re familiar with the Stanley Cup or the Heisman Trophy, that’s basically what the pink Cadillac represents, I get the privilege to drive this car,” Cundiff said. – KLTV

That’s the face of equality for you. You, too, get the pink cadillac. You, too, get to victim status like a feminist. What don’t you get? A functional society and a role that is specific to men so there is a need for men. Now you’re more equal warm bodies with no particular value whatsoever.

In the end, that’s what equality means: because no one is special, no one is really worth anything. We’re interchangeable parts.

71 Responses to “Feminism”

  1. person says:

    You’re not listening. Child-preservation IS a biological matter. And economic matters are directly relevant to child-preservation.

  2. Tim says:

    Child-preservation is a biological matter….ok. Ya, whatever. My point is child-preservation is not a function of biology. Above the need to accumulate credentials, degrees and certificates, is your need to look attractive. If you are an unattractive woman, then you are roughly equal to a male loser. If you are an attractive woman, you don’t really need to do very much. But above all other considerations, in order to attract a man, you will need to be physically attractive, in order to produce an erection in a male. For a male, in order to make himself attractive, he will have to find a way to somehow become socially dominant. Alpha, if you will. It doesn’t necessarily mean making a lot of money. He just needs to maintain an alpha frame, and not be a pussy. The overall point I am trying to make is, before you reproduce, when you are “in the game”, your fiercest competition, above all other competitions, is with other women. And for men it is with other men.

    *Of course, you can cheat biology. You can always get a sperm donation, or freeze your eggs, etc. But if not and you choose to go the old fashioned way, the above paragraph stands.

  3. person says:

    “Child-preservation is a biological matter….ok. Ya, whatever.”

    If you don’t think so, you obviously don’t understand the scientific basis for the whole point of your argument. Evolutionary biology, natural selection… it’s all about preserving your genes. And child-preservation is just as important for preserving your genes as reproduction.

  4. Tim says:

    Child-preservation is not a function of biology, directly. It is indirectly, yes, but not directly. I’m not saying there are no “mommy wars”, or that people don’t compete to get their kids into the best schools. Of course they do. But this is not as close to the root of biology as is our battle over genes – considering you go the old-fashioned way and not via sperm donor. (I’m also assuming you won’t settle for an omega male). It is a hierarchy, with biology at the top, and everything else below it. As regards child preservation, for millennia parenthood was done in “low-investment” societies. Children were born and many died at birth, but the ones that lived, lived for survival, and not much else. We are a “high-investment” society, but that is only because of ego, and technology, not biology. Ego is below biology on the hierarchy. Biology can live without ego, but not vice-versa. Same is true for economics. If you want your child to succeed, you are doing so merely out of pride, end of. If they are failures, there is a good chance you will still love them. So competition in this regards is less brutal than the primal contest over genes. The point stands: the fiercest competition is the one over genes, and this competition is intrasexual, and not between the sexes. It could also be that females are less competitive than men in this regard, as when fertility drops in a woman’s late 20′s, she takes herself off the sexual market. So I can see why you may disagree.

  5. person says:

    “But this is not as close to the root of biology as is our battle over genes”

    Child preservation IS a battle over genes.

    “As regards child preservation, for millennia parenthood was done in “low-investment” societies. Children were born and many died at birth, but the ones that lived, lived for survival, and not much else.”

    To the extent that humans are programmed to do anything, they are programmed to care for their young, just like most other mammals. We have NEVER been like fish or insects which just lay a shitload of eggs, leave (or die), and play the numbers.

    You’re just wrong. Yes, many children died at birth in many societies, but the ones that lived have ALWAYS been cared for in normal circumstances, no matter what the society.

    “The point stands: the fiercest competition is the one over genes, and this competition is intrasexual, and not between the sexes.”

    You’re just flat-out wrong. You obviously haven’t studied evolutionary biology or evolutionary psychology in a long time. The only competition is the one over the preservation of one’s own genes. Finding a good mate is part of that, but preserving your line, whatever the mate, is a lot more important.

  6. Tim says:

    Child preservation IS a battle over genes.

    I get the feeling we are talking past each other. In our modern society, your child will be preserved, even if you are lazy. If you are a single mother on welfare, your child will be preserved. There is no battle here.

    To the extent that humans are programmed to do anything, they are programmed to care for their young, just like most other mammals. We have NEVER been like fish or insects which just lay a shitload of eggs, leave (or die), and play the numbers.

    This isn’t true. There is no such programming, and there is no science to support it. Over a million abortions are performed each year, and the right to abort is a feminist cause celebre.

    The only competition is the one over the preservation of one’s own genes. Finding a good mate is part of that, but preserving your line, whatever the mate, is a lot more important.

    Exactly. You just paraphrased what I’ve been saying, but you offered a twist. Finding a good mate, to you, is secondary to preserving your child. Well, that does make sense from a female perspective. Most women have decided by their late 30′s they want to be off the sexual market. They want to have their kid before 40. So women aren’t trying to be sexy anymore, and at that age, they shouldn’t. So I can see where you’re coming from. From the male perspective, the kind of competition you are alluding to is…not very competitive. All you want to do is “preserve your child”, but you can do that on welfare and food stamps.

  7. person says:

    “I get the feeling we are talking past each other. In our modern society, your child will be preserved, even if you are lazy. If you are a single mother on welfare, your child will be preserved. There is no battle here. ”

    Perhaps, but if you don’t raise them right, it’s likely they won’t be emotionally stable enough to have children of their own and thus continue the line. In any case, if we’re talking about instinct, then it’s unclear that the modern situation is relevant.

    “This isn’t true. There is no such programming, and there is no science to support it. ”

    Yeah there is. Imprinting studies, etc.

    “Over a million abortions are performed each year, and the right to abort is a feminist cause celebre. ”

    So?

    “Finding a good mate, to you, is secondary to preserving your child.”

    Nope. It’s not personal. Perserving one’s child is primary in the genetic arms race, generally.

  8. Tim says:

    “I get the feeling we are talking past each other. In our modern society, your child will be preserved, even if you are lazy. If you are a single mother on welfare, your child will be preserved. There is no battle here. ”

    Perhaps, but if you don’t raise them right, it’s likely they won’t be emotionally stable enough to have children of their own and thus continue the line. In any case, if we’re talking about instinct, then it’s unclear that the modern situation is relevant.

    “This isn’t true. There is no such programming, and there is no science to support it. ”

    Yeah there is. Imprinting studies, etc.

    “Over a million abortions are performed each year, and the right to abort is a feminist cause celebre. ”

    So?

    “Finding a good mate, to you, is secondary to preserving your child.”

    Nope. It’s not personal. Perserving one’s child is primary in the genetic arms race, generally.

    “The burden is on you because you are the one stating it is unjust.”

    I’m stating a negative. There was no just reason for the discrimination. It’s up to you to then say “no, there was a just reason for the discrimination, and here it is…”

    “You were the one who initially stated the discrimination was unjust. I then asked you to explain, and am still waiting for an explanation. ”

    As I said, the only explanation I need to give to prove my point is that there was no just reason given for the discrimination. Now, that’s proving a negative, which is hard to do; I already gave a few candidates for the reasons the discrimination took place, and showed that they were not just reasons. I cannot possibly consider all possible reasons; it is now up to you to come up with a new reason that *would* have been just.

    “Nothing has changed since the debate began, except now you wish me to explain my position, first. I will, but not until I have heard your argument, first.”

    As I said, my argument hinges on a negative claim: there was no just reason for the discrimination. There’s no other argument I could possibly give, except to list all possible reasons that could possibly have been given for the discrimination, and show that each one of them is unjust. That is an impossible task, since there are potentially infinitely many such reasons. That’s why the burden shifts to you to give *one* reason for the discrimination that *was* just.

    “You keep on saying the burden is on me to prove your case.”

    Nope, the burden is on you to prove the contrary of my case.

    “Let’s get this straight: you stated – at the beginning – that women were oppressed by men, and evidence of this was the denial of the vote.’

    Nope; you’re the one who said that was the evidence. I agreed that that was one of many pieces of evidence.

    “You then prevaricated, and switched to discriminated against by men. ”

    Nope; I never did any such thing. I invite you to find where I did.

    “Finally, you said that women were unjustly discriminated against by men, and this is proof of oppression.”

    You and I agreed that unjust discrimination was tantamount to oppression.

    “This is your claim, not mine. You know the rules. You have to flesh out this idea of yours, not me.”

    Unjust discrimination is simply discrimination without just reason for that discrimination. Just reason for discrimination is a positive claim. Hence: burden on you to show that just reason.

  9. Tim says:

    The above comments are yours copied and pasted here. Response as follows:

    Perhaps, but if you don’t raise them right, it’s likely they won’t be emotionally stable enough to have children of their own and thus continue the line. In any case, if we’re talking about instinct, then it’s unclear that the modern situation is relevant…preserving one’s child is primary in the genetic arms race, generally.

    By child-preservation, I take it you mean you desire the whole suite of attractiveness traits for your child – in terms of both genes and environment. Then you’ll be selecting someone with resources. If this is so, then I believe that is a highly competitive struggle if I’m not mistaken. That’s why I’m a little confused. The fight over men is just as vicious as the fight over women, but of course it’s covert and not overt. Anyway, perhaps you could clarify this for me, as I am unsure as to what specifically you are talking about.

    Yeah there is. Imprinting studies, etc.

    Imprinting refers to sexual selection, doesn’t it? How does imprinting relate to caring for one’s young?

    So?

    It seems to me that abortion rights are prima facie evidence that humans are not genetically programmed to look after their young. I’d like to read your refutation of this. I’ll say no more until you respond.

    I cannot possibly consider all possible reasons; it is now up to you to come up with a new reason that *would* have been just.

    Yes, it was a mistake of mine to ask you that. Nonetheless, it is equally impossible for me to come up with reasons why women were discriminated against, or even unjustly discriminated against, if they were. I’ll tell you why: The US Constitution doesn’t say you can discriminate against women, but it doesn’t say you can’t, either.

  10. person says:

    “By child-preservation, I take it you mean you desire the whole suite of attractiveness traits for your child – in terms of both genes and environment. Then you’ll be selecting someone with resources. If this is so, then I believe that is a highly competitive struggle if I’m not mistaken. That’s why I’m a little confused. The fight over men is just as vicious as the fight over women, but of course it’s covert and not overt. Anyway, perhaps you could clarify this for me, as I am unsure as to what specifically you are talking about. ”

    I’ll I’m saying is that the fight for resources, to keep yourself and your child alive, is as important as the fight to find an attractive mate in the first place. And the former may well involve competition between members of different sexes.

    “Imprinting refers to sexual selection, doesn’t it? How does imprinting relate to caring for one’s young?”

    There are different types of imprinting, but one important one is the bonding between mother and child, which causes both to instinctively pay attention to each other.

    “It seems to me that abortion rights are prima facie evidence that humans are not genetically programmed to look after their young. I’d like to read your refutation of this. I’ll say no more until you respond.”

    Doesn’t seem that way to me.

    Whatever you think about the political debate on abortion, psychologically someone who has one does not think of what they’re aborting as being their offspring; not yet anyway. Once a child is born, most parents are quite driven to protect the child.

    This issue is part of a more general question I have for you though: what is your criterion of what constitutes an instinct? Is it simply a behavior that natural selection would be expected to select for? Or is it something that can be shown to be coded for directly by someone’s genetics? Either way, neither of us probably know enough about the science to really say anything about it; I’ve been speculating about what natural selection *should* select for, and you’ve been discussing patterns you say exist among humans.

    “Nonetheless, it is equally impossible for me to come up with reasons why women were discriminated against, or even unjustly discriminated against, if they were. I’ll tell you why: The US Constitution doesn’t say you can discriminate against women, but it doesn’t say you can’t, either.”

    Well, the feminist movement doesn’t base it’s idea of injustice solely on what the Constitution allows. If it did, then it would have had no grounds to change it in 1920. Rather, they base it on a more absolute notion of justice, the idea that there are some ways of discriminating that are objectively and universally unjust, and other ways of discriminating that are objectively and universally just, or neutral.

    Now, it’s hard to argue for such things, but one has to try, if one thinks that the idea of justice in general has any force at all. And if one doesn’t believe that, then there’s no point in having a Constitution at all.

  11. Tim says:

    All I’m saying is that the fight for resources, to keep yourself and your child alive, is as important as the fight to find an attractive mate in the first place. And the former may well involve competition between members of different sexes.

    Can’t disagree with that.

    “Imprinting refers to sexual selection, doesn’t it? How does imprinting relate to caring for one’s young?”

    It’s called filial imprinting.

    Whatever you think about the political debate on abortion, psychologically someone who has one does not think of what they’re aborting as being their offspring; not yet anyway. Once a child is born, most parents are quite driven to protect the child.

    This is true; it’s irrational, but it’s true.

    This issue is part of a more general question I have for you though: what is your criterion of what constitutes an instinct? Is it simply a behavior that natural selection would be expected to select for? Or is it something that can be shown to be coded for directly by someone’s genetics? Either way, neither of us probably know enough about the science to really say anything about it; I’ve been speculating about what natural selection *should* select for, and you’ve been discussing patterns you say exist among humans.

    It’s a good question but I don’t know the answer.

    Now, it’s hard to argue for such things, but one has to try, if one thinks that the idea of justice in general has any force at all. And if one doesn’t believe that, then there’s no point in having a Constitution at all.

    My point was that I didn’t think it was possible to prove that women were discriminated against because they were women, because the Constitution neither promotes discrimination nor prohibits it. Someone like Ron Paul would say the only purpose of government is to do what is essential and nothing more, like defense and the ensuring of a solvent currency. He would probably also say that the individual is allowed to discriminate, because that is their right.

  12. person says:

    “My point was that I didn’t think it was possible to prove that women were discriminated against because they were women, because the Constitution neither promotes discrimination nor prohibits it.”

    No, but particular laws did. The only concrete example I was able to find in my limited search on Wikipedia was a case where New Jersey repealed its ban on women voting in the early 1800s, then reinstated it (an explicit ban on women voting) a decade later. Other than that, the article basically assumed that such laws were in effect.

    “Someone like Ron Paul would say the only purpose of government is to do what is essential and nothing more, like defense and the ensuring of a solvent currency. He would probably also say that the individual is allowed to discriminate, because that is their right.”

    True, he would. But he would probably agree that the *government* should not discriminate, and so would support things like the 15th and 19th Amendments. But he doesn’t seem to support things like the Civil Rights Act, requiring *businesses* not to discriminate.

  13. Tim says:

    No, but particular laws did. The only concrete example I was able to find in my limited search on Wikipedia was a case where New Jersey repealed its ban on women voting in the early 1800s, then reinstated it (an explicit ban on women voting) a decade later. Other than that, the article basically assumed that such laws were in effect.

    Particular laws, yes, but not a Constitutional ban.

    True, he would. But he would probably agree that the *government* should not discriminate, and so would support things like the 15th and 19th Amendments. But he doesn’t seem to support things like the Civil Rights Act, requiring *businesses* not to discriminate.

    I’m not sure about that. He sounds like he wants individual states to decide for themselves how they want to be governed. I agree that he probably thinks state governments should not discriminate, however. But I doubt he wants the federal government to intervene.

    Regarding abortion, no matter whom I’ve talked to about this, be they man or woman, there is a distinction made between an embryo and a fetus. There is no affection or ‘maternal instinct’ accorded to the embryo, and so the decision to abort or not abort is an easy choice. However, once the embryo makes the transition to fetus, affection or ‘maternal instinct’ commences, and the decision to abort or not abort is problematic. As you said earlier:

    psychologically someone who has one ( an abortion) does not think of what they’re aborting as being their offspring; not yet anyway. Once a child is born, most parents are quite driven to protect the child.

    Have you ever considered how bizarre that is? I’ve always wondered why the embryo has to pass a certain checkpoint in order to attain rights. What you’re saying is a little different, though. Some sort of instinct that is human does not actually ‘kick in’ during the embryonic stage, but it does in most cases during the fetal stage and after. So this innate hard wiring you alluded to earlier, which is the most competitive struggle there is for a human – what you call ‘child-preservation’ – is muted during the embryonic stage, but is mysteriously activated during the fetal stage and after. I’ve never been able to understand that.

  14. person says:

    “Particular laws, yes, but not a Constitutional ban.”

    Who said there was? Certainly not I. The effect is the same, no? In most circumstances (except for a few states at a few times), no women could vote in the US until 1920.

    “I’m not sure about that. He sounds like he wants individual states to decide for themselves how they want to be governed. I agree that he probably thinks state governments should not discriminate, however. But I doubt he wants the federal government to intervene.”

    You’re right; I forgot about the whole states’ rights thing.

    “Regarding abortion, no matter whom I’ve talked to about this, be they man or woman, there is a distinction made between an embryo and a fetus. There is no affection or ‘maternal instinct’ accorded to the embryo, and so the decision to abort or not abort is an easy choice. However, once the embryo makes the transition to fetus, affection or ‘maternal instinct’ commences, and the decision to abort or not abort is problematic.”

    What’s the definition then? I’m not too clear on it. I’m guessing the transition occurs before the current law makes the cutoff from legal to illegal in terms of abortion?

    “Have you ever considered how bizarre that is? I’ve always wondered why the embryo has to pass a certain checkpoint in order to attain rights.”

    I’ve considered it, and I figure it’s a member of the class of problems stemming from the paradox of vagueness, or “sorites”, the classic example of which is the question of how many grains of sand constitute a “heap” of sand. Other examples include the proper age to designate the transition to adulthood for purposes of voting, conscription, sexual consent, etc.

    “What you’re saying is a little different, though. Some sort of instinct that is human does not actually ‘kick in’ during the embryonic stage, but it does in most cases during the fetal stage and after. So this innate hard wiring you alluded to earlier, which is the most competitive struggle there is for a human – what you call ‘child-preservation’ – is muted during the embryonic stage, but is mysteriously activated during the fetal stage and after. I’ve never been able to understand that.”

    I don’t know. I think it’s dangerous to speculate about instinct in general when it comes to human beings, as opposed to culturally learned behaviors.

  15. Tim says:

    Who said there was? Certainly not I. The effect is the same, no? In most circumstances (except for a few states at a few times), no women could vote in the US until 1920.

    All I’m saying is there is no mention of discrimination – in total – in the constitution, that’s all.

    What’s the definition then? I’m not too clear on it. I’m guessing the transition occurs before the current law makes the cutoff from legal to illegal in terms of abortion?

    Actually, I don’t know the law regarding abortion. I think it is a states rights issue, and varies from state to state. But my point was not really about the legality of it. I was just observing that I never understood why a woman only began to love her child after it passed a certain checkpoint. Earlier you mentioned that child-preservation was the strongest drive of the human species, and this to me implies something that is instinctual as opposed to rational. So a woman knows rationally that she has an embryo growing inside her, but she feels nothing instinctually towards it, and thus she can abort it. In other words, her rationality overrides her instincts, because she feels nothing for her embryo. Later, when the embryo becomes a fetus, she feels something for it, some kind of bond. Anyway, that always struck me as odd. I assumed that one’s faculty of reason trumps everything, such as one’s instincts.

    I’ve considered it, and I figure it’s a member of the class of problems stemming from the paradox of vagueness, or “sorites”, the classic example of which is the question of how many grains of sand constitute a “heap” of sand. Other examples include the proper age to designate the transition to adulthood for purposes of voting, conscription, sexual consent, etc.

    Ok, so what you are saying then is, child-preservation is ultimately a rational choice, and not an instinct. I think that’s what you’re saying.

    I don’t know. I think it’s dangerous to speculate about instinct in general when it comes to human beings, as opposed to culturally learned behaviors.

    I think it’s worthwhile. I never considered it dangerous.

  16. [...] What is feminism? “a demand that women come first, using the justification of equality, at the expense of men.” http://www.groin.com/feminism/ [...]

Leave a Reply