I said this before: Feminism is not a philosophy or codified set of values. That's why Feminism can be just about anything.
Rather Feminism is the applied study of how to weaponize language to one's own self-interest.
When you begin to understand that, you understand it is just rhetoric, shaming tactics, playing the victim and other manipulation techniques to alter the values and thus actions of a geoupnof people. It has no inherent value, they are merely techniques, nothing more.
I have my own money, bank account, credit cards, and other accounts. That's not a result of language or shaming tactics. That's power.
What you say is simply geared to make unfuckable male losers online feel better about their inability to get laid. If it's nothing but techniques, then it's not their fault they can't get matches on Tinder.
If you're looking to make money off these gooners by doing this online, I guess it will work. Unfuckable men are desperate to be told anything except it's their fault because they're not good options.
DEI and the entire "intersectionality" stack comes directly from radical feminism. James Lindsay (I know, I know) had an early podcast where he went back to the original papers that made it clear that queer theory is just the next evolution of radical feminism.
« This is speculation on my part, of course. I’m not sure if there are any heckin’ stoodies on this or if it’s even really the sort of thing you could properly observe in a scientific experiment. I think the abortion issue suffers from a similar dynamic, though. »
I think you can get a proxy for this. I remember the datepsych guy did a shaky survey which basically assessed how sexist ( hostile?) or misogyne you are and asked about overall mating success. There was a correlation of sexism (hostile?) and not getting laid but I don’t think it was a strong one. He also cited another previous study that has shown no correlation. Now there is the whole anti-feminism≠misogyne thing but I would not be surprised if there is a correlation given half of the population is <100 iq.
I do think that « Chad » may have some misogynistic or anti-feminist beliefs and sometimes briefly express them, but he would never seriously debate feminism. This is the big difference.
Meninism/men's rights advocacy is to some extent petty but also necessary in a system that is so skewed in women's favor. In the same way that white nationalism is a natural response to Whites not having the option to not interact or share resources with "POCs", meninism has the same logical end goal even though most people in the movement won't admit it (which is very different from feminism since women fundamentally can't live without men and therefore there can be no true female nationalist movement). The difference of course is that historically men have always wanted to live around women but now that like half of young men are incels there's no real benefit to coexisting with women and a lot of costs. To be clear I don't think Whites separating from non-Whites or men separating from women are fully ideal situations, but that choice needs to exist to incentive more equitable solutions that can allow the sexes and races to live in greater harmony.
I don't consider meninism as put forward here to be a real "movement," rather it's a thought exercise meant to demonstrate that feminism is intellectually hollow. I think feminists should be met with meninist talking points until they concede that the whole gender war framing is unproductive and abandon it.
Males have used politics, power, physical violence for millenia to control and keep females out of power and autonomy of any kind, on purpose.
Only recently things have changed somewhat, in some parts of the world.
And even those small changes have lead to idiotic, hysterical overreactions from irrational incels who scream like babies about how strong and logical they are, all while desperate for female attention (Tinder is 76% male, as they admit, and it's probably higher in reality).
This type of literal delusion just isn't going to work. You aren't going to cry about "intellectual" hollowness when men are filing lawsuits to be transferred to women's prisons under the BS guise of "trans" and the Taliban giggle and laugh while legitimizing marriage to 9 year old girls.
You men are worthless. You have no talking points. You can get back to cooming and video games because your dreams of returning to the good ol' days of legal wife-beating and no economic options for women simply will not return. You lost, and there's nothing you can do about it.
This is pathetic. You want to know why you can't get any? Look in the mirror. You deserve it. And your entire existence is predicated upon obtaining sexual attention from women. Don't act surprised when I point out that's what's driving your irrational, delusional nonsense here.
You should be in a coal mine, not online. You were meant for manual labor, not organizing your irrational thoughts into poorly constructed paragraphs.
Except that women actually do have legal and social privileges unlike men, one is not equal to the other. That said women are not really the oppressors, they are one of the pet groups of the leftist elites.
I actually happen to see feminism as gynocentrism attempting to offset (to the point of eclipsing) androcentrism with that manifesting to various degrees with a potentially shorter lifespan than many would think because it's necessarily biased and, in many ways, unfeasible long term. Just my two cents, though.
I think the reframing tactic is flawed. One of the primary motivations of feminism is the desire for the feminist to adopt the perceived benefits of the opposite sex. They wish to do so, unaware of the legitimate responsibilities that men have. In short, feminists don't hate men; they want to be men.
I know of no anti-feminist man that desires this for himself *vis a vis* women. Or, there are no men (really) that want to be women, troons aside.
I dunno, lots of men today are passive and content to live in their mom's basement playing video games and never getting a job. I'd say that's adopting the perceived benefits of the opposite sex--being taken care of and having no real responsibilities. It's just that this can't be transferred into social status because low status men are expendable and women aren't.
"In this way, feminism and other identity grifts strike me as modern evolutions of the highly explanatory “stationary bandit” theory of governance."
Yup.
"As Albert Jay Nock once wrote, there are two ways human beings feed themselves: by the economic means, or the political means. The economic means is the production of goods and services needed by others. The political means is the capture of goods and services produced by others." https://substack.com/home/post/p-149328048
Digression: Incidentally, this is the AI risk I'm most worried about: "In the age of AI and UBI, almost no one can feed themselves by the economic means, because almost everyone is below the ZMP threshold. So everything becomes political."
Lest you're skeptical of machines taking jobs that aren't just replaced by newer better jobs in the near-to-medium future (i.e. our lifetimes and certainly our children's lifetimes) that's another discussion. I think that skepticism is unwarranted, but regardless:
"Communism! People love the brand, but they don’t remember trying it last century. Marxist-Leninism, which killed 100 million people, was (I believe) the political result of 19th-century and 20th-century destruction of labor demand at the hands of the Industrial Age. Whatever the causality, the two sure happened at the same time."
I never quite thought of it that way, but it's been clear to me for some time that a lot of our modern problems are problems of being too rich and not knowing how to deal with it. This is a problem we have ALREADY. Obesity for an obvious example. A criminally-inclined and welfare-dependent underclass for another. Being able to get away with seeing violent criminals as pitiable victims of society and upbringing.
I've been binge-watching The Walking Dead lately and it has had me thinking that some of what we consider civilized morality is more a matter of luxury, rather than our ancestors not being smart or enlightened enough to realize the "correct" answers to moral questions. Keeping prisoners, for example, whether in war or as punishment for crime, instead of just killing them, thus ensuring they can never again be a threat and can't have children who could inherit tendencies that may predisposed them toward being a threat, or who could learn from their father to be your enemy... You are exposing your people to danger if they ever get out. If you are a small tribe, it may be an existential risk. Do you have the surplus manpower to guard them? Do you have the surplus food to feed them? Or will you take food out of the mouths of the starving children of your people to feed your enemies, who would be a danger to and possibly even enslave or kill those same children? Is that the "moral" high ground? If it is, why should I give a sh** about morality if those children were my children?
That was a digression within a digression. End of digressions.
"I think one reason lies in basic evolutionary gender dynamics. Among men, making women upset is a low status behavior." Absolutely, and it's not just about making women upset being low status, although that's true too..
Karen Straughan discusses this dynamic... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vp8tToFv-bA&ab_channel=karenstraughan (PS I'm not an MRA enthusiast either, but many of their issues are legitimate, and she is a fantastic advocate for them.) The existence of feminism is its' own refutation. It exists and is as influential as it is while a counterpart like "meninism" does not precisely because women have always been more valued than men, and men and women alike are more sympathetic and concerned with the plight of women they don't know than they are of men they don't know.
And that IMO is normal and natural and good or at least perfectly ok. It's what allowed humanity to survive until now. Chivalry is good. Or if it is regrettable, it is nevertheless a biological reality we are better off coming to terms with. Sperm is cheap; eggs are expensive. Therefore women have more intrinsic "value" (from a biological perspective), whereas men have to struggle to achieve theirs. It is what it is.
The problem is seeing it through a zero-sum oppressor/oppressed lens... Combined with, as alluded to above, a world in which technological advance has objectively resulted in a continual decline in the (economic) value of (most) men. And probably the oppressor/oppressed lens is becoming more popular because it is a useful weapon in the political contest over resources, and politics is how more and more people get their resources as the productive class shrinks.
Whenever you debate a woman you are already implicitly conceding that women are rational actors that respond to argumentation and such. The more correct modus operandi is to disregard the words coming out of their mouths and simply lead & act.
Yeah, the "feminisms" really don't get much criticism, especially online!
I mean, if there's one idea that just doesn't get much flak at all, it's this one.
It's not blamed for literally every stupid, irrational thing that men do, and used as a stand in for every unfuckable, ugly male loser online who couldn't get laid in a prison with a carton of cigarettes.
Men shouldn't be allowed to vote. They're not connected to reality.
My preference is that feminism stop existing, so to my view, so long as it exists, it doesn't have enough pushback yet.
Incels suck too, mind you. Those guys are lame. Difference is nobody defends them--no one feels bad for weak men, which to some extent is how it should be.
Nobody cares what your preferences are. You’re a nobody.
You use “feminism” as a stand in for every time a woman has rejected you. I’m sure you’d love to live in a world where women have no choices, wife-beating is legal again, child marriage is legal again, and men suffer no consequences again.
It’s not going to happen. Nobody gives af about unfuckable male losers because you deserve no sympathy, and that includes you. Lol "nobody defends incels." There's literally podcasts making excuses for unfuckable males and crying about the FeMiNismS, which is exactly what you do.
There’s nothing you can do about it. The next president will be a woman. You lost. You’re a loser. Now, if men are so logical and rational (hint: they’re not) you’d deal with reality and start accepting things logically.
Since you can’t do that, shut up and go play video games and stick with your pornography. You’re useless.
I said this before: Feminism is not a philosophy or codified set of values. That's why Feminism can be just about anything.
Rather Feminism is the applied study of how to weaponize language to one's own self-interest.
When you begin to understand that, you understand it is just rhetoric, shaming tactics, playing the victim and other manipulation techniques to alter the values and thus actions of a geoupnof people. It has no inherent value, they are merely techniques, nothing more.
No.
It's politics, economics, power, laws, education.
It's not just language.
It's money.
I have my own money, bank account, credit cards, and other accounts. That's not a result of language or shaming tactics. That's power.
What you say is simply geared to make unfuckable male losers online feel better about their inability to get laid. If it's nothing but techniques, then it's not their fault they can't get matches on Tinder.
If you're looking to make money off these gooners by doing this online, I guess it will work. Unfuckable men are desperate to be told anything except it's their fault because they're not good options.
The irony of your response probably hasn't dawned on you yet.
By fapping to Andrew Tate TikToks
1/5 stars. Title was confusing, essay has nothing to do with Methodism.
DEI and the entire "intersectionality" stack comes directly from radical feminism. James Lindsay (I know, I know) had an early podcast where he went back to the original papers that made it clear that queer theory is just the next evolution of radical feminism.
Sir, it’s the current year. We call them cuntoids, not femoids… Frickin’ bigot
Watch your bleeping language young man !
« This is speculation on my part, of course. I’m not sure if there are any heckin’ stoodies on this or if it’s even really the sort of thing you could properly observe in a scientific experiment. I think the abortion issue suffers from a similar dynamic, though. »
I think you can get a proxy for this. I remember the datepsych guy did a shaky survey which basically assessed how sexist ( hostile?) or misogyne you are and asked about overall mating success. There was a correlation of sexism (hostile?) and not getting laid but I don’t think it was a strong one. He also cited another previous study that has shown no correlation. Now there is the whole anti-feminism≠misogyne thing but I would not be surprised if there is a correlation given half of the population is <100 iq.
I do think that « Chad » may have some misogynistic or anti-feminist beliefs and sometimes briefly express them, but he would never seriously debate feminism. This is the big difference.
“Feminist cancer with a few words switched around will fix it!”
Meninism/men's rights advocacy is to some extent petty but also necessary in a system that is so skewed in women's favor. In the same way that white nationalism is a natural response to Whites not having the option to not interact or share resources with "POCs", meninism has the same logical end goal even though most people in the movement won't admit it (which is very different from feminism since women fundamentally can't live without men and therefore there can be no true female nationalist movement). The difference of course is that historically men have always wanted to live around women but now that like half of young men are incels there's no real benefit to coexisting with women and a lot of costs. To be clear I don't think Whites separating from non-Whites or men separating from women are fully ideal situations, but that choice needs to exist to incentive more equitable solutions that can allow the sexes and races to live in greater harmony.
I don't consider meninism as put forward here to be a real "movement," rather it's a thought exercise meant to demonstrate that feminism is intellectually hollow. I think feminists should be met with meninist talking points until they concede that the whole gender war framing is unproductive and abandon it.
It's not "gender war."
It's sex.
Males have used politics, power, physical violence for millenia to control and keep females out of power and autonomy of any kind, on purpose.
Only recently things have changed somewhat, in some parts of the world.
And even those small changes have lead to idiotic, hysterical overreactions from irrational incels who scream like babies about how strong and logical they are, all while desperate for female attention (Tinder is 76% male, as they admit, and it's probably higher in reality).
This type of literal delusion just isn't going to work. You aren't going to cry about "intellectual" hollowness when men are filing lawsuits to be transferred to women's prisons under the BS guise of "trans" and the Taliban giggle and laugh while legitimizing marriage to 9 year old girls.
You men are worthless. You have no talking points. You can get back to cooming and video games because your dreams of returning to the good ol' days of legal wife-beating and no economic options for women simply will not return. You lost, and there's nothing you can do about it.
This is pathetic. You want to know why you can't get any? Look in the mirror. You deserve it. And your entire existence is predicated upon obtaining sexual attention from women. Don't act surprised when I point out that's what's driving your irrational, delusional nonsense here.
You should be in a coal mine, not online. You were meant for manual labor, not organizing your irrational thoughts into poorly constructed paragraphs.
Mad?
So ad homs, generalisations, mythology and attempted demoralisation? Sweet.
It's the same broken oppressed/oppressor narrative with some words switched around. It's men practicing being as vile and miserable as feminists.
Except that women actually do have legal and social privileges unlike men, one is not equal to the other. That said women are not really the oppressors, they are one of the pet groups of the leftist elites.
I think that's part of the point being made.
But there are people dedicated to debunk feminism:Xenon Shenglong, Coltainne, Rollo Tomassi, Cara B. MGTOW etc...
Good article but I won't stop at being a pro-white heterosexual non-transtornated males guy
I actually happen to see feminism as gynocentrism attempting to offset (to the point of eclipsing) androcentrism with that manifesting to various degrees with a potentially shorter lifespan than many would think because it's necessarily biased and, in many ways, unfeasible long term. Just my two cents, though.
I think the reframing tactic is flawed. One of the primary motivations of feminism is the desire for the feminist to adopt the perceived benefits of the opposite sex. They wish to do so, unaware of the legitimate responsibilities that men have. In short, feminists don't hate men; they want to be men.
I know of no anti-feminist man that desires this for himself *vis a vis* women. Or, there are no men (really) that want to be women, troons aside.
I dunno, lots of men today are passive and content to live in their mom's basement playing video games and never getting a job. I'd say that's adopting the perceived benefits of the opposite sex--being taken care of and having no real responsibilities. It's just that this can't be transferred into social status because low status men are expendable and women aren't.
"In this way, feminism and other identity grifts strike me as modern evolutions of the highly explanatory “stationary bandit” theory of governance."
Yup.
"As Albert Jay Nock once wrote, there are two ways human beings feed themselves: by the economic means, or the political means. The economic means is the production of goods and services needed by others. The political means is the capture of goods and services produced by others." https://substack.com/home/post/p-149328048
Digression: Incidentally, this is the AI risk I'm most worried about: "In the age of AI and UBI, almost no one can feed themselves by the economic means, because almost everyone is below the ZMP threshold. So everything becomes political."
Lest you're skeptical of machines taking jobs that aren't just replaced by newer better jobs in the near-to-medium future (i.e. our lifetimes and certainly our children's lifetimes) that's another discussion. I think that skepticism is unwarranted, but regardless:
"Communism! People love the brand, but they don’t remember trying it last century. Marxist-Leninism, which killed 100 million people, was (I believe) the political result of 19th-century and 20th-century destruction of labor demand at the hands of the Industrial Age. Whatever the causality, the two sure happened at the same time."
I never quite thought of it that way, but it's been clear to me for some time that a lot of our modern problems are problems of being too rich and not knowing how to deal with it. This is a problem we have ALREADY. Obesity for an obvious example. A criminally-inclined and welfare-dependent underclass for another. Being able to get away with seeing violent criminals as pitiable victims of society and upbringing.
I've been binge-watching The Walking Dead lately and it has had me thinking that some of what we consider civilized morality is more a matter of luxury, rather than our ancestors not being smart or enlightened enough to realize the "correct" answers to moral questions. Keeping prisoners, for example, whether in war or as punishment for crime, instead of just killing them, thus ensuring they can never again be a threat and can't have children who could inherit tendencies that may predisposed them toward being a threat, or who could learn from their father to be your enemy... You are exposing your people to danger if they ever get out. If you are a small tribe, it may be an existential risk. Do you have the surplus manpower to guard them? Do you have the surplus food to feed them? Or will you take food out of the mouths of the starving children of your people to feed your enemies, who would be a danger to and possibly even enslave or kill those same children? Is that the "moral" high ground? If it is, why should I give a sh** about morality if those children were my children?
That was a digression within a digression. End of digressions.
"I think one reason lies in basic evolutionary gender dynamics. Among men, making women upset is a low status behavior." Absolutely, and it's not just about making women upset being low status, although that's true too..
Karen Straughan discusses this dynamic... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vp8tToFv-bA&ab_channel=karenstraughan (PS I'm not an MRA enthusiast either, but many of their issues are legitimate, and she is a fantastic advocate for them.) The existence of feminism is its' own refutation. It exists and is as influential as it is while a counterpart like "meninism" does not precisely because women have always been more valued than men, and men and women alike are more sympathetic and concerned with the plight of women they don't know than they are of men they don't know.
And that IMO is normal and natural and good or at least perfectly ok. It's what allowed humanity to survive until now. Chivalry is good. Or if it is regrettable, it is nevertheless a biological reality we are better off coming to terms with. Sperm is cheap; eggs are expensive. Therefore women have more intrinsic "value" (from a biological perspective), whereas men have to struggle to achieve theirs. It is what it is.
The problem is seeing it through a zero-sum oppressor/oppressed lens... Combined with, as alluded to above, a world in which technological advance has objectively resulted in a continual decline in the (economic) value of (most) men. And probably the oppressor/oppressed lens is becoming more popular because it is a useful weapon in the political contest over resources, and politics is how more and more people get their resources as the productive class shrinks.
Whenever you debate a woman you are already implicitly conceding that women are rational actors that respond to argumentation and such. The more correct modus operandi is to disregard the words coming out of their mouths and simply lead & act.
Hey that's the exact sort of attitude I described in the section about why feminism doesn't get as much pushback as it deserves.
Yeah, the "feminisms" really don't get much criticism, especially online!
I mean, if there's one idea that just doesn't get much flak at all, it's this one.
It's not blamed for literally every stupid, irrational thing that men do, and used as a stand in for every unfuckable, ugly male loser online who couldn't get laid in a prison with a carton of cigarettes.
Men shouldn't be allowed to vote. They're not connected to reality.
My preference is that feminism stop existing, so to my view, so long as it exists, it doesn't have enough pushback yet.
Incels suck too, mind you. Those guys are lame. Difference is nobody defends them--no one feels bad for weak men, which to some extent is how it should be.
Nobody cares what your preferences are. You’re a nobody.
You use “feminism” as a stand in for every time a woman has rejected you. I’m sure you’d love to live in a world where women have no choices, wife-beating is legal again, child marriage is legal again, and men suffer no consequences again.
It’s not going to happen. Nobody gives af about unfuckable male losers because you deserve no sympathy, and that includes you. Lol "nobody defends incels." There's literally podcasts making excuses for unfuckable males and crying about the FeMiNismS, which is exactly what you do.
There’s nothing you can do about it. The next president will be a woman. You lost. You’re a loser. Now, if men are so logical and rational (hint: they’re not) you’d deal with reality and start accepting things logically.
Since you can’t do that, shut up and go play video games and stick with your pornography. You’re useless.
I'm married and I think porn should be illegal. I do like video games though, so you got one out of three!
Do you think you should be able to legally beat your wife?
And yet you sit here, desperate for any kind of female attention, from any woman at all, which you cannot get even if your life depended on it.
If you're so superior to women, you wouldn't be so desperate for approval and attention from someone who is inferior to you.
And that is the irrational thinking that leads men to act stupid, crazy, and violent--because they are.
Go play video games. You're going to lead nothing.
what are you yapping on about
lol she's in here like some sort of villain.