On the folly of "feminism"

As usual this is taken almost verbatim from my past social media posts.

I like how the chicks in the video literally vindicate all the criticisms of women dispensed by the guys in the audience, but are too stupid, and busy engaging in their feminist orgy of self-affirmation to realize it. You see the all too typical feminist pretentiousness on their part, manifest in the assumption that all these men should want to be with them, and/or should be approaching them and asking them out with no expectations of any sort on the woman's part. Merely being told yes, and the women choosing to be with you, is all the reward you should want or need. They're so successful you see, and "got it going on" in their own minds (and all of their vacuous ideologue friends agree with them), that these men should be lining up to be with them. And when they don't, they explain it away with self-affirming fantasies of their own making, e.g., that men must be "intimidated" by their success, or their intellect, or their strength, etc. 

As I told a chick on my social media before. You're not intimidating, you're obnoxious. Your "accomplishments" aren't attractive. Men are not women. Men don't want women for how "accomplished" they are, men want women because they have a sweet ass (1), provide companionship (2), and will be good mothers to their progeny (3). If you're intelligent (4), and can participate in "deep" dialogues, that's just a bonus. We will take the first three things, without the fourth, but we will not take the fourth thing without at least two of the first three. Hate it all you want, it won't change anything. (Personally, my life got so much better when I stopped looking for the fourth thing altogether.) That's what normal, "good" men, want. They don't go out looking for their intellectual and professional rivals. If you provide one, two, and three, the average guy isn't going to care if you can spell your own name. And it must also be understood the more devoted you are to career and accomplishment, the less likely you will be able to provide two and three. All that time you're achieving, is time your personal financial value is going up, but your value as a companion is going down. So if you've devoted your life to achievement, thinking it would win you the desire of "good" men, you messed up. I'm not saying that to be hateful, and I'm not saying it makes it impossible, but it's the simple truth of the matter. If you don't understand that, then you don't understand men.

(The chick to whom I said that? Outraged of course. She started making flagrantly antagonistic comments on my posts, messaging me and basically accusing me of being a misogynist, etc. I ended up having to block her.)

The only thing "modern" women are the victims of is what they wanted. Period. As stated in the past, the natural and inevitable result of women being freed from traditional gender roles, was men likewise being freed from such. With women now paying their own bills, and being "sexually liberated" (which is just a euphemism for promiscuous), men have little reason to marry any longer and have also shifted toward lives of self-indulgence. Women give away #1 above freely now completely eliminating the necessity of marriage to procure it, and if you prefer a life of self-indulgence free of the expense of a wife or children, there's no reason to ever go beyond that. 2, 3, and 4 become superfluous.

The response of western women to this state of affairs, is to oppose and reject traditional gender roles, but only for themselves. They still expect men to conduct themselves according to their traditional gender role, and to meet the same expectations that men had a century ago. And this double standard is conspicuously manifest in numerous ways. A primary example is the female expectation that men have equal or more money than themselves and be providers; i.e., hypergamy. A century ago, when women didn't work, it was only natural for them to expect that men have more money and provide for them. They generally didn't want to date or marry down for obvious reasons. The problem is that they still expect this despite radical social changes, imposed at their behest, that have rendered that expectation impractical if not impossible. Obviously, as women become more independent and financially successful, ever fewer men meet that criteria and the smaller the pool of eligible mates necessarily becomes. More women get college degrees than men now, but they still often expect men to have equal or better paying jobs as/than themselves, and don't want to date or marry down. And they expect this because far too many of them are completely vacuous, self-absorbed, and illogical creatures.

In yet another video, a female doctor in her thirties laments being successful, and yet alone. And her sentiments are basically the same banal nonsense you hear from all "modern" women ("feminists"). She doesn't understand why she can't find a man when, by her criteria for an eligible mate (financial parity), she's excluded arguably well over 90% of the male population. This is compounded by the fact she thinks men are looking for the same things in a mate she is; e.g., financial security/prosperity. They're not. They're looking for at least two of the three things listed above (assuming they're looking for an actual relationship). Again, four is completely optional. And the fact is there are droves of younger, more attractive women than this single doctor in her thirties, for whom men making a physician's wage will meet the criteria of dating/marrying up (as she wants to do). And those male doctors can get those women with only a fraction, or none, of the headache involved with dating and trying to prove themselves to female doctor in her thirties. 

I see this pretty consistently. These "professional" women, no longer in their prime and single, and clueless as to why. And who do they blame for it? Certainly not themselves. It's the fault of men. It's not their fault for having completely delusional expectations. All these men just don't understand how awesome and wonderful they are. And what man, real man that is, would put up with such insufferable pretension? This is why if you see a "feminist" with a male companion at all, it's invariably a beta male, because only a beta would accept being the subordinate party in a relationship.

I would like to know why they're complaining at all. They're literally complaining about what has been expected of men since the dawn of human civilization. If you were born with a penis, it was simply expected you would forfeit your happiness, your dreams, etc., to provide for a woman and children. But for the most part it would seem they (women) have no interest whatsoever in reciprocating. Pride and Prejudice (both a book and a movie) is literally a story about a rich man, who takes a women out of poverty and obscurity, and elevates her to the highest echelons of wealth and social standing. And women are okay with that. They love it. Some guy coming along and paying for all their stuff is "romantic," you see. But they will not do that for you. Tell a woman they should have to go out and be the sole bread winner for the rest of your life, or take men out of the gutter as spouses, and see what response you get. They "don't want no scrubs; a scrub is a guy who can't get no love" from them. 

I've repeatedly heard women, over the course of my life, lament the sacrifices they had to make for their children. None of them would have accepted me referring to those sacrifices, to the bearing and rearing of children, as "female privilege." No, women only construe such sacrifice as a "privilege" when speaking of men to denigrate and justify pilfering from them. It's how they avoid acknowledging, and suppressing others from acknowledging, the fact it is men who've been saddled with the burden of providing for families since time immemorial. And now that women have begun to assume that same burden they incessantly complain about how awful and lonely it is. They want the privilege without the responsibility; to have their cake and eat it too.

You'd think it would result in an epiphany for women. This is what men have been dealing with forever. Missing out on time with their families, sacrificing their hopes and dreams upon the alter of duty to feed those families, etc. But no. They derogate and vilify them for that too. When it's a man placing a career first it's "neglect," and construed as abuse, and they cheat on him or divorce him for not "being there." And don't tell me they don't because I've seen it with my own eyes. So either way, you will be vilified, and unlike women other men will not be gathering round you to affirm your discontentment and pity you. Unlike women guys don't form back patting committees to support other "strong" and "independent" single men. Because men know that genuinely strong and independent people don't need such things. The real hypocrisy is on the part of women as usual. If a man fails to meet these challenges without complaint he's deemed weak, a failure, a bum, etc., by women. Conversely, if a women fails to meet them they deserve and demand pity and sympathy, despite being allegedly "equal" to men. Women convoke to comfort one another for that which they expect men to do without comfort, or most of the time, even credit. They get together like the women in the video provided above, and have orgies of self-affirmation, in order to stay perpetually insulated from reality. They tell themselves they "intimidate" men, because to acknowledge any personal blame for their solitude would require they make concessions, and undermine the entire "feminist" mythos to which they subscribe.

Such are the sort of women who consistently "want" a man, but conspicuously have no interest in pleasing one, and often convey overt antipathy toward the very notion of having to please one in any capacity. And yet they wonder why they're single. As if their career/accomplishments should suffice to that end or something. (Again, projecting their desires, and what they value onto men.) They have no problem telling men they're not good enough, or fail to meet their standards, but are outraged when told the same or subjected to the same treatment. You have to meet my standards, but you also have to accept me for who/what I am, is the their unofficial mantra. I can be an insufferable nagging termagant, and you can be indefatigably respectful and in reverence of my womanhood. And they have the audacity to talk about "fairness," when all the onus is upon one party to change, or meet expectations.

I could go on ad nauseam about the egregious double standards employed by "feminists." (Because "feminism" is a derivative of Marxist theory, and all Marxists are hypocrites and thieves.) For example "feminists" claim they want to be treated like men, but one of the surest and fastest ways to be fired from any job, is to treat one like you would a man; i.e., when they piss you off, to tell them off, or challenge them physically. They're far more honest when they claim they want the "same opportunities" as men, because that is indeed all they want. They want the same opportunities as men. Not the the same risks, obligations, and austere treatment as men. And proof of that abounds. You merely have to be perceptive enough to discern it. For example.

"In the past," said Christina Koch, "women haven’t always been at the table." I want you to think about that statement; because it encapsulates and vindicates everything I've previously said. Men designed the rockets. Men did all the dying testing the rockets. The United States space program is built upon the genius and blood of men. But she thinks she should have a seat "at the table" because she has a vagina. The inherent Marxist bent is overtly manifest in such assertions, in that like all Marxist initiatives, its true objective is to claim ownership of something that doesn't belong to you. You didn't devise it, you didn't build it, and you didn't sacrifice for it, but you should get an "equal" share in it. That's Marxism. And if you won't give it willingly, they'll attack and vilify you until you do, or until they can sue you into oblivion, or change the law to facilitate them expelling and supplanting you. 

As I once said on my social media.

"You want to know what 'feminism' is? I'll tell you. Feminism is a woman sitting on a man's shoulders, patting herself on the back for changing a light bulb that was invented by a man, accusing the man she's sitting on of holding her down for not lifting her high enough." - Me.

Unlike Christina, who rode to space in a rocket designed and tested by men, and did a space walk in a suit designed and tested by men, I don't expect to be given a seat at the table of something in which I made no significant contribution. Because I know I don't deserve it. I don't board an airplane as a passenger and expect to be seated in the cockpit just because of the genitals I'm carrying. But that is what "feminists" expect, because "feminists" are Marxists, and the goal of all Marxists is to redistribute things from others to themselves. Not to mention "feminism" is advanced entirely by augmenting the power of government. Another indication of its Marxist origin and nature. The "feminist" doesn't want to build her own seat at the table, she wants the government to pass a new law that evicts a man from his seat, and gives it to her. Just like every Bernie Sanders supporter wants new laws that take wealth from others and gives it to them. I should be able to go to college without having to pay for it says the Bernie voter. I should get all of the benefits with none of the obligations. And what, as I've illustrated at length, do "feminists" want?

"Again, why do women have equal rights, when they do not have equal obligation to defend those rights? Do women have to register for selective service? No. Men and women have equal liberty, but only men are required to die for that liberty. This is the great con of feminism. Special privilege for women, who claim to be 'equal' for all the benefits of freedom, and yet claim to be inferior and exempted by their gender from the burdens of freedom. 'Equal' when it benefits them. And 'just girls' when it doesn't." - Me. 

As I said, "equal" when it benefits them, "just girls" again when it doesn't. This manipulation is employed by "feminists," and far too many women in general, far too often. Women, who have wanted the desegregation of virtually everything (when it benefits them), suddenly become staunch advocates of segregation when it doesn't. Women, who claim ad nauseam that they "can do anything that men can do," claim the complete converse (and demand protection from them) when forced to compete with men without a beneficial handicap. Women will of course claim that physical ability is not all that matters, and that women and men for the most part have intellectual parity, and there's truth in that. But it's also true, in my experience, that women get far more accommodation than they're ever willing to acknowledge.

In virtually every job I've ever had that employed both men and women, women were afforded more leniency and less was expected of them, for no other reason than that they were women. Especially in physically demanding jobs. They were simply allowed to do less work than men, and were not expected to bear as much physical abuse as men, because they're girls. Though they could perform the mental aspects of the job equally well, they could not perform the physical aspects of the job nearly as well, but they were never reprimanded for this. It wasn't even acknowledged (for fear of being vilified as an oppressor). Basically, it was like having a really inadequate male employee who never got fired for their poor performance. The women were never expected to perform "equally" with their male coworkers or supervisors, because those male counterparts either didn't want them to get hurt, or the men wanted to have sex with them (and therefore gave them special accommodation as a means of wooing them). As a result the other men were typically expected to compensate for their inadequacy by assuming the labor the women did not or could not do. If Bob can carry two fifty pound bags, but Kate can only carry one, someone has to carry the other bag Kate cannot.

I've also observed that women, who are so adept at discerning "male privilege" in virtually everything, never acknowledge (or even notice) the special treatment they receive themselves (no matter how conspicuous). They tend to believe they are "equal" contributors when in fact they are not. (In no small part because all of the white knighting sycophants around them, tell them they are, in the hope that kissing her ass will result in her wanting to have sex with them.) They're almost always just contributing equally in one aspect of the labor; the mental aspect. (And often not even that.) And based upon that alone they proclaim themselves "equal." If the physical aspect is broached, they will immediately seek to de-emphasize it's relevance or importance, or shame you for broaching it by implying or outright stating it's sexist/misogynistic. A woman shouldn't be judged upon her ability to perform physical labor, they'll say, or some other self-serving tripe. But she should still get a seat "at the table" with those who do it and do it far better. They should get the same praise. The same pay. The same benefits. Etc.

To young men I say this. Don't date a "feminist." Don't date a woman who coneys the slightest indication she subscribes to "feminist" (Marxist) ideology, e.g., says things like "I believe in gender equality." Fortunately, it will often be the case that they don't even have to open their mouths for you to know they're "feminists" (Marxists); because their body will be a billboard advertising that fact.

If you're a smart person, you will have more than enough on display above, to know to stay away. There are so many visual red flags here it's essentially a flashing Christmas tree of ideological AIDS. The only thing missing is dyed pink/purple/blue/green hair. A person's appearance tells you a lot about them. If they're a mess on the outside, there's a very good chance they are on the inside also. If their appearance is disheveled, and conveys dichotomy, it will usually be an indicator their beliefs and values are the same. If a woman doesn't even know how to present herself properly - one's appearance so often being a manifestation of their thoughts and preferences - that should tell you something about her ideologically.

This is a very unpopular opinion in a society incessantly taught that "you shouldn't judge a book by its cover." A book's cover bears its title, however, which allows you to know what a book's about without having to read it. (Yes, I know old books were hand bound and didn't necessarily have titles, etc. If that's what you're getting out of this you're missing the point.) We have eyes for a reason. They're a means of obtaining information and that information is very often (almost always) printed right on the cover. If that cat approaching you is really big, and has long black stripes on it, it's probably a tiger. If that girl approaching you has her boobs and ass hanging out for everyone to see she's probably an insipid slut. You shouldn't disregard the visual information being provided to your brain in the latter instance any more than the first.

(I've actually had a chick argue with me that I couldn't judge this woman based upon her appearance. Despite the fact she's a "vegan" and openly states she's more afraid of "white supremacy" than Islamic terrorism. The chick arguing with me, naturally, had her hair dyed some oddball color. So, she took it as an indirectly applicable to her, which it was.)

For the same reasons you should be extremely wary of anyone who says stupid things like "I don't conform to established labels." Because those people are almost always, without fail the dumbest human beings you'll ever meet, and the epitome of well established designations like "Marxist." 

As the Bible says.

"What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun. Is there anything of which one can say, 'Look! This is something new?' It was here already, long ago; it was here before our time." - Ecc 1:9.

These people didn't come up with some hitherto never before seen way of looking at the world. They're just dumb hippies, who invariably fit into well established ideological designations, but are too stupid to know they do. And you should likewise eschew anyone who uses the word "equality" in any serious capacity at all. Equality is a Marxist myth. It's never existed in the real world and never will.

"Inequalities of mind and body are so established by God Almighty in his constitution of human nature, that no art or policy can ever plane them down to a level. I have never read reasoning more absurd, sophistry more gross, [...] than the subtle labors [...] to demonstrate the natural equality of man. [...] The golden rule, do as you would be done by, is all the equality that can be supported or defended by reason or common sense." - John Adams, July 13, 1813.

"Feminism," like all Marxist derivatives, is a form of psychosis. 

"If I claimed to be 'equal' in strength to a gorilla, how many of you would think me intelligent for holding that belief? And yet 'feminists' routinely ostentatiously profess a belief in 'equality' with bigger, stronger primates than themselves (men), and are entertained and even lauded for it. And of course feminists, being [...] deluded and interminably paroxysmic [...] will be outraged by such objectivity. Imagine going through life always angry that you're not as strong or fast as a grizzly bear. Imagine demanding laws that force everyone else to pretend you are as strong as a grizzly bear or they'll be expelled from school, fired, jailed, etc. Understand that and you will understand what it is to be a 'feminist.''' - Me. 

And for the sake of all that is holy and good, do not have children with a woman like the one depicted above. She'll raise them to hate you. If they're boys, she'll also raise them to hate themselves and their masculinity, and in the process potentially turn them into sexual deviants.

As always, being the generous dude I am, I offer these sentiments for no charge. This isn't some proclamation of my infallibility or anything, obviously. Though a reasonable person would know that without needing to be told. It's more of a community service. Take it for what you will.