The way that modern feminism engineers so many contradictions, along the lines of men benefitting more form feminism that women do, is by constantly moving the goalposts, often by changing the description of the same phenomenon. Women who are engaging in lots of sex with different men can be described as enjoying sexual liberty - and they can be described as suffering internalized misogyny causing them to sleep with many men to please men as many men as possible, at their own expense. Same thing with skimpy clothing - it liberates women - and it makes them more available for exploitation via the dreaded male gaze.
Asking questions about whether women should reconsider their choices in sex partners or attire is framed as another form of oppression.
And so it goes.
It's not a formula for women's happiness, but it is a very successful formula for anyone/any group that gains advantage from conflict within society.
The problem isn’t just that women move the goalposts, it is that they mistake control over men for a good rather than a disruption of a structure of living that has sustained our species for a quarter of a million years.
I actually think it's more complicated than that. Just as not all women are feminists, not all feminists are women. Many men support feminism, some because of sympathy for women (thinking feminisms goals align with women's goals or desires) others because they see advantage in promoting feminism as a tool to increase divisions within a society. The communists have promoted feminism for a long time, not because women want it or they think it's god for women, but because it causes the kind of social disruption that makes it easier to get a revolution going.
Indeed. I think the way that the dating-apps-soaked youth culture encourages instant hook ups puts the 10% men at an advantage they never had before (earlier generations of girls/women would look at such guys with some suspicion, even if they were getting some tingles). Meanwhile, slower acclimation that would cause a pair of friends to suddenly realize that they've grown towards each other, that would allow the normal guys to be appreciated and pair up, has been memory-holed by the entire current culture.
Feminists denigrate "Disney" romances or fairy tales with the claim they give girls unrealistic expectations about romance being easy and instant. But really, it's the feminists who sell nonsense like there's one right soul mate for each person, or you'll only find love when you're not looking. Cinderella, after an uncomplaining life of household chores, met the prince during a party, but he found her in her workaday life and loved her anyway (the stepsisters conviction that fancy dresses would catch the prince are closer to the form of romance feminists sell). Snow White met the prince by the well, in her work clothes. She did the household chores for the dwarves, and awakened/came back to life thanks to a kiss, later.
The worst lie feminists sell is that you shouldn't rush to settle down. It doesn't take lifelong indoctrination to ruin a woman's chance at happiness. Just get her to ignore biological reality for a key 10 year period (coincidentally, when females are most impressionable to social influence) and her chances of happy family life can be demolished. Then there's a good chance she will be a force for destruction for years to come.
I don't disagree that female selection, influenced by biology, is part of the picture. But another thing that humans have long selected for, if not on the genetic level but on the societal level, is our culture. Sure, women are programmed to try to get the best man, in terms of strength, health and resources, that she can hope to pair up with. But culture used to influence what women and girls would view as possible or likely matches as reasonable to pursue. Also, there were relatives, friends and others who'd act as matchmakers, and encourage taking another look at Tommy over there, he's a good guy and he likes you (I can attest that this kind of suggestion had a lot of power in my view of a boy when I was a teen).
Western cultures fostered mechanisms that encouraged paring up with someone of similar status, intellect and background. We were a culture of married couples, not harems. We didn't have the problem of dating in your 40s, because courtship was something that was part of life briefly, and in youth.
Because of hook-up culture (enabled by dating apps) women have access to brief relationships with the type of men women of earlier eras understood to be out-of-their-league. The captain of the football team and head cheerleader were a trope for a reason. All the girls at school may have fantasized about him, but they didn't have easy access to pursue and contact these guys, the way the 10% get pursued today. Also, because they actually do hook up, girls who are far from top-10% have access to the experience of a fling or 2 or 20 with out-of-their-league guys. This leads the girls to overestimate the kind of guy with whom they'd be a good match. This is what the manosphere calls "alpha widows." (This term had to be coined today because it's such a new phenomenon) After the fling with the quarterback, the 90% of regular guys are even less attractive to her than before.
I also think that this situation is abnormal for the 10% men, who, in earlier eras, would marry a 10% kind of woman, not live a life of endless new hook ups. Back then, "confirmed bachelor" was code for gay man.
Unlike women men do not have an in-group preference. If anything men veer towards a slight out-group preference towards women. Where measured womens' in-group preference runs at about 85%. On any gender related matter it's safe to assume about 70% of the population will favour women.
Absolutely! And, besides the dorito-pedo, the power hungry who focus on politics get more access to power and damage to any mechanisms that might restrict their acquisition of more power.
One form of labeling, these days, is the young supposed activists and rebels who are in complete alignment with the people at the top of the world in power and status, Greta Tunberg is the prototype. An actual protestor would be outside with a cardboard sign, not speaking to assembled big wigs. She's a mouthpiece for the exact things the powerful want, and they all pretend she's a critic.
I think current US gov attempts at censorship are unprecedented, way beyond the CIA's 1960s-style deployment of the concept of "conspiracy theory." With the internet that so many pieces are available for putting together by anyone who has the curiosity and impulse to do so, and it's a lot easier to see which ideas are actually the most popular. In the 60s-90s, the pieces that were available to be found were often planted by operatives with the intention of making people who question look foolish and borderline deranged.
US lefties with power vastly overestimated the popularity of their ideas, believing in a split 50-50. Since 2016, it's been obvious to a wide swath of the public that the split is a lot closer to 90-10 against progressives, revolutionaries, alphabet social engineers. This is causing them to panic and make mistakes, like the short-lived mal-information bureau.
Have you heard the latest critical race justice idea? It's the "white gaze".
The Lotus Eaters interviewed Peter Whittle of the New Culture Forum about a play in London where the theatre is trying to organise a whitey free audience.
I love the Lotus Eaters, and I can't believe I missed that one - will definitely check it out. I'm waiting for "even when they're asleep, white people are oppressing us."
The way that modern feminism engineers so many contradictions, along the lines of men benefitting more form feminism that women do, is by constantly moving the goalposts, often by changing the description of the same phenomenon. Women who are engaging in lots of sex with different men can be described as enjoying sexual liberty - and they can be described as suffering internalized misogyny causing them to sleep with many men to please men as many men as possible, at their own expense. Same thing with skimpy clothing - it liberates women - and it makes them more available for exploitation via the dreaded male gaze.
Asking questions about whether women should reconsider their choices in sex partners or attire is framed as another form of oppression.
And so it goes.
It's not a formula for women's happiness, but it is a very successful formula for anyone/any group that gains advantage from conflict within society.
The problem isn’t just that women move the goalposts, it is that they mistake control over men for a good rather than a disruption of a structure of living that has sustained our species for a quarter of a million years.
I actually think it's more complicated than that. Just as not all women are feminists, not all feminists are women. Many men support feminism, some because of sympathy for women (thinking feminisms goals align with women's goals or desires) others because they see advantage in promoting feminism as a tool to increase divisions within a society. The communists have promoted feminism for a long time, not because women want it or they think it's god for women, but because it causes the kind of social disruption that makes it easier to get a revolution going.
The manosphere calls these men "White Knights"... Laboring under the delusion that supporting feminism will get them laid...
Indeed. I think the way that the dating-apps-soaked youth culture encourages instant hook ups puts the 10% men at an advantage they never had before (earlier generations of girls/women would look at such guys with some suspicion, even if they were getting some tingles). Meanwhile, slower acclimation that would cause a pair of friends to suddenly realize that they've grown towards each other, that would allow the normal guys to be appreciated and pair up, has been memory-holed by the entire current culture.
Feminists denigrate "Disney" romances or fairy tales with the claim they give girls unrealistic expectations about romance being easy and instant. But really, it's the feminists who sell nonsense like there's one right soul mate for each person, or you'll only find love when you're not looking. Cinderella, after an uncomplaining life of household chores, met the prince during a party, but he found her in her workaday life and loved her anyway (the stepsisters conviction that fancy dresses would catch the prince are closer to the form of romance feminists sell). Snow White met the prince by the well, in her work clothes. She did the household chores for the dwarves, and awakened/came back to life thanks to a kiss, later.
The worst lie feminists sell is that you shouldn't rush to settle down. It doesn't take lifelong indoctrination to ruin a woman's chance at happiness. Just get her to ignore biological reality for a key 10 year period (coincidentally, when females are most impressionable to social influence) and her chances of happy family life can be demolished. Then there's a good chance she will be a force for destruction for years to come.
Keep in mind that the oppressors of Cinderella and Snow White were not the male characters...but other WOMEN pursuing their own self serving agendas.
I don't disagree that female selection, influenced by biology, is part of the picture. But another thing that humans have long selected for, if not on the genetic level but on the societal level, is our culture. Sure, women are programmed to try to get the best man, in terms of strength, health and resources, that she can hope to pair up with. But culture used to influence what women and girls would view as possible or likely matches as reasonable to pursue. Also, there were relatives, friends and others who'd act as matchmakers, and encourage taking another look at Tommy over there, he's a good guy and he likes you (I can attest that this kind of suggestion had a lot of power in my view of a boy when I was a teen).
Western cultures fostered mechanisms that encouraged paring up with someone of similar status, intellect and background. We were a culture of married couples, not harems. We didn't have the problem of dating in your 40s, because courtship was something that was part of life briefly, and in youth.
Because of hook-up culture (enabled by dating apps) women have access to brief relationships with the type of men women of earlier eras understood to be out-of-their-league. The captain of the football team and head cheerleader were a trope for a reason. All the girls at school may have fantasized about him, but they didn't have easy access to pursue and contact these guys, the way the 10% get pursued today. Also, because they actually do hook up, girls who are far from top-10% have access to the experience of a fling or 2 or 20 with out-of-their-league guys. This leads the girls to overestimate the kind of guy with whom they'd be a good match. This is what the manosphere calls "alpha widows." (This term had to be coined today because it's such a new phenomenon) After the fling with the quarterback, the 90% of regular guys are even less attractive to her than before.
I also think that this situation is abnormal for the 10% men, who, in earlier eras, would marry a 10% kind of woman, not live a life of endless new hook ups. Back then, "confirmed bachelor" was code for gay man.
Unlike women men do not have an in-group preference. If anything men veer towards a slight out-group preference towards women. Where measured womens' in-group preference runs at about 85%. On any gender related matter it's safe to assume about 70% of the population will favour women.
That’s a great point.
Absolutely! And, besides the dorito-pedo, the power hungry who focus on politics get more access to power and damage to any mechanisms that might restrict their acquisition of more power.
Thanks, your's too.
One form of labeling, these days, is the young supposed activists and rebels who are in complete alignment with the people at the top of the world in power and status, Greta Tunberg is the prototype. An actual protestor would be outside with a cardboard sign, not speaking to assembled big wigs. She's a mouthpiece for the exact things the powerful want, and they all pretend she's a critic.
I think current US gov attempts at censorship are unprecedented, way beyond the CIA's 1960s-style deployment of the concept of "conspiracy theory." With the internet that so many pieces are available for putting together by anyone who has the curiosity and impulse to do so, and it's a lot easier to see which ideas are actually the most popular. In the 60s-90s, the pieces that were available to be found were often planted by operatives with the intention of making people who question look foolish and borderline deranged.
US lefties with power vastly overestimated the popularity of their ideas, believing in a split 50-50. Since 2016, it's been obvious to a wide swath of the public that the split is a lot closer to 90-10 against progressives, revolutionaries, alphabet social engineers. This is causing them to panic and make mistakes, like the short-lived mal-information bureau.
Have you heard the latest critical race justice idea? It's the "white gaze".
The Lotus Eaters interviewed Peter Whittle of the New Culture Forum about a play in London where the theatre is trying to organise a whitey free audience.
I love the Lotus Eaters, and I can't believe I missed that one - will definitely check it out. I'm waiting for "even when they're asleep, white people are oppressing us."