About feminism

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
#1
Feminists generally share the following false beliefs

0. That we should strive for equality
1. Male privilege

Of course both of these are false, trying to archive equality is bad in terms of societal survival of the fittest and thus it's outright wrong, this is not a matter of opinion.

This does not however mean that all policies feminists push for are bad, it can still make sense to be in favor of some of that even if their official reasons for pushing these policies are nonsense.
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
#2
Catastrophic birthrate
One obvious issue with feminist policies is that it results in low birthrate, especially among females with high intelligence.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0160289689900159

Thus over time giving females the freedom not to have children will result in the population becoming deteriarating in terms of societal survival of the fittest, some females will have traits that result in them voluntarily having a lot of children passing on these traits but these traits are far from ideal in terms of building a strong society.

The low birthrate also means that it's not viable to discard a significant part of the ones being born

1599644161780.png
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
#3
Advantages in reducing females to property
This can be as a form of social control (alternative to psychiatry) but it can also be used as an aggressive eugenics method.

Method: expected number of offspring

Involuntary egg extraction: 50 to 300
Reduced to property: 9 to 25
baby quota: 4 to 8
Economic incentives to have more children: 2 to 3

The issue with egg extractions is that it require a lot of surrogates and thus it cannot be used at large scale, it's a costly and messy solution and generally it's not worth it when you can just reduce females to property and impregnate them.

Females being brave enough to oppose the government (especially if they are intelligent too) are very suitable to be reduced to breeding-slaves to the ones in power. Thus people will be deterred from opposing the government while still breeding for a more brave and intelligent population.
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
#4
Can artificial wombs save feminist countries?
A female can reproduce without giving birth herself, currently this require surrogacy (using another female) but in the future using artificial wombs for reproduction might also become a possibility,

It is however unclear when if ever artificial wombs will become a reality in the case of human reproduction. Even when it finally become a possibility the price will initially be very high and thus it cannot significantly affect the fertility rate or the genetic quality of the population.

Until artificial wombs become viable at large scales feminist countries will be at a clear disadvantage relative to more patriarchal societies, even if artificial wombs become viable at large scale it may still be stopped for political reasons similar to how genetic engineering in humans has been banned.

A more totalitarian country with a government willing and able to openly ignore "human rights" will have a significant advantage ocmpeting against feminist countries both before and after artificial wombs become viable at large scale.
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
#5
Male leadership is superior
A truly meritocratic system will be dominated by males due to small neurological advantages elite males possess. Thus a country lead by mostly males is likely to have an advantage over a country with more egalitarian leadership.

Having worse leadership (companies, government, etc) will be bad for everyone, not just men.

The only female go player who has won a major title is Rui Naiwei,

As of March 2017, the top rated woman in chess is Yifan Hou, with rank of 117 and a rating of 2649. The 100th ranked player is Evgeniy Najer (male), with a rating of 2659.
 
#8
Do feminism even ideal for females?
The first obvious issue is that they only claim to be egalitarian meaning that they first have to make people believe females have it worse and then use this as a justification for favoring women, this can only have limited success since they run into the brick-wall that is reality.

Another issue is feminists doing a poor job at evaluating what the actual issues are, 2/3 of the people who undergo Electroconvulsive Therapy are females but feminists hardly talk about this. A general pattern is feminists focusing on how individual males harm females while ignoring actions by authorities that harm females since they are unwilling to seriously challange the system.
I was admitted to hospital in the context of an abusive marriage. Instead of receiving therapy and support, I was persuaded to undergo 21 sessions of ECT.
mentalhealthexcellence.org/guest-blog-call-for-an-independent-review-into-the-practice-of-ect/
 
#9
Do they support bodily autonomy of females?
They do advocate for abortion rights but when it's not about killing fetuses they are less interested in "your body your choice". Very few feminist think younger teen girls should be able to consent to sex. Very few feminists opposes harmful & coercive psychiatric treatments.

Do they support the right for females to use drugs recreationally?

Some feminists are ok with sex-work, these often call themselves "liberal feminists" and are hated by other people calling themselves feminists.
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
#10
What about girls in forster-care?
A lot of countries have a horribly broken system for dealing with parents that are supposedly bad. This means that children are taking from good parents while nothing is done when the parents are bad.

Are feminists trying to do anything about this?

pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/megan-fox/2020/09/11/u-s-marshals-service-reveals-majority-of-rescued-sex-trafficked-children-came-from-foster-care-n920803

Instead feminists focus on trying to get more female CEOs and have more females in the military.
 

Creamer

Well-known member
#11
It isnt suppised to make sense because it is
A shit test. Feminism is a shit test.
It is a nuclear reactor gone past the point of no return.
They keep legislating anti male laws and steeling mens money in hopes to get subjegated, but there are to many white knights.
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
#12
The terf insanity
For some reason a lot of people who call themselves feminists are very transphobic.

Terfs believe in immutable biological sex and that intersex people are just defective males/females, they get very upset when people point out how they are throwing intersex people under the bus for the sake of their transphobic ideology.

They cannot however seem to get it straight when it comes to defining biological sex. Some wants to define sex by chromosomes which doesn't make sense at all.

None of these females are transgender, they all have "Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome"

Their chromosomes are XY.

Some women with XY chromosomes have been able to give birth https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2190741/
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
#13
Biological sex and reproduction
This does not give us 2 distinct categories, while there is no documented case of someone both being able to produce sperm and eggs there are a lot of people who are not able to produce either.

Unlike chromosomes (which are far closer to a binary) this actually does make biological sense, the reason most terfs are unwilling to go here is becuase it would invalidate infertile cis females which they are unwilling to do, especially when said cis-female have no hope of ever having biological children.

Biologically speaking a completely infertile cis female (even if she was fertile in the past) is actually less valuable than the average trans girls since many trans girls still have male reproductive abilities (remaining sperm production or banked sperm). Of course most people do not want a society where females are valued because of their reproductive capabilities, that's highly offensive to a lot of people which is why terfs are unwilling to push for that, instead they resort to their chromosomal nonsense which is easy to refute.

If you are a strictly gynephilic cis female the only way for you to have children with a partner you find attractive is via a trans female. Thus trans females as a group benefit gynephilic cis females by allowing them to have children with a partner they love instead of having to get pregnant by a male they find repulsive sexually.
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
#14
Egalitarianism vs gynocentrism
Humans generally have 2 conflicting political desires, while we do want 'fairness' (whatever that is) we are also biologically predisposed to value females over males since females are the reproductive bottneneck.

It feels wrong that what we can do in life is restricted by biological characteristics we cannot change but unfortunatily this is the reality we have to live with, egalitarian dogma is just escapism.

Feminists often push for quotas to get more females into desireable positions but they have no interest in making the prison population more female or having more of the homeless be female (obviously). The strategy is focusing on areas where females to worse and ignore/deny that females are privileged in other areas.
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
#15
"misogyny"
A lot of feminists think it's misogyny to think females are privileged, since egalitarianism is assumed any notion of female privilege will become discarded as 'misogyny' even when it's true.

1600164475320.png

This comment of course did upset a lot of feminists/terfs and they viewed it as misogyny but the individual who wrote this is actually a cis female supremacist, she is also trans-inclusive and has stated she has a sexual preference for trans-females.

https://www.reddit.com/r/transmaxxing/comments/ebf2q0/what_you_gain_from_transitioning/fba10tq/
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
#16
Equality as a goal is idiotic
Equality just means everyone being equally miserable, why would you want to have that as a goal?

That imply that is females have it better than you should take action to make their lives worse in the name of equality, of course that doesn't make any sense at all.

Having quotas will just limit who can be appointed to various positions whioh will make the society less efficient.
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
#17
Pedo hysteria
Our society is very aqward regarding teens/children in situations than can be viewed as sexual.

We do permit a lot of activities with children that would be viewed as sexual if they were older

Actually this is legal even if the child is 13

We also allow bathing and children to be nude in public.

The standard is is that if the purpose isn't sexual pleasure for an adult it's ok.

So far breastfeeding has not been targeted by pedo hysteria but we never know. There are probably females that get turned on by it but most are sensible enough to shut up about it, unfortunatily there are exceptions to that.

Of course activities like bathing and breastfeeding are fine since it's good for the child. If it isn't good for the child then we might want to make it illegal, some sexual activities are outright harmful physically so it's not just a mental thing (potential trauma).

Being more lenient in what sexual activities we tolerate could be helpful when it comes to finding individuals to take care of children that cannot be taken care of by their parents. Child-marriage is superior to foster-care.
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
#18
Teen sex & pregnancies
For some reason a lot of people insist in making it illegal for girls under the AoC to have a relationship with someone older severely limiting their options when it comes when it comes to dating, especially when it comes to finding someone to have children with.

In reality having an age gap is actually preferable in the case of a teen pregnancy, especially when they cannot get strong support from the grandparents of the baby.

This is dysgenic since people who can get good sex with females above AoC will be less willing to put themselves in legal danger to fuck someone below the AoC unless they have some sexual abnormality such as pedophilia.
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
#19
Bathroom insanity
Why are people still fighting over same-sex spaces? you are not actually fighting over much of value.

I can see why some women are uncomfortable with gross hons in their spaces but in terms of security laws allowing people in based on gender identity has worked surprisingly well

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13178-018-0335-z

It's way better to have single person toilets.

Single person shower rooms is an option.

Getting a random erection when you are naked with other males is no fun, this is why i have not been naked with other males since puberty.


If she (terf) actually wanted safe spaces she should work towards creating a system where you need to be accepted to a club to get access to it and then make it a place you actually want to be in rather than something you use becuase you need to pee badly.

The same-sex washrooms and shit exist because of hetronormativity, like it reinforces the view that same sex peeps wont "normally" sexualize each other therefore its okay for them to see each other naked, but surprisingly gays exist and they arent even that rare enough to neglect.
One-person washrooms or any-gender washrooms should be the ideal alternative.
 

Creamer

Well-known member
#20
Well you gotta cock block chadrone somehow.

If foids were property or farm stock open for the public sure the AoC should be low.
But if chadrone is the only enjoyer of prime pussy, than increase the AoC.

We saw what happens to minifoids when they get access to chad in nathan the pedocuck larsons site.

They become snobby cold expensive hypergamous bitches.
They sell sex videos of chad fucking them.
They talk lovingly about chad and his good looks while belitelling other men.
They become obese
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
#22
Abortion
Letting females freely abort babies is far from ideal in terms of societal survival of the fittest since many would abort the next Einstein for the sake of convenience. The society can benefit greatly from coercing females into giving birth when they do not want to, this holds true even in cases or rape.

The greater the societal value of the child/fetus is more beneficial it can be to have the government intervene to prevent abortion/infanticide.

Having free access to abortions is however a good thing when authorities are incompetent or wouldn't make these decisions based on what would be good for society. Christians oppose abortion in general even when it would be beneficial for society to get rid of that future burden.
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
#23
Female sexual selection
Currently the main factor preventing males from reproducing is females rejecting them. It is however unclear how good female selection is in terms of eugenics. We are relying on a rather primitive mechanism that evolved for a society we currently do not live in.


Female might work as a temporary solution to prevent overall dysgenic breeding but there are a lot of limitations to it.
0. It's eugenics based on traditional breeding.
1. Most females lack the intelligence to do eugenic selection properly.
2. It only applies to one sex (males) females with bad genetics will still be able to reproduce (even easier).
3. The risk for Fisherian Runaway.
4. Females may go against what they are actually sexually attracted to the most when it comes to selecting someone to have a family with.

Issue 0 can resolved by also allowing genetic engineering but then we run into issue 3.

It is worth noting that it is possible to have female selection even if every single female on earth is reduced to property of males, they could still be given the final say in which partner to live with (such as being given 5 to select from).
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
#24
Real reasons why we want a significant portion of the female population to be free
Among females given freedom some will do better than others in terms of being economically successful or in other ways contributing to society, this will allow us to do eugenics better.

Females way also contribute more to the economy if they are allowed more freedoms.

But there is also value in subjecting females to hardships inflicted by the government to see who is able to best handle that. If all females between 13 and 20 are reduced to property (breeding slaves) some will be able to handle that better and still be successful and these females are then suitable for additional breeding (such as involuntary egg extractions).
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
#25
Making all sex illegal
Feminists have a habit of constantly trying to expand the definition of rape to the point where all sex is rape. Many terfs think not telling your partner you are transgender is rape, of course the same individuals think everyone can tell the difference between a neovagina and a real vagina and that "nobody passes", don't expect these people to be logically consistent.

It's of course completely insane to require disclosure of information you wasn't asked about, you have a right to privacy.

Feminists think it's rape if the male has a power advantage in the relationship. They think females under a certain age cannot consent, they almost universally think the Age of Consent is too low, they want to raise it to at least 18.

They think even if consent is given for sex it's only temporarily and that you need to consent to every individual sexual activity.

You should just ignore these laws if you have sex in a feminist country, unless the sex is filmed it would be your word against her word anyway and what actually happened doesn't matter.
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
#26
Teen pregnancies
One prominent feminist goal is to reduce teen pregnancies as if that would be a good thing. The current dogma is to put females in schools (where they do not learn much if anything of value) instead of being able to become mothers early. Young teens are brainwashed into thinking it's somehow bad to be a teen parent.


On "i would encourage other teens to have children" they all strongly disagreed.

On "having a baby changed my life for the better" they all strongly agreed.

This illustrates how strong the brainwashing has been, they do not recommend it to other people even though for all of them it improved their lives. It's possible they were virtue signaling giving the politically correct answer "no we do not encourage other teens to become pregnant". It's not just them that had a good experience with teen pregnancy.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5896788/

Motherhood can be a positive experience that makes sense in the lives of young women from disadvantaged backgrounds. To be effective, policy must recognize the valued social role motherhood provides for these young women. The negative long-term outcomes observed may largely be a result of their disadvantaged position within society and this should be the focus of interventions.

It is sometimes stated teen pregnancies would somehow be bad for the career, the reality is of course the opposite of that. By having children early you will be able to have your career later without interruption to have children.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK219229/

The research suggests that the age at which childbearing begins is not as important as the length of time since the (most recent) birth in influencing whether or not a woman works. Having a young child consistently lowers labor force participation, whereas an early birth does not. Of the three studies that have specifically addressed this issue, one (Koo and Bilsborrow, 1980) finds no effect of early childbearing while two studies find a weak positive effect of early childbearing on labor force participation (Hofferth et al., 1978; Card, 1979). In these studies early childbearers (female) appear to be somewhat more likely to be in the labor force 10 years after high school than later childbearers. This is probably due to several factors: 1) Since early childbearers start their families early, at 1 and 5 years after high school fewer early than later childbearers are working (Card, 1977). Ten years after high school, however, their children are older while later childbearers have just begun their families and have young children in the home. Thus the early childbearers were more likely to be working 10 years after high school in the Card study and at age 24 in the Hofferth et al. study. 2) Early childbearers may have a greater economic need to work. Never married mothers who had an early birth have a high likelihood of being employed (Haggstrom et al., 1981). In a related study Trussell and Abowd (1979) also found that among whites increasing age at first birth lowers the propensity to work by raising the wage required to attract them into the work force.
 
Top