I've seen some self-proclaimed moderate feminists trying to permeate the sub by trying to convince rpers of the good feminism can do (no, not concern trolling, merely making reference) now this is something I see other ideologies do in an attempt to defend themselves, moderate muslims will first announce they are moderate by distinguishing themselves muslims, and the radicals "islamists", once the distinction is made they use that as a shield to justify their position along the spectrum within the ideology they follow, they use this as a smoke and mirrors to deflect criticism from a component of the ideology that does apply to them by saying it doesn't apply to them and only applies to those who are on a different end of the ideological spectrum. Even if the tenet in question is a key element to the ideology as a whole such as with feminism that men and women should be treated as equals. Now like the muslim example, feminists do this too, in fact - pretty much followers of all ideology utilise this bait and switch technique to try and "fight for the merits of their chosen ideology, whilst dissuading critique of it."

Now fair enough, radical feminists are way worse than a post-feminist or sex-positive feminist or whatever subset denomination of feminism one wishes to identify with, however, in reference to reality and what men find attractive, as red pillers, I think despite some of the weaker forms of feminism offering some positives, the negatives far outweigh the positives.

Why is this? Well recently I've been reading posts about why men don't find rich women attractive, as in, they don't fall in love with them. It's all about power really. A rich powerful woman is simply not attractive to a man, a woman (especially one scorned, or who falls within that description) will rationalise this lack of attraction as "being intimidated" and unable to "handle a powerful woman" however, this isn't the case for most men, it may be for some - but that is a separate, smaller issue when present and ignores the larger problem at hand.

The main issue is men simply don't find power in women to be attractive. Men like to feel needed when they love a woman. Men like to feel they can provide for a woman. Men are inherently attracted to female vulnerability. A rough around the edges woman earning all her own money in a high powered career with a sharp tongue, to a man, is not attractive at all - if anything, she's putting herself out of the market. To a man, she seems too masculine in mannerism - masculine personalities are not attractive to men, we seek opposites - not similarities. Opposites attract, like magnetism, that shit isn't wrong.

Women who try to act like men are projecting what they find attractive in men as women and are mistaking that as a schematic for how they should be if they want to attract a high quality man. This is foolish, short-sighted, and doomed to failure. A quick google search on career women who can't find love should put to rest any uncertainty about this notion.

If you are an intelligent woman, an academic woman, your skills should by no means be wasted, however if you choose to take on too many masculine qualities, that's on you. You will make yourself unattractive by behaving too boisterously. Let me repeat it, one of the sexiest things to a man is female vulnerability it's why the whole "damsel in distress thing" works so well, men find female vulnerability attractive and they feel happy with themselves for fixing problems. Men are fixers, they like to fix shit, if you're so strong that he feels like a spare part, the relationship probably isn't going to last, furthermore if you actually become richer and mentally stronger than most of the men in the world, you're going to find yourself unattracted to the majority of men because you find male strength attractive and in relation to your own strength, most men will seem weak or only marginally stronger in comparison.

I know it may be hard for women and maybe some very deluded blue pill men to possibly understand, but it's one of the huge fundamental differences between the sexes which is obvious to a red pill man.

  • Men are attracted to female vulnerability.

  • Women are repulsed by male vulnerability.

  • Men are repulsed by female domination.

  • Women are attracted to male domination.

Obviously, these are not absolutes, they fall on a spectrum. Men don't want women incapable of anything and women don't want men who won't let them do anything, but generally speaking, a man should tilt towards domination and a woman should tilt towards vulnerability if there is going to be long lasting attraction. Through opposition, we can have complementation. Through complementation, we can have cohesion.

It really is that simple and it's for this reason any attempt to equalise the genders, to make women just as powerful or if not, more powerful than men is doomed to fail, it is why all forms of feminism no matter what sect they claim to be inherently damage the social contract between men and women, because feminism is a cultural pressure which violates what we find attractive. What we find attractive isn't logical, its hindbrain powered and feminism has been unsuccessful in making weak men sexy to women and strong women sexy to men.

Powerful women are made miserable by their own hypergamy, if you're at the top, it's hard to find someone stronger than yourself.

Just food for thought next time you're convinced some forms of feminism are OK, in terms of attraction and pair bonding, feminism is fucking terrible - all of it.