In Defense of Feminism

fschmidt · 2016-06-02T17:13:45+00:00

What if I told you that I dont give a fuck about the future of women since they dont need no man. Tell that to the men who died face down in the muck so they can preserve the freedom of this worthless pieces of crap.

Let me tell you something. I'm schooled to handle some types of guns and I'm brought up in the spirit of defending my country against foreign invaders. But if tommorow ww3 was to break out and the radical muslim hordes were to attack europe I would gladly point them in the libtard direction.

We dont give a fuck anymore. Its over. Finito. Women can finally be happy. We dont want you anymore and dont hit your head on your way out. I'm leaving that to Achmed bin rapeyourass.

fschmidt · 2016-06-02T17:16:36+00:00

I read it. It's a tradcon failing to grasp the biological nature of gynocentrism. The author is trying to tongue-in-cheekly thank feminism for destroying an "immoral modern culture". Why? Seemingly to return to an older patriarchal state where everything was sunshine and roses according to them.

fschmidt · 2016-06-02T20:23:43+00:00

You give women too much credit in their ability to "unquestionably" choose high-quality genetic material for reproductive purposes. Why? Well because women are largely dumb, stupid, and don't know what they want.

They have lower IQs than men across the board, and they delegate their sexual selection to society at large, meaning that social status is the #1 selector for female sexuality.

The whole point of game is to demonstrate to females that you have social status, implied by your behavior. That is it. We create something out of nothing, by our understanding of female psychology.

Women follow the herd. And the elites have shepherded them into a dysgenic sexual strategy, one that literally encourages and rewards animalistic behavior rather than human behavior.

If they could understand this, they would go with the nice guys, since their children will have a higher chance of success and therefore they are the better genetic stock.

But they don't, because they're narcissistic dumb fucks who are addicted to mindless drama and attention, and bad boys instinctively know how to provide their drug of choice.

That being said, feminism will eventually eat out society and we will be right back to where we started: patriarchy.

User-31f64a4e · 2016-06-03T03:34:06+00:00

In the "Human Evolution" post I explained that women simply choose the type of man who is evolutionarily optimal in the current environment.

Wrong.
They choose the type of man who was optimal back when we were primitive hunter-gatherers using stone tools on the savanna. This is no longer appropriate, which is why it is maladaptive. I am getting pretty sick of morons talking about evolution and evo-psych in stupid and incorrect ways.

All feminism is really about is allowing women in modern culture to mate with genetically good men and avoid mating with genetically bad men.

Really? How about the special privileges? Duluth model of domestic violence, tender years doctrine (which switched primary custody from fathers to mothers), fighting alimony reform, wage gap bullshit (leading to calls for women to be paid more when doing identical work, changes to education to favor women ... what does any of that have to do with letting women mate with good men?

Oh yeah, then there is rape and domestic violence, informed consent, misrepresenting yourself to hookup being defined as "rape" (a bill was introduced in New Jersey to this effect), abortion on demand, the French laws forbidding paternity testing, slutwalks, opposing porn and prostitution so male libido is forced into the approved channels, bullshit about "rape culture" on campus that puts men on the defensive and forces them to be meek and submissive in the college dating game (and may be an attack on hookup culture), and much much more. All of this is about promoting female reproductive strategy at the cost of male reproductive strategy. That's not about mating with good men; it's about fucking over all men on behalf of women.

So women in this society will be attracted to moral men

As Roosh puts it, you can't negotiate attraction. Well, you can't steer it via culture either. You can force behaviors, but that doesn't work at the level of attraction. Attraction mechanics are built in at the level of instinct. Men aren't taught to prefer a hip-to-waist ration of .7 in every culture on the entire planet; it is an instinct. Women don't show more skin when they ovulate because they think of it; it happens subconsciously. (This was studied somewhere in Scandanavia, Sweden I think, ten or fifteen years ago in a study of girls going out to nightclubs.) Women will never be attracted by morality; only by fitness, status or provisioning.

Whoever wrote that was an idiot, plain and simple.

DigitalScetis · 2016-06-03T15:20:13+00:00

I disagree with how the post characterizes "rape" as it pertains to feminist theory. Particularly this passage:

[L]et's consider a woman in modern culture. If a violent thug forces this woman to have sex with him, is this rape? No it isn't because the violent thug is well suited genetically for modern culture. So there is no issue of mating with a genetically unsuitable man. Now let's consider the case of this woman being seduced into sex by a nice guy who studied seduction techniques. This clearly is rape since nice guys are genetically unsuitable for modern culture. Whether the sex was violently forced or voluntary is irrelevant, all that matters is the quality of the man's genes. In modern culture, any sex with a nice guy is rape regardless of the circumstances because nice guys have unsuitable genes for modern culture.

This kind of biological reductionism is all too common among we men going our own way, and we need to be careful how we apply it. When we apply it well, we can get some good insight into why men and women do what they do. But misapplied, it makes us look like fools.

The argument here is that "rape" is what a woman calls sex with a man that we might call "culturally unfit". That is to say, if the man is at odds with barometer set by the culture as "deserving of sex", and the woman has sex with such a person, the woman was "raped".

This argument rests on a couple of important assumptions:

[M]en have no right to doubt women's mating choices in terms of genetic suitability. When a woman says that a man is "hot", she is unquestionably correct that he is a good genetic choice in her current environment. And when a woman says that a man is a (genetic) loser, she is also unquestionably correct in her current environment.

This assumes that women have a barometer for this kind of assessment that is far more keen than the evidence suggests. Even the women themselves admit that they sleep with the "wrong people" all the time...far more than they sleep with the "right" ones. They admit that they make "mistakes," that they behave "foolishly" in their youth, and that their senses are easily deceived. If this wasn't the case, how is it possible for them to marry the "wrong" person, which happens in at least 50% of the time, according to the latest divorce statistics?

Hypergamy is a subconscious drive. It works on a woman's intuition, but this intuition does not yield "unquestioningly correct" results. If it did, we would find far less confusion among women about who they are sleeping with and why when they talk about their choices.

If you don't believe what women say (and I don't blame you), look at what they do. We know, for example, that most rape allegations are retracted, baseless, false, or dismissed before going to trial. For something that is "so important" for a woman, with a faculty that is "unquestioningly correct," women these days sure change their minds about it, do not care about pursuing the matter, and do not approach it with either the gravity or the accuracy that the post claims they ought to, from my standpoint.

But why was this assumption made? I think it has to do with the second assumption in the post:

Mating with an unsuitable man is almost like the loss of a child because that child's genetic future is bleak. The word to express this tragedy is "rape".

I think the problem here is that this kind of assumption is rather moot today. In the days before things like the birth control pill and abortion, you could probably make that kind of case. No woman alive today, however, need carry any child from any man, "culturally fit" or not. They have never known an environment where the stakes of "mating with unsuitable men" were as you described it. It was the case at one time, but no longer. She gets Norplant and can get drilled every night without regret. And when that fails, she visits a clinic, writes out a $500 check, and the problem is solved.

Moreover, no woman alive today has had to worry about bastardy on her conscience. Her children, whether legitimate or not, will furnish her with a check each month by the father, which she can choose to spend (or not spend) on the child as she sees fit. The probate court is not going to discriminate against a bastard child in favor of a legitimate child when dividing a father's estate.

Women, today, don't have to worry that their children will be discriminated against because they are "mulattoes" or "mixed race". That kind of classification is no longer legally or culturally relevant. She doesn't have to worry about disease-ridden hospitals and primitive home delivery with no drugs.

So what am I getting at here? It seems that genetic fitness, cultural fitness, and all of that does not necessarily determine the basis for what a woman, and especially a feminist woman, calls "rape" these days. In fact, I'd go so far as to suggest that the very people who are genetically or culturally 'fit' are the very men that the feminist rape laws are designed to charge.

Because here's the thing about sex, rape, and the intersection between the two: they no longer serve in the same capacity today than they once did for women.

Sex has been decoupled from reproduction for women. Women pursue it as a source of pleasure, as a tool to get what they want and, optimally, as both at the same time. Rape, too, has been decoupled from a violation of her body. It is now thought about as a violation of her feelings.

Probably the most succinct definition of what "rape" means today for feminism was given by Catherine MacKinnon: "I call it rape whenever a woman has sex and feels violated." In other words, what is or is not a rape has nothing to do with any measurable criteria like the fitness (genetic, cultural or otherwise) of the man she is sleeping with or why she has slept with him. It has to do with the internal, subjective feelings of the woman looking at the event in retrospect, evaluating whether the sex, in hindsight, is something she regrets.

Consequently, "rape" in the mind of a woman today is when sex does not result in the things she wants from it. If she wants pleasurable sex, and the sex was not pleasurable, the sex wasn't sex; it was rape. If the sex was intended to be a tool to get what she wants, and she didn't get it, the sex wasn't sex; it was rape. If the sex was intended by her to be both pleasurable and serve as a tool to get what she wants, and either one of the two happened without the other one, the sex wasn't sex; it was rape.

Whether those feelings about the sex happen at the time the sex is happening, the next day, the next week, or ten years from the event doesn't matter. That is why, for example, many women will argue that, in the case of Lucy DeCoutere, the "multiple emails she had sent Ghomeshi hours and years after the alleged assault" in no way imply that the assault wasn't a legitimate assault. It is a legitimate assault because, at this time, Lucy DeCouture believed that it was. Whether or not she believed that it was before this time is of no consequence.

This is why, for example, a woman can accuse Patrick Kane (who is, by most indications, not a very "nice guy") of raping her; she went up to the house late at night, presumably had sex with him, and felt violated because the encounter didn't give her what she wanted from it.

That is what rape is for women these days; it is a tool of coercion that we might call the "stick" part of the "carrot & stick" analogy. And it is used against both "nice guys" and "thugs" with equal impunity, depending on whether the "nice guy" and the "thug" make the sex pay off for the woman in the way that she feels entitled to at the time.

For the "nice guy", this might involve her going out on a date with him in order to get him to write out a check for some bills. When the check bounces, she feels violated, and when she feels violated, it is proof to her that the sex wasn't sex; it was rape.

For the "thug", this might involve her falling madly for him, only to discover a few days later that he's sleeping with other women. When she discovers this, she feels violated, and when she feels violated, it is proof to her that the sex was never sex; it was rape.

Now, as a man, if you don't believe you have a "right to doubt a woman's mating choices in terms of genetic suitability," consider that the women themselves are probably not very good at making these choices today, if they ever were. Hence, why they are promoting new laws and new definitions of rape; they need the laws to control the outcome of sex for many purposes, but always in their favor, because they themselves cannot control the outcome based on their decision making alone.

But I'll be damned if I don't have the right, as a man, to "doubt a woman's mating choices" in any respect: cultural fitness, moral fitness, genetic fitness or financial fitness.

Because when the women mess up, we as men are on the hook, either through increased taxes, increased injunction to be "good bystanders," increased scrutiny into our behaviors, increased pressure to "man up and marry those sluts," increased pathologicalization of normal male behavior, and increased repression.

That's all I gotta say.

wasthereadogwithyou · 2016-06-04T04:55:46+00:00

Fschmidt- are you jewish?

Title	In Defense of Feminism
Author	fschmidt
Upvotes	0
Comments	30
Date	June 2, 2016 4:59 PM UTC (10 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MGTOW
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MGTOW/comments/4m85fh/in_defense_of_feminism/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MGTOW/in-defense-of-feminism.633662 https://theredarchive.com/post/633662

Comments