714,030 posts

How feminism succeeds

Reddit View
April 8, 2019
49 upvotes

Feminism is based on rubbish ideas - patriarchy, equality, wage gap, rape culture, pink tax, alleged discrimination, etc.

All of it is all either outright lies, or conspiracy theories, or both.

How does this stuff get traction?

This is how

It doesn't help that the [ establishment media | cathedral media | driveby media | chaimstream media | yellow journalism | fake news | lugenpresse ] only air the feminist side. An interesting question might be, what does the establishment gain from feminism?


Post Information
Title How feminism succeeds
Author User-31f64a4e
Upvotes 49
Comments 14
Date 08 April 2019 05:27 PM UTC (1 year ago)
Subreddit antifeminists
Link https://theredarchive.com/post/710757
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/antifeminists/comments/bawkxb/how_feminism_succeeds/
Similar Posts

Red Pill terms found in post:
feministfeminism
Comments

[–]User-31f64a4e[S] 7 points8 points  (4 children) | Copy

An interesting question might be, what does the establishment gain from feminism?

IMHO, the destruction of the family. Strong families make people more powerful - support, economic cushion, relatives for child care, etc. Weak families help isolate people down to the level of mere individuals, where they are much easier to control.

[–]Peteruz1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

I think you’ve nailed it spot on.

[–]homo_redditorensis-3 points-2 points  (2 children) | Copy

I think families make people poorer and thus easier to control. More willing to work long hours at shitty jobs, less money, more desperate workers. It's not like back in the old days when more kids meant better financial stability.

[–]Peteruz0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

No way man families give you a backbone of support that you cannot get anywhere else. Eliminating the nuclear family makes the individual dependent on the government and ultimately corporations since who controls government policy through lobbying etc? Without kids, siblings, aunts, uncles, etc, people you can actually depend on (99% of the time which is family) you’ll end up finding yourself in an old person’s home without anyone to care for you. Your source of happiness will no longer come from family but instead consumer products offered by corporations like Netflix, fast food, gadgets, etc. A family can make you poorer if you don’t raise it right which most of the time goes against our human instinct. A family makes you strong and independent most of the time. You need to know that someone has your back and that other family member needs to know you’ve got their back.

[–]homo_redditorensis1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Yeah I never said families don't provide support, there are pros and cons to both having no kids, having few kids and having many kids. But in general DINKs have the most amount of money and get the most amount of education. Parents are more likely to be in debt. Childcare is extremely expensive.. Having lots of kids makes you less able to pay for each of their education so they rely on student loans or settle for having less education. You might have a bit more support in your elderly years because that burden is shared over more people, which is a plus, but also parents have less savings. DINKs have lower debt, more disposable income, more ability to take vacations and travel and save money. Parents have less flexibility if they choose to work a different job or switch careers because they have more dependents to take care of.

So if we're purely talking about wages, savings and financial independence, parents have less of those things. And when you have less money, you have less freedom. Don't forget the wages are at a massive low point right now and most families don't have money saved up for emergencies. So no, people who struggle with income and supporting themselves and their kids are easier to control economically and more willing to go into debt to support themselves. If you're in debt, you're not free. If you don't have savings, you're not free. Other broke people having your back isn't gonna do much for financial independence and ability to negotiate better wages. Women who don't have kids for example make more money than women who do have kids. They take less time off at work and don't suffer the "motherhood penalty" which is the gap in pay between working mothers and childfree women.

Especially when you factor in the cost of healthcare in America, and parents are even more fucked when that's taken into account. I'm not saying people shouldn't have kids, just that there are really good reasons not to if you value your financial freedom and ability to save money

[–]Virtual-Knight3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy

In Latin, it's called argumentum ad populum. Get enough people to believe a lie, it becomes fact. this is why I hate using the word fact.

[–]choubidou132 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy

people are dumb enough to think that women doesnt have enough rights today and they believe that women should be superior than men because men were superior than women (in older times), a sort of payback

[–]Ebinebinebinebin0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

This is the foundation of third-wave feminism. Punishing people for something other people of their gender did. That's almost the definiton of sexism. Feminists claim to fight for equality, yet even if they try, (which they don't), it's impossible with the core of their movement being sexism.

[–]User-31f64a4e[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

This is the foundation of third-wave feminism

Indeed.
We could, in fact, say that all identity politics - race based, sex based, class based, whatever - is about punishing people for something others in their group did.

No statute of limitations either. If some in your group's great-great-great-great-great-grandparents did something considered reasonable at the time, you are to be held accountable for it now.

[–]Year_zer0_1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Haha I shall discuss this at our patriarch meeting on Thursday night. Right after we rape the hostesses we employ for under the minimum wage.

[–]HBenedek381 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

An interesting question might be, what does the establishment gain from feminism?

Someone already said the destruction of the family, but I'd go further.

Control.

It has long been known that women are conformists, men are individualists. Women are quiet, men are loud. Women succumb to social expectations, men challenge them. Women hold a grudge, but rarely speak up - it's usually men who will reach for a gun first to send a bullet through the head of the dear leader.

The reason feminism blends so well with globalism and authoritarianism is because it demonises the same thing that globalists are afraid of - masculinity. The best part about this is that actually this is the inherent result of patriarchies (which we actually DO have to dome extent).

Feminists love to scream about the patriarchy, but patriarchies are FAR worse for men than women. Historically patriarchs - kings, emperors, great leaders - all stabilized their power by surrounding themselves with women and neutered men - be that neutering mental through extreme fear of death (Japan, China) or physical (Eunuchs and religious figures in celibate). When Egyptians occupied a nation, they cut off the arms of enemy soldiers. I could go on. The point is - a patriarch's most surefire way to solidify his power was to break the able bodied male population, and satisfy the female population. I'm like to point out - 68% of Vladimir Putin's voters are women.

The globalist ruling class has figured out a way to neuter men without commiting genocide or attrocities. And that is through shame. Make the majority of men social pariahs, make their words irrelevant, their image tainted, and all their charisma, their violence, their raw power will go to waste. This is also why third wave feminism went after TERF feminists - TERFs are almost all dykes. Very masculine, very loud, very charismatic => dangerous.

Again, I would like to mention how the Romans gained their power - divide and conquer.

[–]Forerunner01 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

Btw Hitler was saying that as a negative thing. He was infact complaining about marxism.

[–]homo_redditorensis0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

This is true. He was referring to the Jewish people as well, and blaming them for the downfall of Germany after WWII.

But it remained for the Jews, with their unqualified capacity for falsehood, and their fighting comrades, the Marxists, to impute responsibility for the downfall precisely to the man who alone had shown a superhuman will and energy in his effort to prevent the catastrophe which he had foreseen and to save the nation from that hour of complete overthrow and shame. By placing responsibility for the loss of the world war on the shoulders of Ludendorff they took away the weapon of moral right from the only adversary dangerous enough to be likely to succeed in bringing the betrayers of the Fatherland to Justice.

[–]julianleung0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

See the major department of stores and you will know who gain. Feminism is just a tool to take money from mengina to the rich.



You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2020. All rights reserved.

created by /u/dream-hunter