The soft eugenics of male-hatred

iainmf · 2022-12-25T08:30:04+00:00

try to argue that men “are useless/obsolete”

Literal female supremacy.

MelissaMiranti · 2022-12-25T04:00:40+00:00

Well yeah, that's why the prospect of helping people like incels is automatically met with charges of wanting to legalize rape, since in the minds of people who hate these men, nobody would ever consent to sex with a "low-value" man.

hotpotato138 · 2022-12-25T11:16:47+00:00

I can't tell the difference between radical and non-radical feminists. Most of them seem like narcissists or psychopaths to me.

Wagnerous · 2022-12-25T16:37:39+00:00

Thank you for posting this, you’ve articulated a thought I have been having for years but for which I could never seem to find the right words to describe.

For a long time I’ve gotten the impression that feminists have been using exclusionary language to not only vilify men with a lack of reproductive success, but also to intentionally push them out of the dating market so that they just won’t have to deal with them.

It’s like they’re using social justice to weed out the men they’re not attracted to.

Frankly it’s super gross, and not to mention hypocritical. Consider that women talk about how men. “aren’t entitled to women’s bodies” but are also happy to turn around and shame men who are too shy or socially anxious to attract a woman. Also consider how women say they want to be treated but also how it’s been my experience that “woke” respectful men turn them off, and they usually respond much more favorably to aggressive men who push their boundaries and treat them like objects.

And don’t even get me started on how they hoot about “body acceptance” saying that “all woman are beautiful” and that we should accept fat and obese women and treat them like queens, but at the same time, it seems like the OVERWHELMING majority of women are perfectly comfortable shaming men for a lack of stature, endowment, or muscle tone, and will do so loudly and in public.

It just seems to me that our culture (especially on the left) has become tragically accepting of some truly outrageous and offensive behavior from women towards men especially ones who don’t meet their perfect masculine ideal. They like to hide behind the argument that women have been historically oppressed, so they maintain the moral high ground. That might be true, but I also think that most modern western women have never had to deal with anything like the kind of discrimination their their ancestors did, and so it hardly seems fair for them to use historical maltreatment as an excuse for poor behavior when more or less none of them ever had to deal with it themselves.

Ultimately I just think that it’s become totally normalized for women to treat men terribly and we’re all just supposed to pretend the problem doesn’t exist. If you so much as bring it up, you get labeled as a mysoginist and an incel. My own mother called me as much when I tried to explain my opinion on the situation, it was really hurtful.

And as a progressive democrat I really struggle with all this. I was raised to treat women with respect, but my lifelong observation is that women don’t sexually respect men who treat them politely, and it’s been frustrating to watch male coworkers treat female coworkers in a fashion that I would describe as fairly cut and dry sexual harassment, only to be rewarded for it. It makes me feel like a sucker for “respecting women” because as an average looking man it just isn’t a successful strategy. And I’m sure that feminists would slander me as “nice guy” for expressing that opinion, but I think that’s blatantly unfair. It seems to me that having a basic expectation that treating those around you with a basic level of respect and decency in the hope that they will return that treatment is a reasonable hypothesis.

But no, instead it’s lead to a life of romantic failure, crushing loneliness and disrespect from women, so apparently I’m a sucker. Really sucks man, I also think this culture is radicalizing a lot young men and pushing them toward the ALT Right but I digress.

Unexpected-bug · 2022-12-25T04:14:00+00:00

Soft? I think at this point in time we are seeing a very hard and direct eugenics apology discourse even in supposedly "not radical" feminists spaces.

Distinct-Hornet-7373 · 2022-12-26T01:11:59+00:00

The fact that FDS still isn’t banned is all I need to know.

nineteenletterslong_ · 2022-12-25T09:10:02+00:00

it's not just feminists. i noticed it first in american women, then in younger women everywhere: constant talk about genes, such as "i want a man with "dominant genes". even i am old enough to remember the time when where i'm from phrases like "inferior/bad genes", "weak bloodline" and "cleaning up the gene pool (from low value men)" were never heard, ever, if not maybe, just maybe, by nazi caricatures, and even then it would have been creepy. now it's everywhere, especially in the mouths of young women, who project it all on their concocted boogeyman the call incels.

and i know what you're thinking: "women were forced to marry and reproduce and only now have they gained the right to be selective".

no they weren't. this is nazi paranoia. "inferior" genes have never been perpetuated by being forced on women. more men used to reproduce in stable agricultural societies because women needed a helping hand raising their children, and there wasn't the infrastructure to provide it outside of marriage. it doesn't mean "genetically inferior" men plotted to share the women as some kind of loot.

WeEatBabies · 2022-12-25T04:23:34+00:00

Soft eugenics???

https://www.instagram.com/p/CguUI4JLUge/

Also, when the Haiti earthquake hit, the U.N. food relief program was aimed at women only :

https://www.npr.org/2010/02/01/123202099/new-program-for-food-aid-in-haiti-targets-women With said promotion from the U.N. that women were to share the food with their families. Unmarried men, were left to starve! Making it eugenics based on female mating preferences.

Canada did the same when welcoming Syrian refugees, only women, children and married men were allowed to be saved. Again, eugenics based on women's mating preferences. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/24/canada-exclusion-refugees-single-syrian-men-assad-isis

Pretty much everywhere you see feminism, you will see eugenics!

OrwellianHell · 2022-12-25T17:24:16+00:00

Dehumanization is the most fundamental sin

frackingfaxer · 2022-12-26T04:56:12+00:00

There's nothing new about this, I'm afraid. What was Sally Miller Gearhart's "future is female" proposal to reduce men to 10% of the human race but a kind of utopian feminist eugenics program?

dr_pepper02 · 2022-12-27T09:49:19+00:00

Well when things get difficult they’ll change their tune, because they know deep down their “independence” is built on men building the infrastructure which allows them to be free of men.

Moist-Quiet-647 · 2022-12-25T19:27:15+00:00

I disagree. What I will say is controversial.

I know genetic inequalities are a touchy subject, and I understand why since I am concerned by this problem as an ugly and weak man.

The soft-eugenics of feminists is merely the unfiltered expression of female choosiness (it is not the only expression), itself a consequence of anisogamy, i.e. the existence of two distinct sexes, one with a near-infinity of gametes and the other with very few that act as a population bottleneck. The sex with very few gametes obviously needs to be super-selective of their mates because a bad choice takes away precious years of fertility. For more information see also: "Good Gene theory of sexual selection".

I too am pissed off by feminist's soft-eugenics. But this is like being pissed off at rain: it's a natural phenomenon. Women don't control it. They're hard-wired to seek healthy-looking mates.

This is why I support eugenics at the conception level: choosing the genes of your progeny in order to avoid said progeny to be purged at the mating level. Men with bad genes are going to be "purged" from the gene pool one way or another. Doing it at the level of conception will avoid that some men end up incels because of their genes. This will be good for both sexes.

shit-zen-giggles · 2022-12-29T10:40:44+00:00

There is a disturbing trend I’ve noticed in radical feminists

This 'trend' has always been there, starting with the seneca falls convention of 1848 and the 'declaration of sentiments' that resulted from it.

go to /r/ToxicFeminismIsToxic to get a collection of selected low points

If you have a stable mood, take a moment to read about the feminist capture of psychology and the suicide epidemic among men and then read the UN definition of genocide.

BloomingBrains · 2023-01-01T01:37:03+00:00

if you’re not Reproductively useful, then you have no value

Ironically, radfems complain about that mentality when applied to women, but apparently when it comes to men, its ok. Yet another hypocrisy!

Unhappy_Name_5925 · 2022-12-30T07:53:14+00:00

You know, you could always step out of your comfort zone and force yourself to be more extroverted. You could also exercise. Basically everything about male attractiveness except your height and dick size can be worked on. Your face doesn’t matter. I have a traditionally handsome face and couldn’t get laid to save my life until I worked on the other things 😂

Talking to people, regardless of gender is terrifying at first, but you have to do it, push through the pain of embarrassment for a while, and get used to it eventually. A confident social presence is the single most important thing a man can have. You can be short, skinny, ugly, it doesn’t matter.

Title	The soft eugenics of male-hatred
Author	knightfluttershy
Upvotes	180
Comments	85
Date	December 24, 2022 8:48 PM UTC (1 year ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/zuifni/the_soft_eugenics_of_malehatred/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/the-soft-eugenics-of-male-hatred.1145852 https://theredarchive.com/post/1145852