How Feminism has DESTROYED Canada

trisquel · 2016-05-15T04:14:48+00:00

Too many people seem to have completely forgotten the original purpose of feminism when arguing against it (or were never aware of it in the first place), and...

[–]murph555 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]trisquel0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Noomene0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]csehszlovakzeThe Hungarian5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[+]trisquel-6 points-5 points-4 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]csehszlovakzeThe Hungarian6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]trisquel-3 points-2 points-1 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Prometheus4440 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]trisquel-1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

No, I'm in agreement with you that masculinity and abrasiveness are entirely separate traits - if you watched the video, I merely pointed out that the majority of Canadian women exhibit both of these traits which are mutually exclusive. I've elaborated on my feelings regarding the situation here in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dzBz62U1Ko I'm completely in agreement that women are not necessarily any more empathetic than men (and I know from personal experience because the only genuine and caring real life friends I have are male). However, women are still largely "traditional" in their choice of occupations all over the world (which tend to be in the fields of early education, counselling, social work, child care, administration/secretarial work, etc.) which indicates that in GENERAL, they are more drawn towards empathizing fields and less towards systemizing fields.

[–]curry_or_death1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]trisquel-1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]trisquel0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 10 years ago [recovered] (28 children) | Copy Link

Although you seem well intentioned, you've proven that you don't know what you're talking about (at least in this video) and are simply parroting things likely due to confirmation bias.

Empathy comes more naturally to women? Abrasiveness is a masculine trait? What evidence do you have to support any of these claims?

Excess levels of testosterone leads to an excess conversion of testosterone into estrogen which is the thing responsible for emotional instability and outbursts. 'Roid Rage' would probably be the most obvious example of this.

With your less than scientific understanding of the topic, your views are little more than observations based on easily debunked stereotypes.

I think you will find that the majority of MGTOW care little about feminism because we've identified a much worse problem in the name of gynocentrism, and yes that applies to feminism's original meaning/purpose as well.

[–]trisquel-1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

I am referring to averages whenever I refer to groups of people, and averages are always reflected in statistics. Female subjects have a higher average score on the Simon Baron Cohen Empathy Quotient test than males, and males in turn have a higher average score on the Systemizing Quotient test. Is it generalizing to say that these scores reflect the reality of the world? Not really, because all of the fields which revolve around empathizing/social interaction are dominated by women while technological/systemizing fields are dominated by men. This doesn't necessarily speak to their lack of talent in either subject area since women were shown to have the same success rate as men when they attempt to learn computer programming. However, it does prove that women are more drawn to empathizing fields because they are simply more interested in working with people, while men who may be equally capable of empathizing tend to be drawn into working in the physical world because that is where their interest lies.

[+][deleted] 10 years ago [recovered] (26 children) | Copy Link

Simon's work is largely built around discrediting "blank slate theory" and proving that sex differences are biological rather than social. His observations of newborns indicates that female babies stare longer at faces while male babies stare longer at objects. I have no objections to this. What i do object to is his methodology.

For example, why, in his study of children, would he ask adult women (the children's mothers) to answer the questions on the questionnaire? He did not control for a difference in opinion of a child's behaviour, thoughts, emotions based on the father's perceptions nor the children themselves seeing as how they were old enough to answer. He unnecessarily introduced bias into the results which may or may not have skewed the data one way or the other (we have no way of knowing) having been filtered through the female perspective with female preferences and female expectations. The entire reason he wished to study children in the first place was so that he could account for socialization in adults and in that regard his study was a failure. He did have interesting data on autistic children, but that is a separate case.

Similarly, his study of adults is equally flawed with an over-representation of STEM-minded men in which it is easy to conclude the things that he has.

Again, i think you are too quick to latch on to his conclusions due to confirmation bias. It's not that these averages are nowhere to be found in nature. They absolutely do exist but he did not definitively prove what he set out to prove. A lot of the data from this field indicates that Cohen is correct, but that is not the same as being correct. His methodology is flawed and subsequently should be taken with a high level of skepticism, which clearly you have not.

[–]trisquel0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (25 children) | Copy Link

I agree that there are definitely significant anomalies within statistics - the whole reason that I made this video was in an attempt to expose my country as the biggest of them all. Like every other part of the world, women in Canada are still heavily predominant in every social oriented field from early education, counselling, social work, child care, nursing, psychotherapy, to administration/secretarial work. However, at the same time I've noticed an alarming number of people in this field are anything but empathetic/child oriented, and that is the distastrous result of our gender roles being completely reversed. I believe that the weak- minded men in this country have essentially been overthrown in their role in society by being shamed for displaying any kind of "masculine" trait. Meanwhile, it seems to me that the women are actually APPLAUDED for behaving more like men in terms of their empathy (in spite of remaining largely "traditional" in their choice of occupations).

[+][deleted] 10 years ago [recovered] (24 children) | Copy Link

that is the distastrous result of our gender roles being completely reversed.

It is the result of being able to choose your role which men are starting to do for the first time en masse in the form of going our own way. This is a positive, not a negative. What is a negative is that the modern woman is able to 'fence-sit' between traditionalism and feminism in all aspects of her life. She is able to cherry pick the good parts of both systems while rejecting the bad. If women, like men, were limited to choose one or the other then they would most likely choose to remain in their traditional roles because all of the evidence shows that women would rather give up rights than take on more responsibility.

I believe that the weak- minded men in this country have essentially been overthrown in their role in society by being shamed for displaying any kind of "masculine" trait.

It's weak men (period) that are responsible for allowing the denigration of masculinity. It was weak men that capitulated to whiny entitled women and continue to do so because it's what women want to hear and it works. Our current PM was elected solely because of this.

Meanwhile, it seems to me that the women are actually APPLAUDED for behaving more like men in terms of their empathy

Why is being compared to men a negative thing? Could it be that your expectations and perceptions of women are unrealistic?

[–]trisquel0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

Why is being compared to men a negative thing? Could it be that your expectations and perceptions of women are unrealistic?

I mentioned in another video that a couple years ago at a time when I was in the most dire need of an empathetic, listening ear, a girl from California advised me to make female friends because they are SUPPOSED to have more capacity to provide emotional support to people who are in need of it (since my only RL friends back then and now were male, and one was in a relationship which made me incredibly upset at the time because I didn't understand it). So that's what I tried - I tried reaching out to the one and only female in CANADA who I ever felt like I could genuinely connect with, since I had also never met anyone else around here who was remotely like her, yet she still managed to attract a lot of people in her life based on her appearance alone. That experience showed me there is something inherently "off" about the people here, because if I can't even get emotional validation from other females when I need it, there's no way that I am the only one with the problem.

[+][deleted] 10 years ago [recovered] (22 children) | Copy Link

In other words, your expectations and perceptions of women were (are?) unrealistic just like ours used to be before 'taking the red pill'.

You took poor advice based on the faulty premise that women are more empathetic and would provide you (their competition) with emotional support. Your mistake was expecting an act of altruism from women where there is none to be found. Anecdotally speaking, a man is far more likely to be a sympathetic ear and will even try to offer solutions to help you.

Sooner or later, men who get emotional support from a woman come to realize that there are always strings attached. She expects to get something out of it. What possible reason would another woman have to offer you emotional support? What could you possibly give her in exchange that she couldn't get more easily from someone else, say a man, who would give her emotional support for free?

You're right that you're not the only one with this problem, because it's not a matter unique to this country. It ultimately comes down to sexual dynamics which is universal as well as the difference between the way men and women are socialized.

Your problem isn't that you can't get emotional validation from other people. Your problem is your need for external validation in the first place. Externalizing blame for something you need to fix about yourself is counterproductive.

[–]trisquel0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (21 children) | Copy Link

*Wall of text warning

Well the girl in question was a pretty unusual character, firstly. I always sensed she was living in a world that she didn't necessarily belong in - and I think it may have driven her up the wall internally, but she chose to go along with the crowd anyway because her priorities were fairly messed up. At the time when I contacted her during the summer a couple years back, I knew she had a window of opportunity to meet with me because she had gotten off from both school and work, and I knew that classes weren't going to start again for another two weeks. I thought perhaps she could have used this window for the benefit of someone in need for a change (I recalled she had told me about a friend of hers who committed suicide in her hometown around the time when we first met, and that somehow made me believe she would take people suffering with major depression more seriously as a result) since I had previously only ever been able to meet her through random public encounters (which believe me, used to happen CONSTANTLY). Of course it turned out she wouldn't go out of her way to meet with me intentionally, but it just happened that I ran into her again by chance at the start of the school term - and that was of course the only time I was given a chance, but I knew she would find out that it was a mistake to dismiss the only person she could GENUINELY connect with. I couldn't understand how she could be content and surround herself with people who didn't genuinely care for her as a person, who weren't on anywhere near the same frequency or wavelength, because I have personally tried spending time around people that I couldn't genuinely connect with, and it made me feel even WORSE about myself! Another thing about her is I guess she doesn't even understand how to initiate social encounters by herself because she has never actually needed to do it - everyone else was willing to do it for her, so why should she ever have to go out of her way to contact anyone? That shows men and women around here are equally shallow when it comes to friendships, in that they will go out of their way to spend time around and accommodate women who they find very physically appealing. While it seems physically attractive women are more ostracized by women in other places because they are seen as "competition," like you said. Even after all the social obligations and contacts that it seems she was always preoccupied with, it didn't help her get any further in life because the last I heard from her, she was still busy trying to look for full-time work (after she had stuck to working at the same market research call center a lot longer than I thought she would), which baffled me considering there's no reason anyone with that many contacts shouldn't at least be able to find SOMETHING through networking. As I suspected, those so-called "friends" were probably nowhere near as close as I am with my RL friends and only used her for what they thought they could get before abandoning her. Of course it didn't help that she was also focused on studying in a scientific field that wasn't specialized, needlessly putting herself into debt when she would probably have an easier time getting employed by taking something like accounting or nursing. In spite of her own struggles, she encouraged me to pursue my own education without even realizing I had given up on it while I was still ahead, which I think would have been the wise thing to do in her case. I think the real tragedy here is that she failed to understand that social obligations and contacts are meaningless if you can't find a means of earning money to support yourself so that you can actually afford to enjoy life, and they're especially meaningless if they're not even genuine friends.

[+][deleted] 10 years ago [recovered] (20 children) | Copy Link

I couldn't understand how she could be content and surround herself with people who didn't genuinely care for her as a person

She will realize when her looks fade, as most women do. It's called "hitting the wall".

she doesn't even understand how to initiate social encounters by herself because she has never actually needed to do it - everyone else was willing to do it for her, so why should she ever have to go out of her way to contact anyone?

Yep.

That shows men and women around here are equally shallow when it comes to friendships, in that they will go out of their way to spend time around and accommodate women who they find very physically appealing.

Yes, but it's not limited to here. It is the basis for all hetero male-female interactions which accounts for the overwhelming majority of the human species. Society attempts to obfuscate this truth as best it can because it's in society's best interest, not the individual's.

Even after all the social obligations and contacts that it seems she was always preoccupied with, it didn't help her get any further in life because the last I heard from her, she was still busy trying to look for full-time work

Assuming she wants full time work and isn't having her lifestyle subsidized by men, this is one of the reasons why women turn to feminism for retribution. They go from being constantly pandered/catered to which naturally they feel entitled to, to all of a sudden people not wanting to give them the time of day and think that this "wrong" must be corrected. People valued her for the same shallow reasons that she valued herself for. This should hardly come as a surprise to anyone, and yet it still does.

I think the real tragedy here is that she failed to understand that social obligations and contacts are meaningless if you can't find a means of earning money to support yourself so that you can actually afford to enjoy life, and they're especially meaningless if they're not even genuine friends.

Thanks to sexual dynamics, men don't have this problem. We learn super early on that our only choice is to support ourselves. Everything else you're saying are things that i realized in highschool. Not getting special treatment and in some cases getting treated poorly has it's advantage in exposing us to reality and shaping our perception accordingly.

[–]trisquel0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]jesterace1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]trisquel1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jesterace1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]trisquel1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jesterace1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]trisquel1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jesterace1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]trisquel1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jesterace1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I am a victim of backwards feminism in this country as much as any other male

No, you are not. You are not being directly targeted by policies specifically designed to harm you. You are feeling the unintended consequences of female supremacy advocacy that most women are OK with. You claiming to be a victim as much as any other male is eerily similar to Hilary Clinton saying that women are the primary victims of war. It is not a valid comparison.

Lauren Southern's alternative right and your traditional feminism are equally gynocentric and unacceptable so i reject them both. Neither of these things are forward thinking solutions. In fact, both of them require a return to the past. This results in more restrictions and less freedom for everyone which is not a positive in my view.

Due to women's need to complain and weak men's need to capitulate, we will end up here once again. This past century isn't the first time that feminism has reared its ugly head.

What needs to happen is that men need to stop giving women special treatment, regardless of the cost. AFAIK we, a tiny group of men, are the only ones doing that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngiEFG19How

edit:

under the guise of being one of the few "sane" and "realistic" women who condemns her own gender.

Your gender deserves to be condemned for the things they've advocated for just as my gender deserves to be condemned for going along with it.

[–]trisquel1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jesterace1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]trisquel1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jesterace1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

the long term effects are already catching up with Canada as a whole.

Of course. This is the result of undervaluing men's contributions. Society failed boys and men, and now society will fail as a result. Economics definitively proves that men subsidize women whether it be direct (dating/marriage) or through wealth redistribution(taxes). We've reached a point where a growing number of men are realizing that they don't have to and no longer want to subsidize women. In that sense, the original goal of feminism has been reached, and then some. Women haven't had to directly rely on a man for decades because of wealth redistribution without caring to understand where that money came from. Now that wealth isn't being generated at the same level, at least not for the average person, women are starting to panic and essentially advocating for a return to traditionalism aka the direct transfer of wealth instead of via taxes and are damn near begging men to come back. It would stand to reason then that it's in fact women that don't support the original goal of feminism and equality. I say It's time for women to pick up the slack that men were forced to put down. You and I both know that women will do everything in their power to avoid that which is why you now see anti-feminist women and the Lauren Southerns of the world gaining popularity. ¯_(ツ)_/¯

[–]trisquel1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jesterace1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

That isn't what's happening at all though. Nobody idolizes those men. They are simply useful idiots who don't understand that they are being manipulated by having their base urges used against them. Weak men side with women as a "beta" mating strategy, but they get little more than a pat on the head for it. Despite what women say about masculinity, they still reward "alpha" mating strategy with sex and reproduction at the end of the day. "The red pill" exists to teach men this very truth so that they can start respecting themselves and stop throwing other men under the bus to try to gain the approval of women that never wanted them in the first place.

If women rewarded non-"alpha" mating strategy using men, then we wouldn't be in the situation we're in today. The relatively short period in history of prosperity and stability post WWII that people harken back to is when the average man was being rewarded.

[–]trisquel1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jesterace1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]trisquel1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]trisquel0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]cynicalsimon0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]trisquel-4 points-3 points-2 points 10 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]LonelyDalek 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]trisquel-1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]LonelyDalek 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

This is not about an ideology; it is about the lived experience of me and thousands of men who understands female nature- We are better off without women in our lives; we're happier, more self content, more successful, financially more secure,... the list goes on.

Is it not OK to have a female friend? Given how the society is structured around pandering to women's whims and given what we know and experienced regarding female nature, it is a risk not worth taking, in my opinion. Other MGTOWs might feel differently about it, that's up to them. Female company brings more risks than benefits.

There are extremely cool, laid back women out there who don't in fact line up with the vast majority of your personal experiences

Imagine a minefield in which only 1 in every 3 mines are active. If someone asks me to run across it, I wouldn't. IT is simply a cost-benefit analysis- Is there anything unique a female's companionship can bring about? Yes, but most of those are risks; risks not worth taking. May be there are "good, laid back women out there" but there's nothing uniquely good their company will bring me, and none of them have a tattoo on their forehead announcing their personality. I simply don't care anymore. And the past 4 years of my MGTOW life had been extremely fruitful.

and dismissing 50% of the population based on your personal experiences says more about your own character than anything

This is what most of us call 'shaming language', one of the most basic and predictable weapons in females' arsenal. It won't work here.

To address your point, yes, it speaks volumes about my character- it says I'm a smart man who knows how to avoid unnecessary risks. Truth is, our personal experiences are a big factor in making future decisions; it's not just about relationships, that is the case in anything. If you've gotten shitty service from a restaurant, will you keep going back there, hopping it will be better this time? Most people, smart people, won't. I'm not sitting in the sidelines, flinging poop at those who pass by, like I said, I don't care, and I choose to walk away. The only reason I'm going lengths to explain our position, is because you seem genuinely curious about the movement.

And to address the last sentence in your comment, we are not put off by feminism (alone), we see feminism as an out-growth of a deeper cause- the true female nature. And what's written into genes by millions of years of evolution is not going to be altered through laws, or magical thinking. We see that female nature is inherently exploitative of men (to which you might say "well men get things out of women as well") but this is not about tit-for-tat; the extent to which female exploitation of males is now greatly enhanced by the gynocentric western society, while men are reduced to almost nothing. It is by standing on the platform of modern society, built over the corpses of countless, faceless men, cemented with their sweat, blood and unseen tears, that feminists and other feminism-supporters howl for equality. Men and women are both flawed, but only women are rewarded for their flaws.

I want no part of it.

[–]Noomene0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]the_real_chronos 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]trisquel0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]the_real_chronos 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]trisquel0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]the_real_chronos 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]trisquel0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 10 years ago [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

Perhaps you're right, since I'm sure that life was much harder for everyone back then and women only complained about it being harder because their opinions weren't valued

A complete misunderstanding of history and gender relations. A woman's opinion was not taken seriously for the same reason that a child's opinion is not valued. Women were not (and still aren't) held responsible for the outcomes of their actions and/or advocacy. Neither feminism nor traditionalism has done a damn thing to address this. Both are content in continuing to view women as having no agency and treating them accordingly as children. The only thing that has changed is that women have been given unearned and undeserved authority while being shielded and protected as they always have. That is why things are as they are today.

or taken anywhere nearly as seriously as they are now.

And yet their complaints have only exceedingly gotten louder, more numerous and ridiculous/petty in nature.

The simple fact of the matter is that women complain because they're able/allowed to. Weak men have always listened to them and given in to their demands. Men can complain if they want to, but with nobody listening or caring is there really any reason to?

so I guess the traditional roles of men and women were the only aspects that we should have retained.

No.

[–]trisquel0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]jesterace1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]the_real_chronos 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

1950s was a pretty decent era of gender relations, in my opinion. The problem with sexual liberation (for both women and men but specifically for women) is that there's no stopping and eventually you end up with tumblrinas and disastrous single mothers raising the next generation of thugs and disenfranchised and morally broken men, all at the taxpayer's expense of course.

What I suspect would draw more of us out of our shell is the reformation of marriage as an institution for fathers and mothers, not as a weapon against men and a tool for the enrichment of the state. A re-orientation of sexual mores, which would bundle sex with commitment and longevity, versus the empty, meaningless sex and STDs bonanza we have today.

Basically traditional roles without the rigidness and superstition of Puritan conservatism, but I doubt we'll ever get there without a massive turning point in society. Meanwhile, more women than ever are unhappy and on anti-depressants, and feminism is directly responsible for this. It has failed women, most of all.

Title	How Feminism has DESTROYED Canada
Author	trisquel
Upvotes	1
Comments	60
Date	May 15, 2016 4:14 AM UTC (10 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MGTOW
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MGTOW/comments/4jemh9/how_feminism_has_destroyed_canada/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MGTOW/how-feminism-has-destroyed-canada.634832 https://theredarchive.com/post/634832

Comments