I was thinking the other day about the various hypocrisies of feminism and how they want feminine supremacy, but also want to be dominated in the bedroom and approached first... because no means no except when it means yes and yes can mean no in circumstances where yes sorta means yes but hindsight makes it mean no in that no means yes but it really means no when we've finally made our mind up but it still could have meant yes if it hadn't meant no. Am I acting like a feminist yet? This hedging your bets and never making a decision thing is easy. Does your head hurt?
The reason the feminist narrative on things like this confuses the living fuck out of anyone with either a basic understanding of logic, or simply anyone with their head screwed on correctly, is that it takes diametrically opposite views, statements, thoughts and policies without any shame in trotting them out like they actually make sense. "Yes" and "no" are diametrically opposed statements. Yes can't mean no, and no can't mean yes. (We are talking straight talk in here, not womanese for the smartarse who's about to point out how women can mean yes when they say no in social situations.) In terms of raw statement, they mean the total opposite. This is the basis of the doublethink fallacy that feminists are so fond of. It's how they can say that their rights should not be infringed upon, while simultaneously campaigning to infringe on the rights of others.
However I think there is a more instructive term that will better predict this behaviour, their doublethink and hypocrisy.
They're not interested in feminine supremacy in and of itself as such, that will just be a side effect of their limitless hedonism-fuelled rationalisations and doublethink. I recently posited in a thread that feminism happily praises liberal philosophy when it suits them and provides pleasure (having casual sex, getting drunk, obesity/fat-positivity) but then on the exact same topics, it will adopt the diametrically opposite authoritarian philosophy to try and reduce the accompanying displeasure or pain (slut shaming, rape apologists, fat shaming are their cries.) I posit from this that the behaviour of feminism will act according to hedonistic principles on any particular topic.
Let's look at where they want quotas and where they aren't interested in adding quotas. They want quotas for women in:
- CEO positions
- Major company board rooms
- Political roles
- Science and Technology
All of these positions are either extremely well paid or very well paid and the top three include strong elements of power, respect and control over others. Now let's look at a few areas they don't want quotas to balance out either a lack of women or a lack of men:
- Refuse collection
- Sewer and drainage maintenance
- Secretarial work
The first two are male dominated. They generally have poor pay because they are mostly unskilled positions. There's no respect factor and the work could be considered unpleasant by many. Making women work in these fields would hurt them. So no quotas because we don't want pain.
Secretarial work is reasonably paid considering how low skill it is. This area is dominated by women. Putting in quotas disadvantages women in a field where the remuneration to skill level ratio is rather favourable. It would hurt women to do this. So no quotas because it would cause pain.
Teaching and nursing are reasonably paid to well paid professions, depending on where you fall on the scale. Both are dominated by women. Again, adding quotas for men to get jobs in these areas to achieve an arbitrary gender balance would cause pain to women. A woman could miss out on a well paid job, that is not maximising pleasure, but by continuing their dominance and continuing this idea that women are better empathisers (and thus have superior softer skills for these jobs) it minimises the pain for women. - i.e. not only do they dominate the fields, but they're more likely to get hired into these jobs too because of the false narrative of being better at it just because they're female.
Whilst we're on the topic of arbitrary quotas for gender, let's logically destroy it as an idea/concept. It's pissed me off for a long time, ever since I had the misfortune of being brought into a discussion with a feminist who couldn't justify to me the need for this arbitrary 50/50 split of gender. It's always dismissed as "women make up half the work force so they need to be represented in higher positions." They could not appreciate the concept that if a company has 75 men and 25 women, and then has 10 positions of power, it is very reasonable to have 8 men and 2 women in these positions of power. This is the likely ratio that a meritocracy would lead to and the ratio for everyone is 1 in 10. When you introduce a discriminatory quota and demand a 50/50 split, you have 75 men looking at 5 positions of power, a 1 in 15 representation for men, while women have a 1 in 5 representation. From this, you are now representing women three times as much as men.
But let's get away from the numbers for a moment, because we know feminists don't like numbers unless they've been made up like 1 in 5 statistics are. (And for the brainless feminist who reads this and thinks that is equivalent to my ratios from before... you're so much of an idiot that you're genuinely beyond helping.) Let's talk about the representation aspect. The idea that since women make up half the population of the country, they should be represented in the running of the country has a veneer of credibility to any fair minded person at first glance. However it rests upon the assumption that a man can't represent a woman's interests. Only a woman can do that.
They don't bother to point out that the entire democratic system would require an overhaul in order to address this factor. All current states in the US and constituencies in the UK would need to have separate male and female candidate lists and elect one male and one female in order to ensure that all women are represented fairly. (Under the current system, your local Senator or MP could be a man... which means he can't represent women based on the fact he has a penis.) No, instead we will force all-female quotas for top positions, because this makes the progression for these women easier, maximising the pleasure for women with no extra effort.
However, they conveniently gloss over things like the "He for She" campaign, which by definition demonstrates that men can represent women. The acceptance and endorsement of male feminists within their community shows clearly that genitals don't actually matter to feminists either when it comes to representation. It's about following their narrative. Enforcing this doublethink means they don't lose out on mangina puppets spreading their propaganda, the reduction in pain and increase in pleasure/things that benefit them all rolled into one. So the very basis of their argument for increased representation doesn't even stand to begin with.
Everything feminism does is selfish. It is not an ideology and has nothing to do with equality. It is defined by the actions of a group attempting to legislate and manipulate culture for the sole purpose of enabling optimal female hedonism.