The power of feminists is awe inspiring.
Feminists conquered and brainwashed the minds of lawmakers, police, press, the United Nations.
And people are not even aware of the sweeping changes feminists did, to encroach upon men’s rights, men’s well being, freedom. How much terror feminists managed to sow with teenage sex and child porn witch hunts. This sounds exaggerated? Please read on.
The feminist social manipulation skill superiority hypothesis
Females are superior in social manipulation & language distortion to foster their reproductive interest (An evolutionary hypothesis).
More provocatively it could be called “feminist cunningness hypothesis”, female evolutionary cunningness hypthesis, …… Any more naming suggestions?
Hypothesis: Females are vastly superior in social manipulation skills
In evolution, everything is result of an evolutionary arms race. (cheetah and gazelle’s running skills, bacteria vs. our bodily defense system, …) Skills and capacities get honed over time, to solve evolutionary tasks. Women, in evolutionary time, had the hard task to convince a much stronger man to assume his paternal role and take care of her offspring (which might be his, or even just his cuckold offspring). In any argument, men had clear superiority with 2 powerful weapons
- economical superiority: men were the hunters, they had the meat, they also could defend and own territory
- physical superiority: men could always win an argument by brute force, by simple violence.
So to achieve some kind of evolutionary long term equilibrium, women must have developed some weapeons to counter men’s economical & physical power. What weapons could they have?
- Social manipulation: gossiping among women, ganging up together against the common enemy, making intrigues, badmouthing a man, destroying his reputation, manipulating the opinion of other men (and women).
Women would actually need the skills to win over other men to defend the female agenda. In order to counter men’s physical superiority, women needed to be better then men at these social manipulation skills. They could not confront men clearly straight on, or else men could resort to the big stick argument. They would have to “con” men into doing what is in women’s interest, without men noticing.
Women would have to manipulate epecially skillfully, when it has to do with reproductive success, with getting men to provide for them and their kids, with men staying away from other women.
So the historical stone age balance of power is:
- men have economical and physical superiority,
- women have verbal manipulation, cunningness, intrigue, social manipulation.
Nowadays, men surrendered their physical and economical power. Women maintained and expanded their verbal manipulative social power
- Men surrendered both their advantages. Winning an argument with physical violence became criminalized. Women got to earn their own money, plus they get the government to collect pension money and child support from fathers that must pay up but have no say over how their money is being used. So most of the male power advantage waned.
- Mass media and the internet even increased the verbal manipulative power of women beyond what they had in the evolutionary EEA, 50 000 years ago.
This would explain womens total win on all fronts. They started winning when they outlawed bigamy, made it a crime for consensual adults to engange in marriage with several partners, and now are curtailing the rights to have consensual sex for pay, with adolescents, take one’s own photograph and doing DNA tests on one’s own children.
Anecdotal and other Evidence
It is self evident that women must have developed some skills to counter the obvious male physical superiority.
I will explain the
reasoning behind my female-social-manipulation-superiority hypothesis.
I was inspired by the
antifeminist blog’s feminist-trade-union-hypothesis.
Feminism as middle aged womens trade union to promote their selfish reproductive interest, even their plain interest in an easy life, trying to curb men’s access to more attractive or cheaper competitors.
I was wondering:
Why and with which methods do the feminist trade unions score such resounding victories
- how do feminists convince everyone else to promote their goals?
- And why are they winning the war on all fronts with absolute resounding victory?
- there must be a special evolutionary skill how feminists manage to convince male law makers to support their warped feminist “women studies” logic and distract from the egalitarian goal of creating “men’s studies” and “men’s rights” (Feminist arguments against prostitution debunked)
Distortion and re-definition of language
When a “Rape” is not a Rape! The Abuse of the word “Rape”. & the Perversion of Language shows how language got re-defined for purely manipulative purposes.
- Rape: in the past, rape was violent, non consensual sexual penetrative abuse. Nowadays consensual sex with a 17 year old was first called “statutory” rape, and a few years later, the word statutory got omitted. So a man having consensual sex with a 17 year old adolescent now became child rapist. Fondling a minor also became defined as rape, so indecently touching a minor also became rape.
- Child: In the past a child was under 12 or under 14 years old, now 17 year-olds are children. In Europe, for the purpose of child porn, photos of 25 year olds with pony tails and young appearance are child porn.
- These definitions are clearly for manipulating purposes. It is easier to incite the public to severely punish a “child rapist” then for “fondling an adolescent” or “consensual sex with an adolescent”. Not only do they re-define perfectly defined terminology (indecent touching of an adolescent), they also banalize real rape: “No, I did not agree to have sex with my boyfriend. I REALLY got raped by a stranger who dragged me in the woods at knife point”.
- Feminist arguments against prostitution debunked shows more example of feminine logic that amazingly gets even academic recognition, in spite of being devoid of any logic and inconsistent with our logical and legal system in all other fields of life
Such comments got me officially kicked out: Change.org sucks: “womens rights” feminists censor & silence dissent.
Warped due process and warped language confuse press and public
An example: an Italian court acquitted a man of rape charges because the woman’s jeans was so tight that she could not be raped unless she helped to take it off. How shocking. But, do you think he would be acquitted were there 3 witnesses or surveillance camera proof of the rape? of course not! He was tried on unproven accusations of one singe women. Had he committed another crime like robbery, bullying, he would not even be in court on a simple accusation with absolutely no other evidence. So one proof to the contrary correctly got the falsely accused off the hook.
Feminists managed to pervert due process of law. Men are guilty until proven innocent and get arrested on hearsay, on unproven accusations of one single person complaining of rape or child abuse. Would we apply such methods to real problems like neighborhood and school bullying, mafia intimidation, a lot of real world problems could be solved. Normally, everyone knows who the school bullies are, just clear proof is missing. If one single accuser, with no proof, could get a school bully arrested, lots of problems could be solved. Well, as collateral damage, a few would be arrested unjustly, but that happens with child porn and child abuse cases too. Even females as collateral damage get accepted, in pursuit of the higher goal of final domination * 25 hottest sex offenders any boy wishes to become a rape victim of
Childrens obesity, diabetes, early death due to bad nutrition is no concern for feminists
Feminists seem so concerned about children. I identified a real threat to our children: Childhood Obesity Promotion: Cartoon characters attract kids to junk food . Here the danger is real. Millions and millions of children get condemned to a life of diabetes, early death, due to obesity. Where are feminists protesting the violation of children.
17 year olds incapable to consent to sex?
But 5 year olds are capable to consent to fattening junk food?
Reminist logic is always selective, ad hoc. Convincing until you start questioning more deeply.
Can children agree to eating fattening McDonald’s meals, soda, and disease causing sugar cereals? No, they do not have to maturity to decide that. So, in analogy to the “rape” word for 17 year olds that allegedly cannot agree to sex (except to sex with peers of same age, strangely), what do you call feeding a person dangerous substances without consent?
Poisoning! We are poisoning our children and the guilty parties are advertisers, McDonald’s, and the parents. In analogy to a little known term: Food Porn arouses Lust for Food with No Nutritional Value I coined the term “Child Food-Porn” (Junk food advertising) makes our children obese & unhealthy.
How come feminists are so concerned about a 17 year old getting fondled? But no concern about a 4 year old getting raised towards a life of obesity and diabetes? Maybe feminists are not really concerned with children. The antifeminist explanation is the only one that makes sense.
Feminists enlist Interpol to track down depictions of nude adolesents
FEMINISTS Not worried about videos of kids getting spanked, killed, maimed clubbed to death
Finally I wondered Nude adolescent photos: a Crime. Videos of lynching, killing, beating adolescents are legal Prime Time TV. It is perfectly ok for prime time TV to show how a 16 year old gets killed by a youth gang mob with hits of planks to his head. If the same kid made love to his girl friend or were simply naked, this would be a huge crime. Amazingly, the entire might of interpol would go after every single person in the world that inadvertently would have downloaded such a photo.
The power of feminists is startling.
Feminists conquered and brainwashed the minds of lawmakers, police, press, the United Nations. I am in awe!
Feminists agenda brought sweeping changes in law & customs
Most feminist goals actually look very justified. But justified goals are the means to reach further reaching exaggerated goals and end up being true witch hunts instilling terror in the populace. The AntiFeminist blog is full of examples:
- It started with heavy sanctions against bigamy. Mormon family where all adult spouses agree to the polgynous systems get persecuted and jailed.
- age of consent gets elevated world wide, creating victims of legal witch hunts
- possession of pictures of nudity or sex involving any alleged minors get totally disproportional punishments Supreme Court oks indefinite detention for possession of photos. But violent robbers get freed; Nude adolescent photos: a Crime. Videos of lynching, killing, beating adolescents are legal Prime Time TV.
- No mercy, no pity for collateral damage. Like registered sex offenders who remain on the US sex offender list for having had a love affair with their actual spouse while s/he was under 18. Or Sexting: Teens face child porn charges for exchanging their own nude photos
- prostitution gets repressed under the guise of eliminating child slavery (a noble cause but used to foster further political goals). Warped but generally accepted feminist logic goes on successful crusades (Feminist arguments against prostitution debunked). And it seems the entire world, including male law makers accept such drivel as a luxury prostitutes needs to be saved from their chosen profession while nobody thinks cleaning toilets is demeaning.
- More examples about abusive distortion of language (“rape”, “child”) to foster feminist goals follows later in this article
- deadbeat dads get pursued for child support with amazing zeal and efficiency, occasionally forcing men to pay for cuckold offspring because they are not allowed to present legal proof of non-fatherhood.
- on issues of interest to feminist, due legal process gets inverted. Any vengeful unproven allegation of child abuse or rape gets a man in jail or kicked out of his own house, removed from his children: “guilty until proven innocent”.
- feminists seem excessively concerned with the well being of children and their depictions, while in reality unconcerned about non-sexual violence against children (Supreme Court oks indefinite detention for possession of photos. But violent robbers get freed; Nude adolescent photos: a Crime. Videos of lynching, killing, beating adolescents are legal Prime Time TV.), or the world health epidemic of child overeating (“Child Food-Porn” (Junk food advertising) makes our children obese & unhealthy ; Food Porn arouses Lust for Food with No Nutritional Value ; Childhood Obesity Promotion: Cartoon characters attract kids to junk food )
- the noble goal of making deadbeat dads pay for their offspring got extended
- so fathers have to pay a large part of their income while having absolutely no say over how it is applied. A father normally can not say: “I pay xx University” but refuse to pay for a fancy car, fashionable clothes or a second rate University. He has to pay and nothing to say.
All this deserves analysis by academics, in the light of recent evolutionary psychology research, and new research to test the hypotheses here.
Of course, the results speak for themselves. Self interested feminism is winning hands down. We only need to see if the explanation here is correct of if there are other explanations.
I hope, when men wake up, and well intentioned women see the effects of the drakonian feminist inspired witch hunt laws, maybe we can revert to reasonable laws we had 50-100 years ago.
Reading List:
- Death by Stoning for Adultery (Iran). Criminalisation of Adultery is the Problem, not the Stoning
- “Child Food-Porn” (Junk food advertising) makes our children obese & unhealthy
- Food Porn arouses Lust for Food with No Nutritional Value
- Childhood Obesity Promotion: Cartoon characters attract kids to junk food
- EU Requests To Retain User Data From Search Engines to protect children from pedophiles
- “Once Fallen” Derek Logue about sex offender registration
- Change.org sucks: “womens rights” feminists censor & silence dissent
- When a “Rape” is not a Rape! The Abuse of the word “Rape”. & the Perversion of Language
- Supreme Court oks indefinite detention for possession of photos. But violent robbers get freed.
- Pedophile witch hunt & underage sex law excesses: why the witch hunt and how to change it?
- Nude adolescent photos: a Crime. Videos of lynching, killing, beating adolescents are legal Prime Time TV.
- Years of Jail for “clicking on child porn link”. But lynching videos are legal.
- 25 hottest sex offenders any boy wishes to become a rape victim of
- http://human-stupidity.com/irrationality/stupid-dogma/child-porn-witch-hunt
- http://human-stupidity.com/irrationality/stupid-dogma/t
I haven’t read all the site or all the post, but I agree. Woman manipulate. If men don’t get a backbone soon, they’ll find out they’re listening to what mummy tells them all the time.
Nice to see someone has spent some time on this subject, and I shall try and find the time to come back to it.
But I add, nothing will change. Women are now in the man’s world, and it won’t change.
Thanks for the post though!
*falls in love with outfit*would wear it in a hbtareeat! haha, fitting gaze, btw :DAs goes for feminism, I believe the women of western society (which has continually spread ever since Renaissance conquests), have basically been screwed over by the Bible. Eve bit the apple and therefore let all the blame fall on the women. Oppress the women for they, the weaker of minds, are easily swayed by the devil. Confine them to the patriarchal hearth and allow only to be pious, obviously not diverging from their sole purposes of procreation. (And if they do, burn ’em at the stake!)Even though this mentality was prevalent centuries ago, it has made a profound influence on attitudes, even today… women in the US were not allowed to vote until 1920, for godssake. We’ve made progress, dispelling assumptions of intellectual inferiority (and apparently innate moral depravity), we’re now climbing the power structures… yet, still, we have a long way to go in altering societal attitudes toward the female potential, clearly seen in the example you stated of Hillary…Calling oneself a “feminist” does appear rather controversial and sets people off, so I find it better to isolate myself from a term of usually negative-connotations while perpetuating the positive ideas of equality that the movement reflects.Eh, end of ramble. Good blog, I enjoy your posts very much!
You do realise that the Powers that Be are running feminism don’t you?
http://www.henrymakow.com
Once you know it is the Rothchilds and the Rockefellers pushing feminism in the west the reason for it’s ‘success’ becomes a lot more obvious.
Consequences of the “bad boy” and “nice guy” (false) dichotomy:
Women have been and are encouraged to pursue men posessing an exclusive set of traits that has effectively alienated both the effeminate “nice guy” and the characterful “good guys”. They have thrown the baby out with the bathwater not due to natural biology but due to a cultural meme that has elevated what seems to be sensation and emotionalism to divine echelons which are treated with more importance than food, shelter, or clothing. I don’t think feminism is the driving force behind this meme though it may once have been.
Women have been and still are encouraged to pursue “bad boys” encouraged to demonize “nice guy” and all to the exclusion of “good guy” which has resulted in a naive opinion of men that effectively catalyzes feminist interests. Women don’t demonize good guy and will even publicly praise him when prompted but this is only superficial because in terms of social economics good guy ends-up ignored as women devote the majority of their attention to bad boy. This is partly due to the mythical and selfish view that a marriage serves “me” as opposed to the realistic view that marriage requires “my” service. This is also due to a woman’s irrational judgement and fear that all non-badboys are effeminate nice guys. This is fundamentally rooted in an increasingly isolationist non-communal society steeped in a culture of fear that is forced to evaluate individuals entirely upon superficial and visible characteristics and faults. Bad boy is optimized for superficial and visible positive traits and his undesirable faults are well-concealed. The other guys are not and many positive traits remain undiscovered. Apropos, the feminist decries the lack of “real men” in society.
These women incorrectly believe that all men identify with the bad boy charicature in either a set of his positive traits or his negative traits. They aren’t paying attention to anything they don’t have some kind of emotional attachment to. So is it the woman’s fault or the man’s fault? Post hoc ergo propter hoc: this is a circulal cause and consequence evident in a self-fulfilling prophesy demonstrated in sexual selection. Women have the power to choose the good guy and breed more good guys, and by the same token the bad boy can choose to cultivate good guy characteristics in himself and in his offspring. Recent studies in epigenetic heritability show that environmental factors and circumstances have long lasting, permanent and seemingly genetic effects on offspring which only empowers (burdens?) prospective parents with more responsibility. It is also interesting to note by this science that the behavior and choices of individuals have substantial impact on their future offspring long before they have them.
With the aforementioned false binary view of men, the cultural meme states:
– Men are cheaters
– Men are liars
– Men are lazy
– Men are abusive
– Men are stupid
– Men love to party
– Men love to smoke, drink, and do drugs
– Men are indiscriminate in sexual selection
– Men are insensitive
– Men are perverted
– Men are needy
– Men get what they want
…and ignores other demonstrated characteristics such as:
– Men are conscientious
– Men are self-controlled
– Men are self-disciplined
– Men make commitments
– Men make sacrifices
– Men persevere
– Men have social fidelity
– Men are patient
– Men are generous
These women have become addicted to the former set of characteristics in a male and ignore the latter set with respect to sexual selection. The former undermine stability and cultivate chaos and disorder which evoke powerful (and therefore addictive) emotions in the woman. In a culture with excess, the relevant consequences are rarely a factor.
Now we have a woman with a double-minded cognitive dissonance. She simultaneously loaths and worships bad boy while marginalizing edifying gender-neutral characteristics conducive to stability and thriving long-life of which any (good, bad, nice) guy can posess or integrate. This is because, to put it bluntly, those characteristics are boring and since they do not serve the idols of the age, of which I believe to be sensationalism and emotionalism, she has no incentive to invest in them.
Those who embrace these idols of the age will consistently marginalize good guy. If more and more continue to embrace the idols of the age, good guy will suffer attrition as people will become oblivious to his benefits and think there is no incentive to invest in him.
If men and women at least respond with anger towards good guy, it lends him credence and visibility and there is still hope for him. Though the evokation of anger and wrath is a sign of weakness and an unsubstantiated position, good guy threatens the orthodoxy of the age and the consequences could be devastating for him. A part of me sees no conflict more beautiful and blessed than this. Until that time, respond to indifference with invitation and lend a helping hand to the poor fools on autopilot.
Karl you are wrong. Women received education and where praised to heaven with all the poetry and literature and art. Damn women even worked in the past.
When this happens the next generation of males is less alpha than the previous. Sensing the weakness in the next generation emboldens the females.
This is a load of bs. What really happened, is that the government benefits from the sexes battling against each other, so they allowed cultural marxism to take hold in the form of feminism. Women are more easily manipulated to give away rights and freedoms for privileges.
Timothy,
How did govt’s pit the genders against each other?
Timothy,
How did govt’s pit the genders against each other?
How did the men loose the power to prevent govts from conferring privileges on females?
Why do govts/pols want “power”.
I’m a male and I don’t like feminism. But I think that if women were treated truelly equally in the first place our society wouldnt be out of balance today. Women were not allowed to grow academically or spiritually. Westerners come from a society where the males did not recognize and the females were not taught or shown the beauty of femininity. They were only shown that they were of little value and males were of high value. This caused the death of femininity in a society where the only perceived value were masculine traits. Theres no one to blame except western society as a whole. Feminism used to bother me but hey theres a shitload of women in the world who arent of the western culture. I know how to appreciate femininity.
Karl, western females were already over privileged. That is why men lost power …like straws on the camel’s back–it simply broke in the 18th thru mid 20th cents.
There is no such thing as equal (especially between the genders). So therefore if females were “allowed” to be equal earlier, they simply would have taken over earlier.
You don’t understand ‘dimorphic sexuality’, gender, sex, nature. (And the those that do have lied to you, motivated by politics.)
http://seanmaccloud.blogspot.com/
Again, freedom cult doesn’t–its adherents don’t– understand ‘dimorphic sexuality’, gender, sex, nature. (And the those that do have lied, motivated by politics.)
“So the historical stone age balance of power is:
•men have economical and physical superiority,
•women have verbal manipulation, cunningness, intrigue, social manipulation.
Nowadays, men surrendered their physical and economical power. Women maintained and expanded their verbal manipulative social power
Men surrendered both their advantages. Winning an argument with physical violence became criminalized. ”
All of this sounds very similar to this.
When food is scarce alphas monopolize both food and sex.
But when food is plentiful alphas monopolize only sex. This allows more ‘runts’ to live and thus form coalitions against the alphas ousting them by strength of numbers to get the females.
When this happens the next generation of males is less alpha than the previous. Sensing the weakness in the next generation emboldens the females.
If this process repeats itself over and over again you get a positive feedback loop where the weaker males continually replace stronger ones thus further emboldening the females relative to the males.
You are so right. Intelligence of species is now being tested for strength through social parallels. It hard to think of those like myself suffering while others are grasping for overall power. sick world. sick sick
Esther Villar’s book THE MANIPULATED MAN and Victor Woodhull’s book SEX AND MATRIARCHY advance a thesis similar to yours.
Villar essentially argues that men in western societies are women’s slaves and that women (at least subconsciously) know it. She goes on to talk about the tactics that women use to trick men into believing that they are the king of the castle when they are in fact at their wives beck and call. The book was written in the early 1970s and apparently the author still recieves hate mail today from other women who accuse her of spilling the beans and betraying her gender. While I do think that it is a good book I do have one major objection to it: the author believes that “feminine” traits in women are in reality a mask put on by women to manipulate men. I believe that a woman can be feminine AND non-manipulative and besides femininity is very pleasing to most men.
Woodhull’s book focuses more on evopsych and argues that women gain control over men by trying to raise the price of sex as much as possible. His approach is quite similar to Schopenbecq’s. The book argues that the needs of sexually deprived males need to be addressed and that this should be achieved in part through liberalized prostitution laws and such. The book is silent on Age of Consent and sex with adolescent girls perhaps because the author has fully internalized the american cultural meme that sex with girls “under 18” is a crime of unspeakable horror akin to rape.
They are both decent books though, check them out if you have the chance.
Schopenbecq, very true.
Could not say things better then the way you say them. It is so amazing that men take the bait, get totally brainwashed and actually foster female goals in their law making and law enforcement.
This manipulation power is amazing, startling. How can they get away with such flawed logic, such drivel? but they do:
http://human-stupidity.com/stupid-dogma/prostitution/feminist-arguments-against-prostitution-dismantled
Excellent post. I’ll link to it on my site tommorrow.
I agree entirely with your analysis. People often say that the internet will lead to geeks taking over the world, and that may be true economically and career wise (amongst men). But mass communication greatly increases the ability of women to manipulate men via their superior verbal abilities.
I honestly don’t have much hope anymore. The only hope is if new technology eventually renders the sex war arms race meaningless in some way. And that’s probably not much hope.
Men will never wake up. Men will be like those Jews in the holocaust photos meekly digging their own graves before being shot.