Tag Archives: feminism

A Radical Feminist, Not The Fun Kind

Andrea Dworkin was almost right:

I think we need to ask ourselves the question why men love prostitution so much? The fact of the matter is despite the rhetoric of men on the right and men on the left, they love prostitution a lot. The global proportion of the trafficking of women indicates that men like to buy and sell women. And that there’s a special kick in sex when you can pay somebody and use money as a symbol of their servitude, not as an agent of their independence but a symbol of their servitude. [1]

I think that what we’re dealing with with prostitution in all of its forms is the most basic kind of power there is; it’s a core definition of power, and that is, “I want it, you do it. I want it now, you do it now. Bend over.” [2] And when someone has that kind of power, that’s the same kind of power that kings had in feudal societies. And now it’s the power of every man, over every woman, because of these systems of trafficking in women, that exist all over the world. There’s clearly a sexual pleasure in destroying human dignity. [3] There is a sexual pleasure in repeated personal invasions of a person’s body and you don’t know the name of the person and you don’t care. She’s there because she has to be. [4]

Marriage – monogamy – was a part of civilization that feminists wanted destroyed, they destroyed it, now are upset that they have lost the privileges that civilized institution afforded them.

[1] Dworkin’s describing the thrill of market exchange and it’s the same thrill that a woman gets when she pays for the labor of a man to drive her, to fix her car, to massage her feet, or to build her a house.

[2] Dworkin, a lesbian, hated men’s sexuality, or more precisely, she hated heterosexuality – she, in fact, married a homosexual man and called him her “love” and her “life partner.” I don’t know about Dworkin specifically but it’s the stuff of common lesbian fantasy to “mentor” – i.e., seduce – a younger, less “powerful” woman. The notorious Vagina Monologues, in fact, had a woman thanking the adult lesbian who “seduced” her when she was 14. So, to lesbians, what they object to is the heterosexuality, not the power difference – in fact, power exchange is a key component of lesbian sexuality (as it is all women’s sexuality in general.) It’s one of the reason that “not the fun kind” of feminism never hit the mainstream, while the “fun kind of feminism” – “sex positive feminism” – *is* mainstream.

[3] Dworkin, and all radical feminists, are very similar to religious vegans and animal rights activists who decry the exploitation of animals by mankind. Humans eat animals, wear their skins, and they don’t even bother to name the animals.

What Dworkin’s feminism really is, is the same great emotional cry that all humans give when confronted with the reality that there is no “human dignity.” Humans are just animals, and the state of nature is the law of the jungle.

The irony is that there’s nothing in men’s pornography that is any worse than The Story of O – pornography for women, written by a woman. Dworkin would probably consider Ann Rice as a “handmaiden of patriarchy” but her Sleeping Beauty Chronicles was as humiliating for her male characters as it was for her female characters. It was a woman who wrote “Belinda” the touching story of a 16 year old girl in a “voluntary” relationship with an older, 30 something man. The book held no interest to men, it was written for women, from their perspective, to justify their own fantasies and sexual desires.

[4] Dworkin would almost certainly acknowledge that this applies to capitalism generally – and as a woman-centric feminist, she of course “centers” women as the central “good” in capitalism (not at all without good reason.)

Every morning in Africa, a gazelle wakes up. It knows it must run faster than the fastest lion or it will be killed. Every morning a lion wakes up. It knows it must outrun the slowest gazelle or it will starve to death. It doesn’t matter whether you are a lion or a gazelle: when the sun comes up, you’d better be running.

The real irony is that Dworkin, the Jewess who said she would have been a Talmud scholar if they had let her, is literally longing for Christ. She bemoans the lack of “human dignity” and the lack of “brotherly love” (thus) that is idealized in Christianity. But the fact is, humans are incapable of “loving” each other, outside of close friends and family (and, especially, husbands and wives, which must have angered Dworkin, even though the only man she loved, she actually married, just presumably didn’t have sex with, because she was a lesbian.)

Humans, apes with bigger brains, only have 200 “empathy slots” for other human beings. You can empathize with, love, respect, and “dignify” – and remember the names of – just about 200 people. Evolutionarily, speaking, the number is a small village and extended clan (which makes perfect sense.)

There isn’t, and has never been, any inherent “dignity” for “humanity” as a whole – and Dworkin and the feminists are, of course, massive hypocrites, because women have never, throughout history, spent a single second agonizing over stepping over the bodies of “their own” dead men to find greener pastures, better food, and sexier men, on the other side of the river. Women have never afforded men any dignity, ever, but merely respected male power – and have evolved to be sexually aroused by male power. At the end of the day, what really disgusts women like Dworkin is the banality of male sexual desire. Like food, all it takes is a scent, a sight, and men start salivating. Women require a lot more indirection and need a lot more emotional play-acting, but that’s all it is – emotional play-acting. Women’s sexuality isn’t at all more “dignified” than men’s, and women are indifferent to male suffering – in fact, male suffering disgusts women.

But Dworkin – and the “not fun kind of feminists” – are completely correct about sexual power and the commodification of women. What they are objecting to is civilization and capitalism, two things they have no interest in ever giving up.

If Dworkin and the “not fun” kind of feminists ever got their wish, and civilization and capitalism were destroyed, we’d all be living in small, 200 person primitive villages, with no running water, matriarchal clan structures, parasite load, rampant STDs, and constant tribal warfare with the villages next door.

And the FIRST man who came up with something better, the FIRST man who invented a new technology that gave him a significant power advantage over his rival men – he wouldn’t NEED to “buy” any women, the women would be stepping over each other – and their own children, in fact – to get to that man, the one with the most beautiful peacock feathers.

What Dworkin is most sad about is that Jesus doesn’t love her, because there is no Jesus, and human beings – including women – have no inherent dignity. It’s all just jungle.

A Culture Free of Patriarchy

Surprise, Surprise: Dyke Nuns Hate Little Boys

(((Curtis Yarvin))) may be a Jew, but his neo-reactionary movement attracted Catholics. In their attempt to demonize Whites, Protestants, Americans, the Enlightenment, and modernity, they have instead introduced a whole new generation to the reason we threw off the yoke of the Catholic church in the first place.

The “Catholic church abuse scandal” is really just the victims of the Catholic church growing up, and now that the Catholic church has lost its institutional power, and now that sexuality is understood biologically and scientifically, the shame conditioning that the Catholic church used for centuries to enslave Europeans doesn’t work anymore.

It’s obvious how homosexuals came to dominate the “celibate” Catholic institution.

Consider: one of the primary complaints about Muslim “refugees” and “immigrants” in the West in how they treat women. One only needs to look at their own culture to understand how different they are than us. For a Muslim boy, when he sees a girl his sexual attraction is coming from her. She is doing something that causes him to feel arousal, and since she is the actor, she is the seducer, it’s ok for him to rape her. He was just standing there, minding his own business, and this girl walked by, acting sexy, therefore she’s a whore. The only way a girl can not be a whore is to cover her entire body because if he can’t see her, she cannot seduce him.

So take a typical scenario in Ireland or America in the 1950s. A boy grows up, begins puberty, but unlike his peers, has no interest in girls at all. The idea of marrying a girl, having sex, and starting a family is off-putting to him. Since the Catholic church tells him that “lust” is a grave sin, and he himself is apparently free of this “lust,” he realizes that he is actually “more spiritual” than his peers. His uncouth, sexually obsessed peers who are obsessed with the girls now reaching puberty, are just not as “spiritual” as he is.

So, he joins the priesthood. He is assigned to work in a boy’s school.

There, all of a sudden these boys start acting sexy, or more specifically, acting gay. It’s not the priest’s own desires coming to the surface, it’s the boys who are acting gay, or acting seductively or acting sinfully. If one of the boys seduces him the priest merely goes to confession, eats a cracker, and all is forgiven.

Lesbians are of course different than gay men. So a girl begins puberty, but unlike her peers, these boys are not interesting at all. In fact, they are quite scary and even disgusting. While her girlsfriends are all crushing on various boys, she’s actually turned off by the whole affair. She can’t understand why her close friendships with her girlfriends are all being interrupted by their growing awareness of boys.

She must just be “more spiritual” than her peers. She is, in a sense, on a “higher spiritual plane.” Unlike the “earthly” desires of her girlfriends, she’s only interested in the “pure” and “spiritual” things.

So, she becomes a nun, and is assigned to a orphanage. There, she has to take care of these disgusting, rowdy, violent, and gross boys, with their little penises popping underneath their pants all the time. It’s up to her, a “truly spiritual” woman without these “desires of the flesh” to whip these boys into line. She, in fact, quite enjoys it when these boys feel shame for their disgusting “lust,” their “sin.” It’s actually quite a power trip, watching these proud boys become ashamed of themselves. For the ones that are defiant, beatings work well. As the “Good Book” says, spare the rod, spoil the child.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/christinekenneally/orphanage-death-catholic-abuse-nuns-st-josephs

It was a late summer afternoon, Sally Dale recalled, when the boy was thrown through the fourth-floor window.

“He kind of hit, and— ” she placed both hands palm-down before her. Her right hand slapped down on the left, rebounded up a little, then landed again.

For just a moment, the room was still. “Bounced?” one of the many lawyers present asked. “Well, I guess you’d call it — it was a bounce,” she replied. “And then he laid still.”

Sally, who was speaking under oath, tried to explain it. She started again. “The first thing I saw was looking up, hearing the crash of the window, and then him going down, but my eyes were still glued—.” She pointed up at where the broken window would have been and then she pointed at her own face and drew circles around it. “That habit thing, whatever it is, that they wear, stuck out like a sore thumb.”

Children are amazing in the sense they will believe pretty much anything you tell them. After all, you’re an adult and children are evolved to mimic older humans. The central image of your religion is a man being tortured and the central story is of a man being murdered for the sins of the world so it’s the “sinful” child’s fault.

Sister took hold of Sally’s ear, turned her around, and walked her back to the other side of the yard. The nun told her she had a vivid imagination. We are going to have to do something about you, child.

Like sociopaths, eventually these predatory homosexuals begin to recognize each other and that’s when they start working together:

A 1998 UK government inquiry, citing “exceptional depravity” at four homes run by the Christian Brothers order in Australia, heard that a boy was the object of a competition between the brothers to see who could rape him 100 times. The inquiries focused primarily on sexual abuse, not physical abuse or murder, but taken together, the reports showed almost limitless harm that was the result not just of individual cruelty but of systemic abuse.

The Roman Empire, eventually Christianized, swept through Europe, enslaving the “heathens” and creating these institutions. At the forefront were these “celibates” that did not have normal sexuality. They were, perhaps, even the first victims of Catholic sexual repression. Unable to accept that they were the perverts, that they were the reprobates, that they were the sinners, they projected that onto others, even children.

Since these children and “heathens” did not feel ashamed of their naked bodies and their natural sexuality, that just proved how the “celibate” Catholics were of a “higher spirituality” and it was their duty to beat – and rape – the devil out of these Europeans.

From the proto-Protestants like the Lollards and the Hussites, to the Reformation itself, eventually Europeans rebelled against these evil, psychopathic Catholics, rejected the “celibate” homosexual priests, the “celibate” lesbian priestesses, and demanded that Church institutions be led by normal, married men and women.

The first mistake that Americans made was to adopt the African custom of slavery, a mistake that harms America to this day. The second mistake Americans made was to import millions of Catholics, mostly in the 1800s, and surprise, surprise, along with them came Jews. It was only a matter of time until they joined up with each other to attempt to re-enslave the real Americans, the posterity of the Protestant Founding Fathers.

Hence, (((Curtis Yarvin’s))) “neo-reactionary” movement and the sick Catholics that follow him.

Now That Kavanaugh Is Confirmed All Females Must Report Immediately For Spankings

All women must report immediately to the nearest brothel to be fitted for your new Handmaiden outfits and, in our generosity, we’re going to allow you to pick out your own paddle for your maintenance spankings.

Sometimes Sexual Assault Is No Big Deal

I was sexually assaulted when I was about eleven years old by my best friend at the time. We were roughhousing, engaging in horseplay as we always did, and he pinned me on the ground and then, out of the blue, kissed me on my lips.

I didn’t know what to do or what that meant, so I did the first thing that seemed logical – I punched him in the face as hard as I could.

He got off me and said “ow!” and I got up. I don’t remember what happened afterward but by the end of the day we were friends again. It never came up, except for once, years later, when he mentioned it. I didn’t really want to talk about it as I found the whole episode rather embarassing.

Another time I was non-sexually assaulted; I went to an outside “kegger” with a friend, and as soon as I got out of the car, some guy who I had never met or seen threw a beer bottle right in my face and started screaming at me, daring me to fight him. He had a couple of his boys with him, and at two to four, so I slunk away, embarassed and ashamed. I brooded about it all night, sometimes making up heroic scenarios were I beat down the bully, but mostly I just felt weak.

If Ford’s testimony is 100% accurate – it’s no big deal. For her to nurse these childhood wounds is a symptom of narcissism, a classic tell tale sign. For most adults, the incident is a “life lesson.” The lessons she could have picked up from this is that sometimes people are violent, men can be sexually aggressive, and it’s not a good idea to get drunk around strange males.

Pound Me Too #MeToo is going to some strange places. Sexual misbehavior among teenagers needs to be dealt with by parents and community institutions like the church, when it becomes a political matter it becomes a criminal matter and that is a dangerous road to go down.

Hence, PoundMeToo isn’t going the legal route. Instead, they are settling for sub-legal punishments, typically involving getting people fired from their jobs, or never hired.

Jezebel.com lays out the plan, in their article The Next Step for #MeToo Is Into the Gray Areas

Jack Smith is a professional progressive that was just fired from the Social Justice Warrior company MIC.com after a couple of his ex-girlfriends/hookups got together and decided that he was “abusive” “coercive” and “withholding.”

They are explicit that they are not accusing him of doing anything illegal but instead “abusive” – not physically abusive, but emotionally abusive.

One women who claims she was in an active sexual relationship with him said, “he was sometimes emotionally detached, sometimes involved, and I got tired of the fact that he was obviously withholding things from me.”

Here’s a revealing statement from another of Smith’s lovers:

“I think that he has a pattern with women where he is able to figure out the thing that they are most sensitive and vulnerable about,” she says. “For me, that is that not only have I never been in a serious relationship, but just that I’ve never had like consistent trustworthy affection that I don’t know whether it’s gonna turn on and off at any moment. I think that he gave that to me for a month on purpose, and then only gave it back intermittently, like it was a game… After he groomed this part of me that is the most sensitive, the most scared, it felt like he then spent the next six months poking it, to fuck with me for fun.”

Playing head games is what women do in relationships, but it’s now quasi-illegal when men do it. If a woman breaks off a sexual relationship, it’s kosher, if a man breaks off a sexual relationship, it’s abusive, manipulative. You can get fired if your ex-girlfriend’s get together in their “whisper network” and give you bad grades. Bad in bed? Emotionally withholding? Too needy and clingy?

You’re fired.

This is what making the personal political means.

How seriously should we take #MeToo and feminism in general? Consider, that none of these sexual issues are new, they are as old as humankind. Human cultures developed – quite haphazardly – institutions and norms to prevent these sorts of issues.

One is a legal drinking age of 21. Another is the segregation of the sexes, both Kavanaugh and Ford went to single-sex schools. Ford herself points out that she didn’t tell her parents what happened because she didn’t want her mother to know that she had been drinking with boys.

But none of the #MeToo feminists are interested in, say, bringing back monogamy, an end to underage sex, and aren’t particularly interested in prosecuting teenager girls who drink illegally or sneak into parties with boys.

Imagine how comical everyone would find it if men started accusing women of being “withholding” and “emotionally abusive” because of a few weeks long fling that ended badly?

When Jessica pulled me into a closet in tenth grade and turned the lights out, wrapped her arms around me without asking and stuck her tongue in my mouth, I didn’t feel entirely comfortable with it. I wasn’t really that into her. Did I now owe her something? Can she, 30 years later, accuse me of being “withholding?” Can I get her fired from her job for showing no interest in me afterward?

People will rightly say, it’s different for boys and girls because boys are stronger and more violent.

Indeed, that is the truth. Boys are stronger and more violent than girls.

Hence, we have those rules – no underage drinking and no going to parties with boys.

If the feminists have any suggestions, they are free to make them. Typically it’s “teaching boys to not rape.” Our entire culture and society does, in fact, teach boys to not rape. So now they are expanding the definition of “rape” to mean not calling the next day, coming too soon, being “emotionally withholding” or making a woman “feel pressured.”

They aren’t going to be happy until all men are exactly the way they want them to be, from puberty to old age. Any breach of the protocol – which changes on a woman’s whim, over time even – is, if not a crime, nevertheless worthy of punishment by public shaming or getting fired from your job.

This is how American women, especially Democrats and the progressives, are choosing to exercise power – emotional public presentations, sexual vulnerability, and a “mean girls” sub-political network. This might be a good tactic if they could keep it focused on conservatives and Republicans, but by nature these women having to strike near, not far. So it’s blowing up the left itself more than anyone, even if Kavanaugh loses.

There’s no “solution” to this “problem.” Eventually people will get tired of listening to women bitch about their relationships – especially, women who are promiscuous and have left a string of sexual and emotional chaos behind them. Don’t be misled that the idea behind this is to “protect women” or even to punish bad men. No feminist will encourage, say, a return of monogamy.

They don’t want to “solve the problem” – they just want you to listen – and if you don’t listen sympathetically, you’re abusive, emotionally controlling and probably bad in bed too.

They Laughed When I Said My Teenage Sex Stories Had Political And Cultural Resonance

Who’s laughing now? Remind me to never run for Supreme Court.

As soon as I got to the party, I saw her. Chrissie. Blonde hair, blue eyes, a tiny little frame. She was almost 16, a sophomore, and I was 17, a junior. All day I’d seen her swimming in the pool and I just couldn’t get her out of my mind for some reason.

“Like, ” she was saying to her friend, as she flipped her hair and rolled her eyes. She looked just so delicious, it made me want to bite her ear lobe or even just sniff her hair. I had to think of a plan to get her alone, I thought, as I took another sip of this terrible tasting beer. Why do adults drink this crap anyway? …

Conservatives Are Losing The “Transgender War” Because They Are Sexually Obsessed, Stupid And Easily Fooled

When the “transgender” thing started a few years ago, presumably with the Bruce Jenner “transition” it caused a huge dust-up among the “right wing” from “Conservative Inc.” to the “Alt Right.” Everyone jumped right on it and many said it would be a winning issue for the “right” because who wants bearded men in dresses stalking little girls in the ladies’ restroom?

I demurred. I didn’t really know much about the issue and I figured that the right was being suckered, as it always is. Conservatives tend to be stupid and have a near-perfect record of LOSING, especially on sexual issues.

I blame religion, in a sense. The thing is, Christian (i.e., classical Stoic) sexuality morality is great, and is pretty much obviously the most healthy sexual lifestyle. Monogamy, fertility, family. If women and men married as virgins, and didn’t cheat, there would be no STDs. If motherhood was promoted in our culture, we’d have lots of White babies, fulfilled mothers, and responsible fathers.

Pornography, masturbation, female – and male – genital mutilation (“circumcision”) promiscuity, homosexuality – all these are vices that have traditionally been proscribed to one degree or another.

But religion can’t explain WHY this kind of sexual morality is healthy, because Western religion/Christianity doesn’t believe in biology or nature. So they have to come up with “spiritual” reasons which are false and mostly imaginary.

Even worse, Western religion – Christianity – can’t accept vice as vice – vice has to be “sin.” So instead of a socially effective form of “vice control” – suppressing vice, punishing vice when it harms society, Christianity has to eradicate it, which doesn’t work. You always have the return of the suppressed.

For the religious, there has to be a “zero tolerance” approach to vice, because vice is a “sin” meriting eternal punishment in hell. Instead of the natural truth – vice is bodily unhealthy, religion has to make it a “sin” that is deadly to the soul.

And of course those people who want to “fight sin” can find “sin” anywhere. Since Christiainty always follows the culture, NEVER leads it, all it can do is rear guard actions. So that means right wing religious types want to “eradicate homosexuality” while left wing religious types want to corral homosexuality into “gay marriage.”

Neither really works.

In any case, when it came to the “transgender” thing, of course the religious people went straight to the “won’t somebody thing of the CHILDREN!” angle and assumed that the “transgender” thing was about sexual perverts perving on little girls in the restroom.

But of course it wasn’t about that at all. What is the “trans” movement – a VERY well funded movement, promoted by the richest and most powerful corporations in the world – what is “trans” really about?

It’s not about SEX at all – it’s about DRUGS. “Trans” is, essentially, a drug cartel.

View story at Medium.com

Religious people jumped on the sex angle, and made themselves look like the sexually obsessed church ladies they are. And the “trans” movement loved every minute of it, because they know that religious people ALWAYS LOSE on sexual issues – they can’t even keep themselves sexually normal, they can’t even stop divorce and remarriage (or the Catholic equivalent) in their own churches.

So by baiting the religious conservatives into obsessing over SEX – the trans movement has successfully slipped their actual agenda – DRUGS – right under the radar.

CONSERVATIVES ALWAYS LOSE. Don’t be a conservative – it’s unhealthy.

“Mother’s Baby, Daddy’s Maybe”

The Atlantic was once a respectable White Anglo-Saxon Protestant magazine for the New England liberal elites.

Since it was bought by the Jew Jeffrey Goldberg it has devolved into a laughable tabloid trying to sell hardcore Zionist Jew apartheid and Palestinian genocide – and White Genocide – to the remnants of the White upper middle classes. Goldberg actually hired George W. Bush’s old speechwriter David Frum, who coined the term “Axis of Evil” to get Americans to destroy Israel’s enemies, Iraq and Iran. Why? Because Judaism is a racist hate cult that wants to murder Arabs particularly and Muslims in general.

Taking advice from a racist hate cult that wants your people genocided is generally a bad idea.

So of course now The Atlantic is no longer a magazine for intellectual White liberals, but is reduced to Salon.com style Social Justice Warriorism. A recent article asks: Why Don’t More Men Take Their Wives’ Last Names?

You can read it if you want, here:

https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2018/07/why-dont-more-men-take-their-wives-last-names/565898/

But of course the answer is simple. Patriarchy is the bedrock of civilization, and the way you connect fathers to sons – and thereby get men to invest in children and grandchildren – is by offering them immortality through a family name. A legacy.

As my former co-blogger Cly once pointed out, it used to be common for the American (and I suppose European) middle classes to name their small family businesses “Smith and Sons.”

Why this emphasis on the male lineage? Because everyone already knows the matriarchal lineage. “Mother’s Baby, Daddy’s Maybe.” You have to convince the father the children are actually his and women have created an entire culture around doing just that.

Not only do grandmothers assure their sons in law that “your baby has your eyes” – they now even claim that the sonograms look “just like” the supposed father!

He looks just like you! A spitting image of daddy. He even has your eyes! Trust me!

As soon as patriarchy – including young women being married as virgins – went out of style – so did marriage. Otherwise, what is the point? Of all the problems caused by the destruction of traditional marriage, for me the most annoying are all the articles in blogs by post-wall women complaining “where have all the good men gone?” “How come after spending my 20s engaging in promiscuity that would make a Parisian whore blush I can’t find a wealthy, handsome man to pretend I’m a nervous 17 year old virgin bride and pledge the rest of his life to me in return for a single child that is probably his?”

If I were a petty man, I’d guffaw at all the middle aged single women I’ve seen go ballistic when a successful 30 year old man ignores all the single over-credentialed 30 year old women to take up with young, fertile 20-somethinig baristas. Hell, I know of this because I’ve done it myself – and seen the reaction.

But the costs to my people and my society is just too damn high – below replacement fertility, bitter spinsters and “single” mothers, and an epidemic of divorce.

If any older White women actually cared about our people, they would be the FIRST telling those young, fertile, attractive women – “he’s a good catch – marry him now and start making babies! You’ll be happier in the long term.”

Listening to some nutty feminist being published by a bunch of racist, White-and-Palestinian-genociding Zionist Jews telling us that instead men should take their wive’s name in some sort of bizarre cross-dressing fetish that appeals to no one is pretty much the worst thing that anyone could do.

What next? Gender-bending for kids?

You want to take MY last name? What are you gay?

Women Find Sexist Men Sexier

In the very clever and very good “meta-sitcom” “Little Mosque on the Prairie” the White wife says it’s “exciting” that the imam is asking her husband for her daughter’s hand in marriage. Her friend asks, “but isn’t that sexist?” The wife replies, “well, yes it’s sexist. But it’s exciting too. Kind of like Mel Gibson, it’s exciting AND sexist!”

In my continuing series restating the obvious about women and men, here’s another obviously obvious point: women prefer sexist men.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-5908839/Women-hard-wired-meaning-sexist-men-attractive.html

Women are more attracted to men who are sexist because they think they are more willing to protect them, provide for them and commit to a relationship, scientists say.

Men who are considered to be sexist in a well-meaning way – for example if they are chivalrous or think women need a man to protect them – may be more attractive.

Even though women find these men patronising and can feel undermined by them, they are more likely to want to couple up with them than with men who don’t give them special treatment.

Researchers say women may be hard-wired to think the benefits of being with a kind but sexist man outweigh the downsides. …

And even women who consider themselves strong feminists showed the same preferences in the study by British and US researchers.

Gender Critical

I have a morbid fascination with the Gender Critical reddit forum. It’s a “radical feminist” forum, and many on reddit consider it a “hate sub.”

It really is just the female version of the “Red Pill” or the “Men’s Rights Activists” or even the “Incels.” They pretty openly hate men, and admit it in a way that the “misogynist” subs would never admit they hate women.

Many on reddit do label Gender Critical a “hate” sub, but not because they hate men – because they don’t consider “transgendered” men women. They refuse to accept the propaganda phrase “Trans women are women.”

Of course, it’s obvious that “trans women are women” is false. If it were true it wouldn’t need the “thought terminating cliche.” “Trans women” are just men wearing dresses. Those that undergo “sex reassignment surgery” are still men, just mutilated men, men with enhanced circumcision that have been poisoned with artificial estrogen – just like Alex Jones’ Gay Frogs, in fact. (OMG – ALEX JONES WAS RIGHT!)

I just can’t help but feel some sympathy for these women. They are right about “transgendered.” They are right about men’s “objectification” of women. AFAIK, homosexual men “objectify” men. It’s just testosterone.

So these women hating men for male biology really are the equivalent of men hating women for female biology.

The Gender Critics are also mostly correct about “gender” too. “Sex” is a biological reality, “gender” is a social construct. There is nothing “natural” about women wearing skirts – see Scottish kilts. There is nothing “natural” about women shaving their armpits or men having short hair. As someone once posted here, sex roles are not entirely socially “constructed” – instead they are socially reinforced.

Only women can nurse babies, so child care is basically a woman’s job – due to biology. Of course, men can take care of children – historically, men took charge or raising boys at about the age of 7. But child care is a woman’s job precisely because of the biology involved – and only ideological fanatics would object to that.

Ironically, it’s precisely at this point that the Gender Critical Feminists become the biology-deniers they rightly criticize the “transgenders” for.

What draws these women to radical feminism? Some perfectly legitimate objections to prostitution/pornography. But also some illegitimate reasons – such as their shallow hatred of men and their obvious agenda to recruit straight women to lesbianism. Lots of them utterly whine about being “invisible” to men as they age – apparently, they DEMAND male sexual attention, until they get it, then they complain about “objectification” – then when they don’t get it anymore, they complain about “invisibility.”

As they say, women want “fried ice.”

Occasionally, they will step right to the edge of racial reality – they hate men of color too – but they quickly correct themselves.

https://reddit.com/r/gendercritical