What females are...
People ask how to stop feminism? What is feminism?
"You’ll have to give me examples of what is truly feminism. ...And how would one fully reject feminism?"
That is a big big question. It needs to be answered in full for all time and always; it is the thing(tm). The unspoken crux of the issue.
I try to _start_ an answer to it below...
Feminism is a battle of "essence" not any one plank. Before it was called feminism, it was called "the battle of the sexes." Ie all that frustration-inducing game playing (compelled by an assortment of biological troots).
In order for females to not be feminists any more...
They would have to stop being what females and human females are on instinct.
-They would have to in childhood stop telling secrets, being cliquish, being manipulative, being taunters and teasers, being tattlers.
-In teen years they would have to stop being sexual gate keepers who are in little secretive cliques.
-In adult hood --along with teen hood-- they would have to stop being dualistic creatures who are repulsed by males who love them and repulsed by males who become civilized (soft/nice /infantile males). (Male humans become soft/infantile as a side effect of their battles verse each other over female sex value. [see alpha beta gamma again; yep, sorry.])
-They would also have to be smarter with a closed callosum. And be less gland based. (It is said that males think with their 'little heads'. Yes Sometimes true. But at least men have a choice between the two. Female humans on the other hand are only glands/moods. They make words [_undefined_ sounds actually that mimic men's words] so as to trick men into giving them food and etc.)
-Less reactionary against males. That starts in childhood when the females are a type of bench warmer male. They have classic bench-warmer-male syndromes (ie reactionaries who throw wrenches in the works to "get even"). Once the females get leverage --which their sex value naturally affords them-- they believe anything they do to get back at males is deserved simply because males "hurt" them in childhood by being better at everything. (It is called penis envy motivates la femme mystique.)
-The species would have to stop having wallflower chicks [ugly/ fat/ masculine girls]. They have classic typical female bench warmer syndrome [penis envy] _mixed with_ wallflower ax to grind anger. They are also the most masculine fems and therefore sense that freeing themselves from the harem of emasculated hermaphrodites [see "fundamentals": cuttle fish] and making a run for it is within reach. They are well motivated ax to grind female rousers using whatever political plank will work at the moment. The planks that work are demonization of males to rile up closer human male fear that the big bad "alpha" is coming to steal the wife or daughter. The human males are very susceptible to that propaganda alarm since it fits nicely into their own raison d tre: marginalize the other male by using allies.
The only way to stop males from imposing policies that deal with the above is to keep men too dumb to contemplate it [thank you chrisendumb] or make men machines who don't feel anymore (ie that don't care that females are "bad" people who induce frustration and competition anymore). The only way to stop females from being "bad" is to make females machines.
Feminism [nee "battle of the sexes"] is a "battle of essence." Understanding that essence entails outside-looking-in objective [asexual /amoral] lens and a lens rooted in naturalism.
Americans, christians and liberals are "flat earth believers" [or 'flat earthers'] when it comes to biology/ontology. As too was marx et al with his "man comes from a golden age of non warring matriarchies."
Some males are more tuned into the essence of the battle than others.
We call the en tuned "Misogynists".
Meanwhile other males have daughters...
(*Modern matriarchy-belief wings have spun golden age into an equally absurd "we come from a period of wimmin warriors ruling." "wolf women of the past." [That harkens back to a literary device: amazons. Conjured by notorious "monstrous liars" --as Ovid [or Virgil*] called them --the Greek poets.]
[*Damn! Me brains is almost gone now.]
Matriarchy-of-past is now morphing into wing[s] who believe that any time males fight over females it is a matriarchy. I like that one the best. It is hardest to deconstruct being the most rooted in a spin of reality but its solutions when they come will be the grandest.)
Why are females so angry?...
(Get away from the human freewill, self awareness thing; see the universe as an assortment of amoral chain reactions; in biology these chains are called 'modules'. Ie see our human ways and means as unwitting compulsions that work for reasons over our heads. [See my "fundamentals"])
1 females have instincts to antagonize. Take female deer auto-matonically twitching tail --white rumped too(to catch light)-- or female lion wanderings.
2 the hum females have a grass is always greener crack the whip instinct.
3 females are emasculated males by nature. Female hums either sense this or are now --for some dames-- cognitively aware of that. They are understandably angry /reactionary.
4 after eons of being emasculated creatures as the way they breed, females have modules which compel them towards submission. Ie they like to be `taken by bodice ripping pirates. Now given that civi has [through ABG principle] snowballed man into a place where pirates are extinct or illegal, the final indignity has been perpetrated against females...
They can't even find a rake to "knock dem booties" once per month when she is prepared to expose herself as a craven submissive to some creature she despises/adores. (she despises him because he emasculated her.)
5 is the wallflower axe to grind rabble rouser thing. A chick not chosen is a frustrated, angry chick.
I posted the above at "The Spearhead" (run by welmar) in response to a question. It did not make it past moderation. Welmar at 'the spearhead' by not letting the top post above through at his site has demonstrated why men can't stop feminism.
Females have no problem demonizing males(with wide spin or out right lies) in order to conjure propaganda necessary to lube policy through the political/societal works. Meanwhile men can't even organize listed troots about female character without other males --for their reasons-- being off-put by them.