sugar and spice (what dames be)...

==================
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.

Men fall for feminist rape politics.

These males use feminist rape culture verbiage and concepts. Ultimately they are petitioning feminist authority using feminist claptrap _rather than fomenting the revolution necessary to oust feminist authority._

"Once you lower yourself to debate them, you have already lost."

When besmirched by feminists who say "men are rapists", rather than tripping over yourself to prove your are a wimp who could never possibly get it up (and therefore are no threat), the solution is simple: say "yes sex is 'rape' and therefore your destiny as a _female_ --after revolution -- is to be quivery and afraid of the spectre that is the lingam. Swoon."

Men defining themselves as creatures that "protect the weak" is why feminism (and other social ills) happened in the first place. And this isn't rocket science.

The weak males will stop at nothing --including creating feminism-- to get rid of every male who isn't a runt. And then that world created --without adult male chemistry-- is the only environment in which feminism flourishes.

---------
All sex IS rape. Western males simply don't understand females [or nature] yet.

Sex doesn’t even have to be “dark” and pathological to be seen as rape by a female. Sex IS simply rape. …The penetration of it all; the fear of the bigger creature (who she knows damn well is better than her at everything). The whole thing seems like rape if you’re female.

Men think “rape” means alleyway nut-job [_raised badly by his crazy mother_] –-_who steals men's girlfriends._ But to a female, any confident masculine morning wood itself is a belittling and fear-inducing/alluring thing. And she is angry about that in a dualistic sometimes yes, sometimes no way.

If she also has axe to grind issues (like wall flower-ism or jewish trouble maker desire) she can easily ham up that anger into “rape! rape! everywhere” hysteria, so as to get the infantile males to “protect” her from normal men (who have confident thrusting morning wood, which stunts and “bruises” females in numerous ways).

Females will not stop until no male grows a single whisker.

Dimorphic sex IS dominance. One would be hard pressed to find a female that doesn't know that (though she might not be able to express it in words or if she can, might be cagey enough to not divulge it).

That _many males_ don't know that is _bad_. Their numbers in total are why western men are being socio-politically sublimated by a more astute tuned-in class (ie feminists).

...This is the "alpha beta gamma" snowball breeding man toward infantile lower IQ males who the females are more savvy then --as I have explained a gazillion times.


By trying to suppress the dimorphic life force in themselves, men have made themselves vulnerable to the female take over that is feminism.

---------
The runt males have taken over and they are trying to redefine "normal" masculinity over to their infantile natures. (Some of the weak males pretend they aint feminists but they are inside.) Their runt ascendancy is synonymous with feminism's ascendancy. If these infantile idiotic runt --abnormal-- males are not eliminated feminism WILL succeed in enslaving and then someday getting rid of men.


Pull out the plugs on the incubator babies now!

---------

Don’t bring back what billions of year of evolution have erased.

1000 to 200 years ago is not billions. And evolution is not a directed thing that leads to "better" or "more civilized". All that is a made up definition in your head.


========================
Men are enslaved now (and it could get a lot worse) because we keep alive too many failed males in childhood.

Children need to be tested and ranked by IQ and talent. Lower male ressentiment-motivated coup (ie the ABGamma principle) needs to be prevented from upsetting that ranking. (If you don't like the idea of that, then keep all the children separated.)

female discrimination and societal blindness to it

females are just as discriminatory and superficial-- _if not more so_-- than males are. Especially true since society accepts and promotes discrimination against men and pedestal-izes female behavior. (It always has, therefor feminism's whole original root premise is faulty.)

Female lenses and criteria are simply sometimes a little different though from men's. Ie genders want different things from each other.

Eg females hate male weakness like males hate fat chicks. (I feel sorry for fat chicks [see * below] --but I'm also sorry for men, one of which is me.) And now females are "lookists" too on top of their other forms of objectification.

And females are certainly less empathic when  it comes to making fun of the opposite gender (females have standard inferiority complex issues). Females are also crueler and less empathic, in most categories social babble measures (eg crime and punishment).

Society has used the different lenses boys and girls use to say "females are less discriminatory towards males than the reverse." But that is wrong. (Note that most EVERYTHING western society believes and says about gender and females is a lie, ignorance or delusion.)


To deny the above makes one either delusional, ignorant or a sycophant to female power (or makes one female which is another way of saying delusional). (That male sycophancy is a root reason men defend feminism BTW. Think monks carrying an emperor baby on a pillow.. all must bow to the procession... except the monks. )