The NationStates Feminist Thread III

[The Parkus Empire]

https://www.psypost.org/2018/07/study-finds-women-including-feminists-attracted-benevolently-sexist-men-51693

Across five studies, with 782 female participants, the researchers found that women perceived a male romantic partner who held benevolent sexist attitudes as more willing to protect, provide, and commit for them, which in turn made him more attractive. Feminist women were as likely as non-feminist women to prefer benevolent sexist men over more egalitarian men.

It's almost like the tools given to feminists by their ideology were not able to detect and neutralize the sexist attitudes involved in this inclination/decision, almost like feminism is fundamentally incapable of identifying particular kinds of sexism because of its overbearing insistence on a particular variant being the be all and end all.

What you'd expect if feminists were right is that there'd be less feminists inclined to date benevolently sexist men, as feminists would subscribe to a worldview that views sexism negatively and can identify it. But there's no change. None. So what does that suggest?

That they, like other women, still have the same kind of sexist mindset, one feminism did not detect and consequently cannot fix. This is further proof of separate systems of sexism, and specifically gynocentrism, of which feminism is one expression due to how it fails to adequately explain and understand reality.

Incidentally, sexist bullshit from the researcher:

“Ordinary people’s conception of sexism is intentionally or deliberately undermining, but academics often conceive of it much more broadly as anything that has a detrimental outcome for women, even if it wasn’t intended.

Yeah see, there's that gynocentic view of sexism that dehumanizes men and discounts their experiences as valid by insistence womens experience should be the definition of sexism and oppression, again akin to black people up and deciding jews don't experience racism because they aren't portrayed as violent, criminal, and stupid and subsequently vilifying any Jew who said otherwise.

Feminism:
The belief that women should not merely be the center of their own universe, but everyone elses too.

Well that's because egalitarianism is the ideology of the weak, and women like strength. Also I am sure there are women who genuinely prefer egalitarians, as well as women who genuinely like weakness.

[The BlAAtschApen]

https://www.psypost.org/2018/07/study-finds-women-including-feminists-attracted-benevolently-sexist-men-51693



It's almost like the tools given to feminists by their ideology were not able to detect and neutralize the sexist attitudes involved in this inclination/decision, almost like feminism is fundamentally incapable of identifying particular kinds of sexism because of its overbearing insistence on a particular variant being the be all and end all.

What you'd expect if feminists were right is that there'd be less feminists inclined to date benevolently sexist men, as feminists would subscribe to a worldview that views sexism negatively and can identify it. But there's no change. None. So what does that suggest?

That they, like other women, still have the same kind of sexist mindset, one feminism did not detect and consequently cannot fix. This is further proof of separate systems of sexism, and specifically gynocentrism, of which feminism is one expression due to how it fails to adequately explain and understand reality.

Incidentally, sexist bullshit from the researcher:


Yeah see, there's that gynocentic view of sexism that dehumanizes men and discounts their experiences as valid by insistence womens experience should be the definition of sexism and oppression, again akin to black people up and deciding jews don't experience racism because they aren't portrayed as violent, criminal, and stupid and subsequently vilifying any Jew who said otherwise.

Feminism:
The belief that women should not merely be the center of their own universe, but everyone elses too.

Well that's because egalitarianism is the ideology of the weak, and women like strength. Also I am sure there are women who genuinely prefer egalitarians, as well as women who genuinely like weakness.

So women can genuinely like anything.

Got it.

[The Parkus Empire]

Well that's because egalitarianism is the ideology of the weak, and women like strength. Also I am sure there are women who genuinely prefer egalitarians, as well as women who genuinely like weakness.

So women can genuinely like anything.

Got it.

Of course, so can men (some even like cartoon ponies). But what is predominantly appealing is still a thing. Some women like chubby guys, for example, but predominantly a guy is more appealing if he's cut and muscular.

[Ostroeuropa]

Well that's because egalitarianism is the ideology of the weak, and women like strength. Also I am sure there are women who genuinely prefer egalitarians, as well as women who genuinely like weakness.

So women can genuinely like anything.

Got it.

The thing that's interesting about the study is that there was no difference between feminist women and the rest, they were attracted to sexism just as much as the others were, provided it was framed in benevolent sexist terms.

That isn't what you'd expect.

Sure, women can like anything, but if someone likes cars it's noteworthy if they say they hate metal and technology. It suggests some cognitive dissonance and some pretty incoherent thinking.

Why is it that feminists are attracted to sexism as much as other women are, despite supposedly hating it?

Is it because they're wrong in their understanding of sexism and this is an example of the type of sexism they are not equipped to detect, understand, and criticize? Instead they merely have rationalizations for what this type of sexism is and why they oppose it that do not actually acknowledge and deal with the root causes, thereby leaving those root causes untouched in their own minds and the effects of that sexism measurable in reality.

When shown those measurements it's like they react with;

"We need to stop polluting, look, global warming."
"YEAH but you're wrong see, we need more pirates, look at this graph."

Ad nauseum, and thus never take measures to actually fix the problem, either in society or in their own attitudes.

Or is it because biology?

There isn't really another explanation so far as I can see.

Either it's a crock of shit and they've fucked up badly by pretending they understood what was going on and demonizing alternative explanations, or there's a biological imperative to be sexist to women. Which really, is just a different kind of fucking up badly.

[The Parkus Empire]

Or is it because biology?

Yes

[Ostroeuropa]

Or is it because biology?

Yes

Okay.
So then we get right back to the ur example and ask, if biology inclines us in this direction, would it be better to curb our impulses and set rules to mitigate the damages? Which rules?

[The Parkus Empire]

Yes

Okay.
So then we get right back to the ur example and ask, if biology inclines us in this direction, would it be better to curb our impulses and set rules to mitigate the damages? Which rules?

No, sexism is a good thing, feminists are wrong.

[Gospel Power]

Conservative people posted above me, Just posting here to sum up the wall against feminism
/skip

[The BlAAtschApen]

Conservative people posted above me, Just posting here to sum up the wall against feminism

Good argument. You win.

[Ostroeuropa]

https://socialmediaexplorer.com/content ... -facebook/

As far as frequency of sharing, 30% of women report sharing content at least once a day, with 7 out of 10 of those women sharing multiple times a day. Meanwhile half of men report sharing multiple times a week, but only 5 out of 10 of those men share on a daily basis. Ultimately, women are 26% more likely to share content more than once a day compared with men

For all the stuff about angry white men, our media and its habits is far more driven by angry white women.

https://www.ama.org/academics/Pages/ode ... viral.aspx

Want viral content? Make people angry.


That's according to research by Jonah Berger and Katherine Milkman of the Wharton School.

This, in combination with social norms about how it is acceptable for women to share angry views about men and not for men to share angry views about women causes a cycle of escalation, it also explains the escalating misandry the media has to do in order to arms race for womens viewership. The consequence is the gradual normalization of misandry, contempt for men, and womens hostility to men. It's noteworthy that feminism (Again, because feminism is ill equipped to comprehend reality and deal with it, and only explains one type of sexism while insisting all types are this type, causing dysfunctional effects and botched solutions) is used to explain away, justify, and carry these hostile views.

In effect; "Racism is when you think people are stupid, violent, and criminal, like what is said about black people, so all this shit we're saying about Jews isn't racism. Anyway, Jews are running the government in a massive conspiracy to fuck us all over and they pit blacks against whites to do that, read the elder protocals."

This is how our media acts, with the feminist framework rationalizing away contempt, hatred, and mistreatment of men, their dehumanization, vilification, and discounting of their experiences and issues by asserting a gynocentric view of sexism. (Akin to the above afrocentric view of racism.)

The consequence of feminism being believed and its failures here is the normalization of sexism, the indulging of anger and hatred, and an escalation the pollution of our culture with misandry which produces runaway effects that reinforce this dynamic.

[Hirota]

https://socialmediaexplorer.com/content-sections/cases-and-causes/sharing-habits-motivations-rundown-gender-gap-generational-divide-facebook/

As far as frequency of sharing, 30% of women report sharing content at least once a day, with 7 out of 10 of those women sharing multiple times a day. Meanwhile half of men report sharing multiple times a week, but only 5 out of 10 of those men share on a daily basis. Ultimately, women are 26% more likely to share content more than once a day compared with men

For all the stuff about angry white men, our media and its habits is far more driven by angry white women.

https://www.ama.org/academics/Pages/ode ... viral.aspx

Want viral content? Make people angry.


That's according to research by Jonah Berger and Katherine Milkman of the Wharton School.

This, in combination with social norms about how it is acceptable for women to share angry views about men and not for men to share angry views about women causes a cycle of escalation, it also explains the escalating misandry the media has to do in order to arms race for womens viewership. The consequence is the gradual normalization of misandry, contempt for men, and womens hostility to men. It's noteworthy that feminism (Again, because feminism is ill equipped to comprehend reality and deal with it, and only explains one type of sexism while insisting all types are this type, causing dysfunctional effects and botched solutions) is used to explain away, justify, and carry these hostile views.

In effect; "Racism is when you think people are stupid, violent, and criminal, like what is said about black people, so all this shit we're saying about Jews isn't racism. Anyway, Jews are running the government in a massive conspiracy to fuck us all over and they pit blacks against whites to do that, read the elder protocals."

This is how our media acts, with the feminist framework rationalizing away contempt, hatred, and mistreatment of men, their dehumanization, vilification, and discounting of their experiences and issues by asserting a gynocentric view of sexism.

Ah, I believe you watch the same youtuber I occasionally watch.

[Ostroeuropa]

https://socialmediaexplorer.com/content-sections/cases-and-causes/sharing-habits-motivations-rundown-gender-gap-generational-divide-facebook/



For all the stuff about angry white men, our media and its habits is far more driven by angry white women.

https://www.ama.org/academics/Pages/ode ... viral.aspx



This, in combination with social norms about how it is acceptable for women to share angry views about men and not for men to share angry views about women causes a cycle of escalation, it also explains the escalating misandry the media has to do in order to arms race for womens viewership. The consequence is the gradual normalization of misandry, contempt for men, and womens hostility to men. It's noteworthy that feminism (Again, because feminism is ill equipped to comprehend reality and deal with it, and only explains one type of sexism while insisting all types are this type, causing dysfunctional effects and botched solutions) is used to explain away, justify, and carry these hostile views.

In effect; "Racism is when you think people are stupid, violent, and criminal, like what is said about black people, so all this shit we're saying about Jews isn't racism. Anyway, Jews are running the government in a massive conspiracy to fuck us all over and they pit blacks against whites to do that, read the elder protocals."

This is how our media acts, with the feminist framework rationalizing away contempt, hatred, and mistreatment of men, their dehumanization, vilification, and discounting of their experiences and issues by asserting a gynocentric view of sexism.

Ah, I believe you watch the same youtuber I occasionally watch.

Nah, I just read the MRM reddit, it's a quicker way to get updates. Is he any good?

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Ah, I believe you watch the same youtuber I occasionally watch.

Nah, I just read the MRM reddit, it's a quicker way to get updates. Is he any good?

You should watch Doctorrandomercam, he's great.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Well that's because egalitarianism is the ideology of the weak

If by weak you mean "smart" or "not evil," yeah. If however, you don't operate under a mindset that was understood as archaic and harmful by the beginning of the Pleistocene, I'm afraid that's not correct.

[The Parkus Empire]

Well that's because egalitarianism is the ideology of the weak

If by weak you mean "smart" or "not evil," yeah. If however, you don't operate under a mindset that was understood as archaic and harmful by the beginning of the Pleistocene, I'm afraid that's not correct.

There is nothing smart about believing peoples are fungible

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

If by weak you mean "smart" or "not evil," yeah. If however, you don't operate under a mindset that was understood as archaic and harmful by the beginning of the Pleistocene, I'm afraid that's not correct.

There is nothing smart about believing peoples are fungible

"People are of the same fundamental worth" =/= "People are exactly the same."

If you were talking to someone who advocated equality of outcome, you might have a point, but if you think liberalism is the ideology of fungible, homogenous drones, I don't know what you think you're doing.

[The Parkus Empire]

There is nothing smart about believing peoples are fungible

"People are of the same fundamental worth" =/= "People are exactly the same."

If you were talking to someone who advocated equality of outcome, you might have a point, but if you think liberalism is the ideology of fungible, homogenous drones, I don't know what you think you're doing.

People are of identical spiritual worth, but obviously not identical in any other worth.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

"People are of the same fundamental worth" =/= "People are exactly the same."

If you were talking to someone who advocated equality of outcome, you might have a point, but if you think liberalism is the ideology of fungible, homogenous drones, I don't know what you think you're doing.

People are of identical spiritual worth, but obviously not identical in any other worth.

Well, yeah, in a sense. In that, their conciousness is of the same fundamental worth.

[The Parkus Empire]

People are of identical spiritual worth, but obviously not identical in any other worth.

Well, yeah, in a sense. In that, their conciousness is of the same fundamental worth.

Same fundamental spiritual worth only

[Gospel Power]

The Parkus Empire is gone?! How can it happen?

[The New California Republic]

The Parkus Empire is gone?! How can it happen?

I'm not sure that is really the subject of this thread...

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Wow. Rip Parkus.

[Ostroeuropa]

There is nothing smart about believing peoples are fungible

"People are of the same fundamental worth" =/= "People are exactly the same."

If you were talking to someone who advocated equality of outcome, you might have a point, but if you think liberalism is the ideology of fungible, homogenous drones, I don't know what you think you're doing.

Dunno.

Let's examine the red pill ideology and some of the more extreme interpretations for a moment and entertain the notion that womens massive in-group bias and lower empathy for those outside the group is biological and intractable rather than the result of indoctrination, gynocentrism, feminism and so on.

It would mean that we cannot expect a fair and equal society in which women are allowed to participate. Equality is no longer an option, because giving women influence over society means it becomes stacked in their favor, and they are unable to not act that way.

At that point you're left with two options:

Allow women influence and accept a society highly stacked in their favor (Which, if feminism is any indication of, will also be full of gaslighting, chauvinism, and DARVOing, blaming the oppressed class for the consequences of the oppressors demands, mindsets, and behaviors).

This resembles an outright hateful society and hierarchy based on chauvinism and supremacy, but with added gaslighting and abuse of the oppressed class.

OR

Do NOT allow women influence, and attempt to instead treat them fairly in ways men think is appropriate (As men do not have an in-group bias, and are in fact slightly biased in womens favor, though nowhere near the extent to which women are.).

Women won't be happy with this, being convinced their shit smells of roses and think that men telling them it smells of nothing at all is hateful lies (Whereas in fact both are viewing it too positively and in womens favor), but it will be overall better on the individual level than the prior society, given the implications and so on of endlessly stacking everything in one groups favor at the expense of the other. I sorely doubt women resemble a utility monster, and as such, the former society is worse overall.

This resembles traditionalism, but with the added acknowledgement that women really aren't capable and so on (previously framed as "Misogyny" to note, this would merely be a fact about their in group bias and inability to handle authority, power, or influence, without misusing it to abuse men and favor themselves.). Its premise rests on the idea that men have to look after everyone because women are, simply put, unable to look after people in society and make it impossible for others to do so. That isn't a hateful foundation if it's based in truth.

It's like if there were a race that was biologically incapable of not being racist and supremacist. You can't have a society with them in it and pretend "equal rights" is going to work, you'd have to accept they simply can't be allowed to hold certain positions and have certain rights. We do it for blind people and driving, for instance. if it turns out womens gynocentrism is biological, we have to make a decision on how to limit the harm they cause.

If you believe as Parkus does that inequality is biological, it stands to reason he'd support traditionalism.

The question is, can we educate women out of the mindsets that are currently the norm?

If not, maybe a modernized traditionalism with the edges rounded off really would be better.

Your assumption is predicated on the idea that equality is possible. I also believe it is, but we should acknowledge the possibility that it isn't.
That possibility becomes more plausible as time goes on without any noticeable changes despite criticism.
We're now at, what, fifty, sixty years of egalitarian criticism of feminism being totally ignored and vilified ("No my shit really does smell of roses you chauvinistic pig")?

Outlier women with higher than the norm levels of empathy that can compensate for the biological chauvinism might be an explanation for the women who aren't like that, but they're not something that has an impact on a societal level.

again, I stress, i'm a subscriber to the notion it's a sociological phemomanae rooted in indoctrination, chauvinistic ideologies and movements, etc. But it might not be.

[Des-Bal]

Dunno.

Let's examine the red pill ideology and some of the more extreme interpretations for a moment and entertain the notion that womens massive in-group bias and lower empathy for those outside the group is biological and intractable rather than the result of indoctrination, gynocentrism, feminism and so on.

It would mean that we cannot expect a fair and equal society in which women are allowed any influence. Equality is no longer an option, because giving women influence over society means it becomes stacked in their favor, and they are unable to not act that way.

At that point you're left with two options:

Allow women influence and accept a society highly stacked in their favor (Which, if feminism is any indication of, will also be full of gaslighting, chauvinism, and DARVOing, blaming the oppressed class for the consequences of the oppressors demands, mindsets, and behaviors).

This resembles an outright hateful society and hierarchy based on chauvinism and supremacy, but with added gaslighting and abuse of the oppressed class.

OR

Do NOT allow women influence, and attempt to instead treat them fairly in ways men think is appropriate (As men do not have an in-group bias, and are in fact slightly biased in womens favor, though nowhere near the extent to which women are.).

Women won't be happy with this, being convinced their shit smells of roses and think that men telling them it smells of nothing at all is hateful lies (Whereas in fact both are viewing it too positively and in womens favor), but it will be overall better on the individual level than the prior society, given the implications and so on of endlessly stacking everything in one groups favor at the expense of the other. I sorely doubt women resemble a utility monster, and as such, the former society is worse overall.

This resembles traditionalism, but with the added acknowledgement that women really aren't capable and so on (previously framed as "Misogyny" to note, this would merely be a fact about their in group bias and inability to handle authority, power, or influence, without misusing it to abuse men and favor themselves.). Its premise rests on the idea that men have to look after everyone because women are, simply put, unable to look after people in society and make it impossible for others to do so. That isn't a hateful foundation if it's based in truth.

It's like if there were a race that was biologically incapable of not being racist and supremacist. You can't have a society with them in it and pretend "equal rights" is going to work, you'd have to accept they simply can't be allowed to hold certain positions and have certain rights. We do it for blind people and driving, for instance. if it turns out womens gynocentrism is biological, we have to make a decision on how to limit the harm they cause.

If you believe as Parkus does that inequality is biological, it stands to reason he'd support traditionalism.

The question is, can we educate women out of the mindsets that are currently the norm?

If not, maybe a modernized traditionalism with the edges rounded off really would be better.

Your assumption is predicated on the idea that equality is possible. I also believe it is, but we should acknowledge the possibility that it isn't.

What does it mean to acknowledge that possibility other than to entertain without substantiation the idea that you are totally and completely wrong? This seems like inanity that's being phrased reasonably.

[Ostroeuropa]

Dunno.

Let's examine the red pill ideology and some of the more extreme interpretations for a moment and entertain the notion that womens massive in-group bias and lower empathy for those outside the group is biological and intractable rather than the result of indoctrination, gynocentrism, feminism and so on.

It would mean that we cannot expect a fair and equal society in which women are allowed any influence. Equality is no longer an option, because giving women influence over society means it becomes stacked in their favor, and they are unable to not act that way.

At that point you're left with two options:

Allow women influence and accept a society highly stacked in their favor (Which, if feminism is any indication of, will also be full of gaslighting, chauvinism, and DARVOing, blaming the oppressed class for the consequences of the oppressors demands, mindsets, and behaviors).

This resembles an outright hateful society and hierarchy based on chauvinism and supremacy, but with added gaslighting and abuse of the oppressed class.

OR

Do NOT allow women influence, and attempt to instead treat them fairly in ways men think is appropriate (As men do not have an in-group bias, and are in fact slightly biased in womens favor, though nowhere near the extent to which women are.).

Women won't be happy with this, being convinced their shit smells of roses and think that men telling them it smells of nothing at all is hateful lies (Whereas in fact both are viewing it too positively and in womens favor), but it will be overall better on the individual level than the prior society, given the implications and so on of endlessly stacking everything in one groups favor at the expense of the other. I sorely doubt women resemble a utility monster, and as such, the former society is worse overall.

This resembles traditionalism, but with the added acknowledgement that women really aren't capable and so on (previously framed as "Misogyny" to note, this would merely be a fact about their in group bias and inability to handle authority, power, or influence, without misusing it to abuse men and favor themselves.). Its premise rests on the idea that men have to look after everyone because women are, simply put, unable to look after people in society and make it impossible for others to do so. That isn't a hateful foundation if it's based in truth.

It's like if there were a race that was biologically incapable of not being racist and supremacist. You can't have a society with them in it and pretend "equal rights" is going to work, you'd have to accept they simply can't be allowed to hold certain positions and have certain rights. We do it for blind people and driving, for instance. if it turns out womens gynocentrism is biological, we have to make a decision on how to limit the harm they cause.

If you believe as Parkus does that inequality is biological, it stands to reason he'd support traditionalism.

The question is, can we educate women out of the mindsets that are currently the norm?

If not, maybe a modernized traditionalism with the edges rounded off really would be better.

Your assumption is predicated on the idea that equality is possible. I also believe it is, but we should acknowledge the possibility that it isn't.

What does it mean to acknowledge that possibility other than to entertain without substantiation the idea that you are totally and completely wrong? This seems like inanity that's being phrased reasonably.

Well this is the point i'm making, we should be prepared to admit we might be wrong.