At first, we will talk about radical feminism and disassemble some nonsense that it promotes. Then we will see how the system uses radical feminists to manipulate the population by making them feel guilty. And finally, why we are going straight towards the most complete devirilization of man.
This article follows my article on the place of the alpha male in human societies.
First, a small point definition not to misunderstand me: Radical (or extremists) feminists are those who want not to achieve a gender equity but who want to crush and humiliate men in the name of a revenge of past injustices.
A radical feminist fighting for the right not to wax underarm. I just don’t care. I am for the right to abortion, for the right to vote of women, for the sexual freedom of women… but, some fights called “feminist” leave me perplexed. She can epilate as she hears but I hope she won’t force me to want her if I do not like it…
The origin of sexual differences
You know it if you read my book on evolutionary psychology: in comparison to an egg, big, rare and expensive, billions of sperm have almost no value.
In a year, a man can fertilize hundreds of women, a woman can only procreate once. This fact is the origin of differences in treatment between the sexes.
The sexual behavior of the man “sex-starving”
The rarity of the ovum gives the female sexual act a great value, at least emotionally speaking, since putting a condom on or taking the pill almost cancels the risks of pregnancy but not the brain hormone discharges.
The man is always more demanding, more enterprising, less looking than the woman because of his objective of spreading as much as possible his genetic inheritance. Conversely, the woman is looking for the best party for the survival of her genes. “The existence of a certain choice on the part of the female seems to be a law as general as the ardor of the male,” said Darwin.
The woman makes her egg a trophy that she offers to the one who will win the competition between breeding males. That’s why, for example, we, poor males, pay €20 for our entry while women come for free and are offered champagne. Since the woman’s consent is expensive, everyone thinks it is natural for the man to seduce and pay.
Personally I am for the sexual freedom of the woman, for the end of the social pressure which says that a woman who takes her foot is a whore, so that the women approach the men… you know it if you read me for a long time. In that, I have a feminist side, no doubt. I wish a real equality between men and women but not that my condition of man is a reason to make me pay more for my outings, for example (if it was just that). Especially that not all men are equal before this sexual selection.
Social status, for example, confers value on the male seed, so much so that the man of power usually has nothing to pay to fuck. That’s why I advise you to always behave in alpha male, to communicate non-verbally that you have a status or a great value and therefore fuck more easily. It will help you to have a fulfilling sex life!
Maternal instinct and jealousy in humans and other animals
Radical feminists are convinced that the choices of partners are cultural, that they are victims of patriarchy, conditioned by male society. They want to choose and be chosen on other criteria… But all mammals do the same thing: males choose a physical, females a social rank or good genes. There is no point in trying to change old instincts determined by our biology.
The rarity of the ovum explains that female mammals invest more than males in their offspring: they can not put their precious egg in several baskets, so they incubate it with jealousy. However, radical feminists, in the name of women’s emancipation, would like their peers to care less about children… or at least not more than men. It would be in the sense of equality but not in the sens of our instincts!
Even jealousy is an egg matter. The average man will be more jealous if he learns that his wife sleeps with another rather than if she falls in love but does not sleep with. The woman will be more jealous if her man falls in love with another: she might steal her investor… I had spoken about it in my article on jealousy. That too, it makes radical feminists angry because they want us to be identically jealous (except lesbians, that is to say, a good part of radical feminists, who do not care about men’s sexuality )!
The culture of rape
The notion of “culture of rape” is a literal translation of the English expression rape culture, we owe to American feminists of the 1970s.
The “culture of rape” is a concept that says rape is not sufficiently recognized or punished in society.
Extremist feminists first thought that rape was a scandalous symbol of male domination. But in fact, we realized that in almost all cultures, rape is repressed with the greatest firmness.
Then, they wanted to spread the idea that it exists in a problematic way in our Western cultures because not enough punished (it would be the fault of Christianity, among others).
The myths of rape culture
The fight against the rape culture, led by radical feminists, consists in destroying certain myths. Let’s analyze them together and see if I understood correctly:
– the rapist is always a stranger: that’s true it’s a myth. Statistics show that the victim often knows her abuser and worse, that the threat is often closer than we think, within our family.
– the victim behaved at risk: for example, walking around naked in a dark alley in a bad neighborhood. It is unacceptable to say that a girl who has been raped has looked for it and I agree with that: no one deserves to be raped, no matter what. On the other hand, a pity that it is taboo to say that if a man did the same thing, he would probably have problems too. Many of my friends and I have been assaulted in the street and the justice has not responded… it is not a treatment for women. Of course, rapes and non-sexual assaults are not the same thing, but that is to say that each sex can have its share of trouble.
– society thinks that the victim always exaggerates the facts or lies: I agree that it’s disgusting… but we still have the right to wonder if it never happens. Justice must be neutral and pragmatic.
– the victim has consented and regretted: one is also entitled to wonder if it never happens.
– only women are raped: this idea is based on the idea that women, these pure and innocent beings, are the only ones who can control their sexual desire, unlike men who “always want”, these big pigs! This is obviously FALSE.
France and the culture of rape
In France, rape has been repressed since 1810. It became a crime punishable by 15 years of criminal imprisonment in 1980. Since 2010, the conjugal relationship no longer benefits to the accused of having raped his spouse. The status of spouse, civil partner or cohabitant of the victim is even an aggravating circumstance since 2006.
“Of the 13,881 cases reported and brought to justice in 2015, these offenses have increased to 15,848,” notes Le Figaro.
My conclusion is that, as Finkielkraut said on BFMTV a few days ago, shocking the journalist by the way because it is politically incorrect: we have never punished the rapists so much and never as hard as today in France. So there is no rape culture in France because rape is recognized and punished as never before.
However, it is true that the rape escapes in some countries to any control and any sanction, but then why blaming an honest French who never hurt a fly?
We note the argument of this extremist feminist: the difference between pick-up and harassment would have nothing to do with the physical or social situation of man.
But then, why specifying, gratuitously, to the guy who shared this article “you are ugly”? Maybe it’s only the radical and homosexual feminists who are not influenced by men’s physique… I’m trying to understand if there is something to understand!
Imagine if it was a man like Benjamin Bioley who had allowed himself this inappropriate gesture: what would the lobby of feminist extremists have said? That he had to be fired an, wprobably…
Only 25% of French people say they prefer to work rather than raise their children. But, as mentioned above, radical feminists believe that the child is a burden to the woman. For some, breastfeeding and maternal instinct have become shameful diseases.
However, having no child for economic and enjoyable convenience seems to be an important step towards immaturity and the refusal of responsibilities and nature. Who has an interest in asking us encouraging women to be immature and going against nature?
It should be noted, however, that 40% of children in divorced families do not maintain contact with the non-custodial parent, often the father. We are really entitled to ask which sex suffers the most of this ideology, finally, and which is really favored by justice.
Since women want, whatever the extremist feminists say, to see their children more time, they are willing to give up some of their income. From there, comparisons of wages between men and women are biased.
In France, we often hear that the difference in pay between men and women is 25 to 30% of gross earnings. Except that if we eliminate career choices and align working time, the gap becomes marginal (between 2 to 8%).
It can be explained by the fact that men negotiate their wages more or because they have higher productivity, as shown by an INSEE study that you can find on the net.
As a result, extremist feminists advocate that women earn as much as men by working less, without negotiating or having a less important job, which amounts to wanting to earn more. That’s it, equality? When you start a fight, you have to learn about all the parameters before you cry out against injustice.
Of course, there are always unfair examples, if we go looking for each case. But, on that account, what do we do for porn actors, male models and prostitutes who are on average less well paid than their female colleagues? It will be said that justice is done? What do they pay for others?
There are more gifted boys than gifted girls. Another monstrous taboo! But the truth is that excellence and mediocrity are more masculine whereas girls are more numerous around the average.
I want proof of the results of the bac: 44% of boys admitted for 56% of girls. Only 43% of boys scored quite well against 57% of girls. But 59% of boys have good mention against 41% of girls. And 61% of boys scored very well against 39% of girls in 2017.
So, positive discrimination has been advanced in the name of equality.
Instead of putting the most competent people in each post, we are obliged to put as many men as women, for example under the Hollande government. Which means that a woman appointed to a position might take the place of a more competent man. This is where women should cry scandal: to be named because they are women, not because they are competent people…there is some discrimination! And it is not positive.
Remember, however, that the European Constitution has specified that “discrimination based on sex is prohibited” (Article II-81). However, it came back a little later “the principle of equality does not prevent the maintenance or adoption of measures providing specific benefits for the under-represented sex” (Article II-83). Parity is therefore one way.
But what is done for men who die 14 years before women, who are judged more severely in the courts, who can not play their charms to be recruited, pardoned or amnestied?
The futile fights of feminists
Feminists demand that inclusive writing be used at school because they think that it is because the masculine prevails over the feminine in the French language that women suffer from patriarchy all their lives. It is true that at the time when the grammar was rewritten, especially by removing the rule of proximity agreement in favor of the rule “the masculine prevails”, the underlying discourse was assumed machismo. But today, this rule no longer carries the slightest connotation, and if I had not documented, I would never have known that big macho were at the origin of these grammatical rules. Why ? Because this rule no longer carries the same meaning today. The rule is the rule, we apply it. Never has anyone succeeded in demonstrating that a grammar rule has changed someone’s psychological constructions.
In parallel with this false debate, I read a testimony of a great fashion designer who could not stand being described as a “seamstress”. A friend told me that his chief, Madame le Prefet, could not stand being called “Madame La Prefette.” Ditto for the “doyen” of the college of letters of Lyon 3, which gives you a glare if you call her ” doyenne “. As a result, one may wonder why intelligent, or at least successful, women do not want inclusive writing.
Extremist feminists are a bit desperate because they persist in fighting for things that will never change their condition. I found the example of waiting in the women’s washroom, which is usually longer than in the men’s washroom. Is this really a sexist inequality? One of the proposed solutions is to force men to sit down or reduce the size of their toilets. Equality would be to put us handicaps? On the highway areas, I saw the larger women’s toilets, it’s a better solution, right?
Can it be said that if men are taller than women, it is because patriarchy has been depriving them of food since forever. Are females smaller than males in almost all animal species, are they all victims of patriarchy?
How can extremist feminists deny that in high-level sports, women are 11.45% less performant than men?
Conversely, there are sports where the man is under-represented, and especially destined to be less competent. Rhythmic gymnastics for example.
We are different, we are not identical and therefore we can not claim equality, this is the inconvenient truth.
The theory of gender
The gender theory aims to substitute gender categories (which refers to biology), a concept of gender that shows that the differences between men and women are not based on nature but are historically constructed and socially reproduced.
The gender theory explains that girls engage in wise games because they are imposed, they go to care trades low-skilled and less paid and abandon the scientific track despite good school results because of their conditioning in the playground.
But this theory of the genre does not seem to take into account that the woman is not a fragile and suggestible thing, unable to question herself. Unlike us, the pick-up artists, who treat women without these false beliefs… so, who respects women the most?
Nor does the theory of gender explain why so many isolated, battered, and battered “first class” little boys have persisted in shining for schooling and career success.
All studies show that the most common stereotypes are the most accurate, and that some, such as those concerning sexual differences, are underestimated rather than overestimated.
It does not please, I agree… but the reality has no reason to please us, contrary to the morality imposed. Imposed morality that often seeks to triumph over reality.
The way parents treat their children
In 1966, the doctor John Money, considered by some as the father of the theory of gender, was contacted by a collapsed couple, the Reimer husband. They were parents of twins aged 8 months, whom they wanted to circumcise.
Unfortunately, David’s circumcision by electric cautery failed, his penis was burned. As a result, Brian, his twin, was not circumcised.
Money saw in this misadventure the opportunity to demonstrate that biological sex is a decoy, an arbitrary whose education can emancipate. He convinced the parents to raise David as a girl, never to tell him (or tell his brother) that he was born a boy. The doctor gave the child, renamed Brenda, a hormonal treatment and, fourteen months later, removed the testicles. His parents dressed him in robes, gave him dolls, and so on.
Only, Brenda grew painfully. As a teenager, her voice became serious, she said she was attracted to girls, etc. Brenda stopped swallowing her treatment, was prescribed testosterone, fell into alcoholism.
Brenda felt a boy engulfed in a girl’s body. Frightened, the parents revealed the truth to their twins. Brenda is David again, he married a woman. But the identitarian ramifications have shaken the boys. In 2002, Brian committed suicide. On May 5, 2004, David did the same. A tragic end.
In most cases, however, many studies have shown that, on average, parents do not treat boys and girls differently. But it does not matter to the psychologist Judith Rich Harris who said, “Even if their mother drives a truck and their father changes them, the boys play football and the girls jump rope”. Stereotyped behaviors seem to have a hard time.
No gender theory in nature
This social activism is doomed to failure because it is against the nature and interests of men and women. Sexual differences are found in almost all primates and almost all mammals.
A male earthworm has a brain different from a female earthworm. In humans, rhesus macaques or cattle, breast milk differs according to the sex of the child. Are these animals victims of social construction?
The psychologist Valian made this statement: “Among our close relatives such as the rhesus macaque, researchers have discovered that females play with dolls more than their brothers, who prefer balloons and small cars. It seems unlikely that the monkeys were indoctrinated by catalog stereotypes.”
Dual thinking is the power to simultaneously keep two contradictory beliefs in mind and to accept both.
Double-thought is a kind of superimposition of two contradictory states like this conformist rebellion that animates many artists. “I am a real rebel because I say what I think”… that is to say, often exactly what the system wants to hear.
The Femen are a fine example of double-thought and one wonders if they are not puppets of power.
When Caroline Fourest was arrested with her friends seeking to provoke an incident during the “Manif for all”, Valls immediately called the prefect and François Hollande sent a message of support to the rebel in the wake.
The Femen multiply the provocations but are rarely condemned (in France, eh!)… and when they are, they are supported. Just recently, by our dear Minister Marlene Schiappa.
Similarly, extremist feminists call for the end of sexism, but are the first to organize single-sex demos. Unbelievable !
Dual thinking among the politically correct people
The defenders of the regime, who hate intolerance and inequality, often put themselves to several to condemn a few men to social death.
They fight for dignity but do everything to destroy Soral or Dieudonné. These are just examples, there are many others. The National Front and its voters (33.90% of the French all the same), Putin, Trump, etc. It is hyper democratic and hyper correct to treat a part of the population of stupid or crazy because they do not do not have the same opinion as you. What do not we do to be “well seen”!
All people with good intentions are obviously against censorship. But who are the first to censor others?
It is this same process that, if I correctly understood, to the closing of my Youtube channel and the release of my FB page. Freedom, equality, fraternity! As if I was a monster, seriously… they spotted my video because they had been monitoring me for a long time and organized a raid to send a maximum of “hate reports” to Youtube in a minimum of time so that the algorithm would panic and my account would be closed.
Why is feminism acclaimed by the media?
The teaching of gender is dictated to the media. “Journalism training provided by higher education institutions includes education on gender equality and the fight against stereotypes, sexist prejudices, degrading images, violence against women, violence committed within couples.”
Journalists are therefore conditioned to promote the ideas of the system: if you want to have your journalism degree, you must learn well and recite your course. And so you have to promote the ideas of extremist feminism while hiding all there is to hide. Like for example my video buzz where one of these girls hits me on the street because I dared to argue against her. A “freedom” that she would never have allowed if the media had not conditionned her mind.
Why the system will win
We can not attack the system, it is unassailable: it is against hatred, sexism, war, racism, etc. Nobody can decently criticize these angels that are these artists and journalists because they have the moral for them.
At least, they seem to be on the side of the “good guys” but is it true? No famous lesson giver was ever finally caught in a disgusting scandal? Think carefully.
Why does the system encourage extremist feminism?
Perhaps the ultimate goal is for Western technology to be used for the global equalization of the sexes, by biologically removing them, to create a sexless species.
The system could then reassign all individuals before birth to hormonally block any process of sexualization. There would be no more women or men. What a progress!
But beware, if we come to that, it would be because the system does not want the victory of men or women: he wants us to self-destruct, to disappear.
In 1984, it reads, “All children should be procreated by artificial insemination and raised in public institutions. Is it a prophecy?
In The Brave New World, men are all born in test tubes and are conditioned from an early age. Extremist feminists should be pleased to see that Huxley described a world where women do not get pregnant, where inequalities are not based on sex but are distributed arbitrarily, where women enjoy their sexuality as men. But, by the way, and to support what was said earlier on the evolution: women remain women, and Huxley had understood. When Lenina feels bad and takes a pregnancy substitute because her heart tells her that she wants to stay with a man, what do you think it shows?
Be that as it may, the system may want a society of dependent people (sick, drugged, incapacitated, beasts) to be able to control them easily under the guise of satisfying them. So, Huxley does not give us to see a society where everyone is in his place, where the dissident is sent far, where the one who begins to think is conditioned to say that it is not good and that he must immediately take a dose of soma to escape?
Seriously, I really feel that the system fights virility and femininity, autonomy, intelligence, thinking for oneself, health and sobriety.
As has been said, extremist feminists encourage upper-class women to have few or no children. Indeed, having a child would be a burden, a brake on their career, etc.
On the other hand, the system encourages, with more and more help despite the debt of the growing state, people of the “lower classes” to reproduce more.
So be careful, I take the tweezers: we can think, even if it is not an absolute reality and there are always exceptions, the more intelligent people are, the more likely they are to belong to at least to the middle class.
This means that the intelligence will dissolve since intelligent people will have fewer children on average. (See Idiocracy, the movie, which despite its turnip side starts from a very well formulated postulate Synopsys: Rookie Joe Bauers, the archetype of the average American, is chosen by the Pentagon as a guinea pig for a top secret program of hibernation Forgotten, he is awake five centuries later and discovers a society that has become so stupid that he is now the smartest man on the planet.)
Note that the documentary on Arte “Tomorrow, only idiots?” Confirms that the human population on Earth is already less and less intelligent. Where are we going ?
It’s called dysgenism and it’s not just about the criterion of intelligence. This is the opposite of eugenics, it leads to a regression of the abilities of the global population (health, character, intelligence, etc.). This means that people will be more and more degenerated with in some time, a huge impact on our society. If it is not already the case?
The testosterone level
Our scientists have long noted the general collapse of testosterone levels in our populations. An abnormally rapid and brutal decline. American and Scandinavian studies have shown that a man born in the 1970s had a testosterone level 20% lower than that of his father at the same age.
However, testosterone has an important role, it is particularly related to the desire for dominance, the number of children, self-confidence, libido, intellectual performance…
The causes of this decline? The stress of living in the city, lack of sunshine due to indoor work, endocrine disruptors, lack of sleep and physical activity, alcohol, drugs, pesticides, shit we eat, sugar, TV, video games, violent movies…
Result: we men are less aggressive, better support promiscuity and submission. Is this a goal desired by the system?
The future ?
It’s up to you to see whether or not you want to become a “progressive, anti-virile, moralistic par excellence, multiplying the physical and verbal signs of submission, servile agent of the system, indignant standing, male bobo, caricatural, devirilized to excess, ultra-consumer, juvenile, sensitive and non-violent “as described by Laurent Obertone in France Big Brother.
He continues with his verve: “This symbolic violence, this feminization is particularly valued by the media, sexual ambiguity to effeminate individuals, not to mention the bearded singers. ”
And if the fair sex enthusiasts for such models, we are screwed, the system wins.
Tell me in the comments if you have ideas fight our debasement or our enslavement…