Salon: "The soft war against women"

The House and Senate could be 98% female with a female president, VP, and Cabinet, and still the vast majority of women would view themselves as being "oppressed".

Lately I have been toying with the concept that due to brain physiology and body-physiological factors such as hormone balance variations that exist between the sexes, the net result is that women are programmed to view themselves as oppressed/scared/worried about the future as a natural matter of course and no amount of stuff will ever change that, and that social structures have come into place as a result of these things, not as a means of engineering some other model.

I think things may very well stay this way until we evolve into non-sexual beings, perhaps ones that don't even have bodies. Gonna be a long time if that's the case since we will all be treated to endless whining until then.

As I already many times said - feminism is dead, and feminists as bearers of defeated ideology are doomed to frustration and desperation.

The newly elected Congress is the first Congress in 30 years in which there will be less women than in the previous one. In other words - for the first time in 30 years the number of women in Congress has not increased, but decreased. That means only one thing: the people have finally realized all the harm of feminism, and feminism will never again have a chance to destroy America for the second time.

----------------------------------------------------
Single men is the only social group benefited from feminism.

Matt said:

Lately I have been toying with the concept that due to brain physiology and body-physiological factors such as hormone balance variations that exist between the sexes, the net result is that women are programmed to view themselves as oppressed/scared/worried about the future as a natural matter of course and no amount of stuff will ever change that, and that social structures have come into place as a result of these things, not as a means of engineering some other model.

There's no reason to think it impossible, or even unlikely, that we have evolved genetically to view overprotection of females as being a good thing even if it harms males. In every sexually reproducing species "it's all about the female" (i.e. female biology is the limiting factor in reproduction - treating females as special is how species have survived). Human behavior in all cultures is consistent with this concept.

Can anyone name a culture that systematically sacrifices women's lives to protect men's? How can that be unless there's something more fundamental going on?

Feminism is more about tweaking selected features of species-wide behavior than about any fundamental change in male/female relations. It's an upgrade rather than a replacement of the more traditional rules.

nbdspcl said:

The newly elected Congress is the first Congress in 30 years in which there will be less women than in the previous one. In other words - for the first time in 30 years the number of women in Congress has not increased, but decreased. That means only one thing: the people have finally realized all the harm of feminism, and feminism will never again have a chance to destroy America for the second time.

Feminism's success is dependent on males behaving according to the "it's all about the female" concept. The alpha-male wannabes that make up most of Congress are examples of feminism's success, not it's failure. But even that will become a positive feedback mechanism; feminists will rationalize even more favored treatment based on the fact that the most successful and persistent panderers to their cause are male. And guess what, it will be mostly men that deliver.

I'm single,I wouldn't say bennefit from feminism I'm just a better survivor!

Among destruction of their ideology, when every day delivers another hard blow to their positions in society, all what is left to feminists is optimistic dreams and pathetic tries to put a brave face on a sorry business.

----------------------------------------------------
Single men is the only social group benefited from feminism.

"Lately I have been toying with the concept that due to brain physiology and body-physiological factors such as hormone balance variations that exist between the sexes, the net result is that women are programmed to view themselves as oppressed/scared/worried about the future as a natural matter of course and no amount of stuff will ever change that, and that social structures have come into place as a result of these things, not as a means of engineering some other model."

I suppose that could always be used against them. They fall in love with the oppressed (but must be remedied) status and I have wondered before if they were partly tricked out of the house and back into work via the "oppression" argument. (Keep in mind women used to do real work before the modern "housewife" and huge middle class). I recently saw a video from the "man woman myth" site claiming that women's selfish psychology was used to get them into the workforce after it was tested in WWII via... Feminism but by corporate/greedy type of leaders.

Now I will run with this idea. Obviously what was done has not resulted in anything close to equal treatment/opportunity as women have still been treated in a privileged way. But equal treatment was never really the point, accordingly. None of the male issues that were problems before Feminism have been addressed in any seriousness and now men have many new problems because of Feminism. Women have expanded some of what was already their privilege pre Feminism such as health issues and more which I don't know how to categorize. So basically what has happened according to the video is that women were tricked into to doing something they probably would not have wanted to do on their own which was leaving the house to go (back) to work. Along the way they got many new privileges/advantages, which hurt many men, which I suppose helped to convince them that Feminism was all for them.

So while Feminism has spread so much vile directly at men I do see one opportunity that has been given. We now have some platforms for "equality" and questioning the gender relationships. What a beast female entitlement and chivalry are but maybe we are in a position to finally address male dislosability.

Im also getting the idea that part if what Feminism is about is just plain destroying men as opposed to bettering the situation for women because of jealousy or envy I suppose. Maybe the get angry at what they aren't good at or can't understand. The recent anti Feminism meeting in Switzerland brought up Feminism as sometimes an inferiority complex. Maybe alot of these feminists can't see themselves as honorable, loyal, inventive, artistic, sacrificial (true self sacrifice), or even simple things like good storyteller or quick wit which is more often true of men. Maybe that explains the all across hate and dismantling of men (I'm mean patriarchy :P).

"Can anyone name a culture that systematically sacrifices women's lives to protect men's? How can that be unless there's something more fundamental going on?"

Good question. We know without a doubt that there were many societies much better than the current west. And I don't just mean since Feminism. I can't help but think this how fucked up it is that children have been largely separated from their fathers many years now even before Feminism. When fathers had to be the sole providers and worked in factories or offices far from the "community" and family. Its quite unnatural and I don't see much benefit to fathers for that situation, just vulnerability. I think that is one significant factor that allowed Feminism and women's selfishness to take root. Would if women had greater influence on kids (the next generation) and men were more vulnerable because too much of their relation to their kids happened through women.

As for the disposability of men vs women, I'm not too sure about that history. I do know that things can chance to different degrees. Look how different cultures treated children. Some cultures have thought of them as somewhat disposable, some treating the firstborn much better, and some cultures hold the youth as very non-disposable. Our culture fits the latter, but my opinion of that has changed ALOT since all these abortions and women getting away with murder and abuse as if their property of women. The point being is that things seem somewhat dependent on the circumstances. I also know that labour used to be more dangerous but was necessary for women to do. Now that we have over 6 billion people and tons of abortions its especially stupid to try and protect the women.

(I wonder if we ATM might be protecting women over kids not because of instinct but women ability to market themselves. For myself I'd feel more for the kid than the woman.)