Superioridade evolutiva feminista em manipulação verbal cria aceitação mundial de distorções lógicas feministas

Comentários (12)
Citações (5)
Related Posts

#1 by Schopenbecq on 04:05 PM - 04:05 PM

Like or Dislike: 0 1
Excellent post. I’ll link to it on my site tommorrow.

I agree entirely with your analysis. People often say that the internet will lead to geeks taking over the world, and that may be true economically and career wise (amongst men). But mass communication greatly increases the ability of women to manipulate men via their superior verbal abilities.

I honestly don’t have much hope anymore. The only hope is if new technology eventually renders the sex war arms race meaningless in some way. And that’s probably not much hope.

Men will never wake up. Men will be like those Jews in the holocaust photos meekly digging their own graves before being shot.

Resposta Citar
#2 by admin on 01:41 AM - 01:41 AM

Like or Dislike: 0 1
Schopenbecq, very true.

Could not say things better then the way you say them. It is so amazing that men take the bait, get totally brainwashed and actually foster female goals in their law making and law enforcement.

This manipulation power is amazing, startling. How can they get away with such flawed logic, such drivel? but they do:

http://human-stupidity.com/stupid-dogma/prostitution/feminist-arguments-against-prostitution-dismantled

Resposta Citar
#3 by The Highwayman on 04:52 PM - 04:52 PM

Like or Dislike: 0 1
Esther Villar’s book THE MANIPULATED MAN and Victor Woodhull’s book SEX AND MATRIARCHY advance a thesis similar to yours.

Villar essentially argues that men in western societies are women’s slaves and that women (at least subconsciously) know it. She goes on to talk about the tactics that women use to trick men into believing that they are the king of the castle when they are in fact at their wives beck and call. The book was written in the early 1970s and apparently the author still recieves hate mail today from other women who accuse her of spilling the beans and betraying her gender. While I do think that it is a good book I do have one major objection to it: the author believes that “feminine” traits in women are in reality a mask put on by women to manipulate men. I believe that a woman can be feminine AND non-manipulative and besides femininity is very pleasing to most men.

Woodhull’s book focuses more on evopsych and argues that women gain control over men by trying to raise the price of sex as much as possible. His approach is quite similar to Schopenbecq’s. The book argues that the needs of sexually deprived males need to be addressed and that this should be achieved in part through liberalized prostitution laws and such. The book is silent on Age of Consent and sex with adolescent girls perhaps because the author has fully internalized the american cultural meme that sex with girls “under 18″ is a crime of unspeakable horror akin to rape.

They are both decent books though, check them out if you have the chance.

Resposta Citar
#4 by evilwhitemalempire on 01:35 AM - 01:35 AM

Like or Dislike: 0 1
“So the historical stone age balance of power is:
•men have economical and physical superiority,
•women have verbal manipulation, cunningness, intrigue, social manipulation.
Nowadays, men surrendered their physical and economical power. Women maintained and expanded their verbal manipulative social power
Men surrendered both their advantages. Winning an argument with physical violence became criminalized. ”

All of this sounds very similar to this.

When food is scarce alphas monopolize both food and sex.
But when food is plentiful alphas monopolize only sex. This allows more ‘runts’ to live and thus form coalitions against the alphas ousting them by strength of numbers to get the females.
When this happens the next generation of males is less alpha than the previous. Sensing the weakness in the next generation emboldens the females.
If this process repeats itself over and over again you get a positive feedback loop where the weaker males continually replace stronger ones thus further emboldening the females relative to the males.

Resposta Citar
#5 by Karl on 08:51 PM - 08:51 PM

Like or Dislike: 0 0
I’m a male and I don’t like feminism. But I think that if women were treated truelly equally in the first place our society wouldnt be out of balance today. Women were not allowed to grow academically or spiritually. Westerners come from a society where the males did not recognize and the females were not taught or shown the beauty of femininity. They were only shown that they were of little value and males were of high value. This caused the death of femininity in a society where the only perceived value were masculine traits. Theres no one to blame except western society as a whole. Feminism used to bother me but hey theres a shitload of women in the world who arent of the western culture. I know how to appreciate femininity.

Resposta Citar
- #6 by SMC on 07:52 PM - 07:52 PM
  
  Like or Dislike: 0 0
  Karl, western females were already over privileged. That is why men lost power …like straws on the camel’s back–it simply broke in the 18th thru mid 20th cents.
  
  There is no such thing as equal (especially between the genders). So therefore if females were “allowed” to be equal earlier, they simply would have taken over earlier.
  
  You don’t understand ‘dimorphic sexuality’, gender, sex, nature. (And the those that do have lied to you, motivated by politics.)
  
  http://seanmaccloud.blogspot.com/
  
  Again, freedom cult doesn’t–its adherents don’t– understand ‘dimorphic sexuality’, gender, sex, nature. (And the those that do have lied, motivated by politics.)
  
  Resposta Citar
#7 by Timothy on 12:35 AM - 12:35 AM

Like or Dislike: 0 0
When this happens the next generation of males is less alpha than the previous. Sensing the weakness in the next generation emboldens the females.

This is a load of bs. What really happened, is that the government benefits from the sexes battling against each other, so they allowed cultural marxism to take hold in the form of feminism. Women are more easily manipulated to give away rights and freedoms for privileges.

Resposta Citar
- #8 by SMC on 07:46 PM - 07:46 PM
  
  Like or Dislike: 0 0
  Timothy,
  
  How did govt’s pit the genders against each other?
  
  Resposta Citar
- #9 by SMC on 07:49 PM - 07:49 PM
  
  Like or Dislike: 0 0
  Timothy,
  
  How did govt’s pit the genders against each other?
  
  How did the men loose the power to prevent govts from conferring privileges on females?
  
  Why do govts/pols want “power”.
  
  Resposta Citar
#10 by anonymous on 07:30 AM - 07:30 AM

Like or Dislike: 0 0
Karl you are wrong. Women received education and where praised to heaven with all the poetry and literature and art. Damn women even worked in the past.

Resposta Citar
#11 by Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c) on 10:50 AM - 10:50 AM

Like or Dislike: 0 0
You do realise that the Powers that Be are running feminism don’t you?

http://www.henrymakow.com

Once you know it is the Rothchilds and the Rockefellers pushing feminism in the west the reason for it’s ‘success’ becomes a lot more obvious.

Resposta Citar
- #12 by Jonny on 07:12 PM - 07:12 PM
  
  Like or Dislike: 0 0
  Consequences of the “bad boy” and “nice guy” (false) dichotomy:
  
  Women have been and are encouraged to pursue men posessing an exclusive set of traits that has effectively alienated both the effeminate “nice guy” and the characterful “good guys”. They have thrown the baby out with the bathwater not due to natural biology but due to a cultural meme that has elevated what seems to be sensation and emotionalism to divine echelons which are treated with more importance than food, shelter, or clothing. I don’t think feminism is the driving force behind this meme though it may once have been.
  
  Women have been and still are encouraged to pursue “bad boys” encouraged to demonize “nice guy” and all to the exclusion of “good guy” which has resulted in a naive opinion of men that effectively catalyzes feminist interests. Women don’t demonize good guy and will even publicly praise him when prompted but this is only superficial because in terms of social economics good guy ends-up ignored as women devote the majority of their attention to bad boy. This is partly due to the mythical and selfish view that a marriage serves “me” as opposed to the realistic view that marriage requires “my” service. This is also due to a woman’s irrational judgement and fear that all non-badboys are effeminate nice guys. This is fundamentally rooted in an increasingly isolationist non-communal society steeped in a culture of fear that is forced to evaluate individuals entirely upon superficial and visible characteristics and faults. Bad boy is optimized for superficial and visible positive traits and his undesirable faults are well-concealed. The other guys are not and many positive traits remain undiscovered. Apropos, the feminist decries the lack of “real men” in society.
  
  These women incorrectly believe that all men identify with the bad boy charicature in either a set of his positive traits or his negative traits. They aren’t paying attention to anything they don’t have some kind of emotional attachment to. So is it the woman’s fault or the man’s fault? Post hoc ergo propter hoc: this is a circulal cause and consequence evident in a self-fulfilling prophesy demonstrated in sexual selection. Women have the power to choose the good guy and breed more good guys, and by the same token the bad boy can choose to cultivate good guy characteristics in himself and in his offspring. Recent studies in epigenetic heritability show that environmental factors and circumstances have long lasting, permanent and seemingly genetic effects on offspring which only empowers (burdens?) prospective parents with more responsibility. It is also interesting to note by this science that the behavior and choices of individuals have substantial impact on their future offspring long before they have them.
  
  With the aforementioned false binary view of men, the cultural meme states:
  - Men are cheaters
  - Men are liars
  - Men are lazy
  - Men are abusive
  - Men are stupid
  - Men love to party
  - Men love to smoke, drink, and do drugs
  - Men are indiscriminate in sexual selection
  - Men are insensitive
  - Men are perverted
  - Men are needy
  - Men get what they want
  
  …and ignores other demonstrated characteristics such as:
  - Men are conscientious
  - Men are self-controlled
  - Men are self-disciplined
  - Men make commitments
  - Men make sacrifices
  - Men persevere
  - Men have social fidelity
  - Men are patient
  - Men are generous
  
  These women have become addicted to the former set of characteristics in a male and ignore the latter set with respect to sexual selection. The former undermine stability and cultivate chaos and disorder which evoke powerful (and therefore addictive) emotions in the woman. In a culture with excess, the relevant consequences are rarely a factor.
  
  Now we have a woman with a double-minded cognitive dissonance. She simultaneously loaths and worships bad boy while marginalizing edifying gender-neutral characteristics conducive to stability and thriving long-life of which any (good, bad, nice) guy can posess or integrate. This is because, to put it bluntly, those characteristics are boring and since they do not serve the idols of the age, of which I believe to be sensationalism and emotionalism, she has no incentive to invest in them.
  
  Those who embrace these idols of the age will consistently marginalize good guy. If more and more continue to embrace the idols of the age, good guy will suffer attrition as people will become oblivious to his benefits and think there is no incentive to invest in him.
  
  If men and women at least respond with anger towards good guy, it lends him credence and visibility and there is still hope for him. Though the evokation of anger and wrath is a sign of weakness and an unsubstantiated position, good guy threatens the orthodoxy of the age and the consequences could be devastating for him. A part of me sees no conflict more beautiful and blessed than this. Until that time, respond to indifference with invitation and lend a helping hand to the poor fools on autopilot.
  
  Resposta Citar