Feminism is the process by which women take credit for the innovations by mostly celibate men which made them want to enter the workforce more. Feminism is the logical outcome of advanced industry/technology and the natural proclivity of females to maximize their mating strategy of hypergamy in liberal countries.
It is not only a reaction, but also a philosophy. The philosophy (falsely) claims that men currently have more societal power and reproductive choice than women, and therefore national movements must seek to give women more power and choice (“equality”). Feminism’s defenders often imply (falsely) that infinite female sexual choice will, “trickle down”, to sub-8 men in a country with high sexual dimorphism. Modern, millennial feminists regularly celebrate and promote male disposability in social life and dreephilia with regards to inceldom, at the same time that they claim they are the only valid representatives of male issues.
Feminists believe women (and often society) should never assume collective responsibility for the distribution of women’s affection towards men (unless it has to do with a vogue racial issue), usually on the basis of some neoliberal argument. This non-altruism feminists exhibit with regards to men (which incels react to) is deeply sociopathic and combative.
Over a hundred years ago, advanced technology and industrialization came around made by men, making jobs safer for women, and women joined the workforce. Now that women were comfy enough to claim taxpayer status, men gave women the vote and positions of power in politics and the workplace. This occurred before the “feminist” or “suffragette” movement even began. The first wave feminist movement mainly occurred in the late 19th century, with Denmark being the first country having a feminist movement starting in 1871. Women started getting the right to vote in the 1700’s, the same century the industrial revolution started, and way before any suffragette movement.
Only problem with this new paradigm is that women usually aren’t sexually attracted to men who are lower in hierarchies of social status and money than they are. So as women gained dominance in traditional male hierarchies, they complained a bunch about there being “no good men” aka the dwindling amount of men wealthier or more powerful than them to give them tingles. As less men gave them tingles more incels were created and more men were sent their own way. And as women gained more dominance in society they complained more about beta males, and "rape" etc...
They even created campaigns against these increasing amount of men lower on the social hierarchy than them they are not sexually attracted to, with the most extreme advocating androcide. Movements like:
Anti Catcalling Movement: aka “Men poorer than me better not hit on me in public”
Anti Manspreading Movement: aka “Public transport users (people poorer than me, or people who have not yet proved they are higher status than me) should not make me think of their junk”
Metoo movement: aka “Autistic and socially isolated ugly men who can't read social cues should be locked up or ridiculed as much as rapists”
Female Contempt for an Obvious Outcome of Feminism: Househusbands
A world where young women make more money than young men would seem to necessitate an increase in house-husbands. The male liberation movement, a subset of male feminist MRAs in the 1960’s wanted a dramatic increase in househusbands. However even in the most feminist countries, women will still expect the man to work or else a breakup, even if she makes enough to provide for the family in an uber-welfare state. This is of course, insanely pointless.
Even in a country where feminism is institutional and mainstream, where equal-pay laws are in place, and where women have more total personal wealth than men, “the key factor in the decision to divorce is whether Hubby (note, not the wife) has a job. If he doesn’t, even if his job loss is involuntary, his odds of being ditched by his wife skyrocket”.
Early 20th century, anti-feminist and Marxist Belfort Bax’s quote still remains true, “Among all the women’s rights advocates I am not aware of one who, in her zeal for equality between the sexes, has ever suggested abolishing the right of maintenance of the wife by the husband.”
And as the 21st century, right-wing provocateur named, “Eggman”, put it, “Talk to any US woman and they’ll tell you about men offering and buying them all sorts of things: vacations, houses, cars… When was the last time a woman offered to buy you a house or car, now that we have gender equality and all?”
Most women say that, in theory, they would love to have a house-husband, this is an idea known in feminist theory as the “structural power hypothesis”; the idea that gender roles are derived from early socialization and men’s supposed cultural privilege and higher status in regards to women (i.e “the patriarchy”) supposedly leads to men as a collective constructing rigid gender roles that are beneficial to their own sexual and economic interests. This is plainly contradicted by the relevant research    that clearly demonstrates that when women attain higher wealth and social status, these gender roles are not obviated, but instead reinforced. A choice quote from the works previously referenced: (The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture) “Fifteen feminists leaders, when asked what traits they sought in a man, regularly used words which connote high status: ‘very rich’ or ‘brilliant’ or ‘genius’. Large tips, lavish dinners, stunning suits, and so forth were regularly referred to. In short these (feminist) women wanted superpowerful men.”
It seems that women therefore, naturally recoil at the idea of not using a man to financially provide for her, calling such men who are poor or who don’t live up to masculine gender roles as, “manchildren”, no matter how generous the welfare state she is in or how much money she makes.
A 100% Completed Feminist World Be Better for Incels Than Partial Feminism… Theory
So far we see that feminism literally creates incels, but there may be a silver lining in a 100% feminist universe compared to a partial feminist universe, in that feminists feminize societies to the point where all men are so beta that the male intra-sexual competition may become smaller. Since no men ask women out in the 100% feminist universe once men are so beta. Becoming more feminist but not getting to 100% feminism may also be desirable for incels to avoid polygamy. Because of the impetus for women to achieve college degrees *and date*, assuming monogamy is enforced by non-feminist entities, feminism may continue to force more women to date down in educational status, letting more men not have to date complete morons.
The Less Difference Between the Sexes, the Less of a Problem Feminism Becomes
Otto Weininger argued that in humans, the less sexually dimorphic the genders, the less of a problem female sexual liberation becomes. Whereas, if there is high sexual dimorphism in humans, female sexual liberation leads to agitation, domestic abuse against husbands, and corruption of the arts and science by feminine women expressing vanity and seeking male attention.
The problem is that sexually liberated women naturally promote sexual dimorphism, which is widely known as the gender equality paradox. So obviously, freeing the sexual marketplace isn’t the first step to a free sexual market without civilizational decline. In order to establish women a free sexual market peacefully, if such a thing were desirable, first attention should be paid to reducing sexual dimorphism or sex differences, even if that means reducing female sexual choice temporarily. If such a change were made permanent, and there was very little sexual dimorphism between the sexes, to the point of almost not being able to distinguish between the sexes, female sexual liberation would probably not lead to civilizational decline, or at least the kind that we see now.
The Eradication of Feminism is Best for Incels… Theory
Because feminism has created more incels, many if not most self-identified incels don’t subscribe to the previous theory and think modern matriarchies won’t be sexually generous. Also, given prominent feminists have explicitly called for an, “end of men”, anti-feminists have every right to be wary of feminist’s attitude towards the health of men.
Anti-feminists should argue for a generous patriarchy with strictly socially enforced monogamy as not all patriarchies are alike. In most if not all modern patriarchal countries, polygyny arises and men hoard women, causing inceldom as well. And in patriarchal muslim countries, the hoarding of women in harems, inflates the bride-price so high that there exists a vast underclass of singe men who are susceptible to the promise of either real life brides or virgin brides in the afterlife through terrorist organization like al-Qaeda or ISIS. It is for this reason that people joke about incels and muslim terrorists on incel boards. Some incels also believe that the only kind of pro-natalism that can be achieved to wipe out inceldom would be through a racial supremacist movement, which partly explains why people like Richard Spencer pander to incels.
Feminists Put Idealized Female Agency Above Happiness, Always
Feminists in the United States take it as almost axiomatic that human penises are disgusting. Modern US millennial feminist posters relentlessly shame penises as being “abundant and therefore low value and not important”, implying that male sexuality should be evaluated on a fwee mawket demand/supply curve rather than society adjusting for inequality. Men are taught from a very early age to be ashamed of their genitalia by religion, but once they enter the adult world, this shaming is also partly institutionalized by feminism. The process of making men ashamed of their own sexual organs is part of the “neutering” process critics of feminism reference. Penis shaming also probably contributes to perverted forms of male exhibitionism, which is often done in desperation of female recognition. The goal of penis shaming is to lower the value of men, and it’s working.
The patriarchy is a false theory on how men enslaved and dehumanized woman throughout history. feminists often use the fact that woman couldn’t vote, go to school or work. however the first time a woman graduated with a degree was in 1237 which is a long time ago. during the 1800’s woman had direct access to university and coed studies were implemented 200 years ago in most countries.
Also, woman had jobs since the dawn of time. even in ancient civilizations (as quoted in wikipedia). In fact, it was common for woman to have jobs in all societies throughout history. Back in the 1870’s 2/3 of teachers were female. The third and final point is voting. Generally speaking, woman didn’t get to vote because they weren’t in charge of matters that involve security and safety (such as wars or garrison). Their lack of experience with those issues could endanger society.
In general, feminists hate any studies which have to do with mating, including but not limited to studies from sociology, social psychology, and evolutionary biology. The main arch nemesis of feminism in the social sciences is evolutionary psychology, which many feminists regard as a pseudo-scientific veneer over its practitioners misogyny, despite there existing a minor trend in feminism that attempts to integrate some of its findings as they pertain to women and the relations between the sexes.
There is also a trend in modern feminism that regards the very Aristotelean foundations of Western empirical though as being a mere artefact of the patriarchy; a male imposition of rigid logic in opposition to the supposedly superior “female intuition”.
- Women don’t owe you anything
- Incel accelerationism
- Male feminists
- Apex fallacy
- The Pay Gap
- Purple poodle
- Human nature and civilization – MGTOW and Feminism – Red Pill Germany (May 26, 2016) (Size: 11:53 min.)
This page probably contains text from an editor (Altmark) who wanted his text released under CC-BY-4.0. This template is automatically applied to every page we think he ever touched, no matter how minor the edit, even if just a period. Even though he mainly edited the “Scientific Blackpill” page, in order to reduce complexity, William also releases his text on this page under the same license, and so this whole page is CC-BY-4.0. If using the whole page you may credit it as: William, Altmark et al, unless otherwise stated to not credit William, in which case to just credit: Altmark et al. Most other pages on this wiki we declare as unlicensed to re-use outside of here unless expressely stated by email and under the conditions listed in the email.