I was reading an article on Bounding into Comics about the latest gender swap and the shill media praising it and somebody in the comments mentioned that fact that his wife had a book club where they read romance novels and how foolish he would look if he demanded to join the book club and then demand that everyone read Tom Clancy or spy/military thrillers that he likes.
It made me wonder why there is this obsessive push to get women into hobbies that generally appeal to males. I mean women have always been interested in nerdy stuff but it is absurd the levels they keep pushing it and then attacking anyone as a "manbaby" who has an objection.
I remember when I still had a game informer magazine subscription it was at least every other issue that had some story about women in gaming and of course all the "abuse" they suffered. I know women were involved with Atari as well as Sierra games and others but just because a hobby appeals to males doesn't make it bad.
When the He-Man show was announced for Netflix (which I don't believe for a minute will be a show that doesn't push the whole strong women thing) the usual suspects on twitter were complaining about how men were crying about the She-ra show so they had to make He-man and then added that girls can't have anything for themselves.
So why do you think there is this obsessive push to get girls into things that boys generally like?
I like this summary. I've known for a while that what they say isn't anywhere close to what their goal is but I guess I never landed on it being simply "dismantle". I guess it's pretty damn obvious. Maybe it's just hard to relate because even when I'm miserable and suffering I don't get the urge to drag other people down, I just want help. It's like these people are drowning and when you extend a hand to help they shove your head underwater and use your corpse to float
The key thing that incels don't understand is that women are malleable and meek.
It's why they set up such a strong front. Bitch face, shit tests, mockery, makeup, fashion, standing in groups. It's protection, they are trying to intimidate you, and make you doubt yourself, because if you get past it they are completely open.
You can just walk over to a girl and program her. When you become better and more experienced at it, you can do it in a remarkably short amount of time. It doens't matter what you look like, or what you do. It matters how you present.
Women are attracted to 10% of men, yet most of them end up married, or are in a relationship. How does that work, are they all miserable?
No, they are attracted to 10% of men based on external factors sure, but they are attracted to nearly 100% of men who make more money than them after creating an emotional bond with them, and these bonds are created quickly. And then most of them become submissive. It's all genetic - it's not going to change.
The goal of the subversion is to make men forget how to be men. Only in a world where men are fearful and brainwashed to tip toe around women and supress their own inherent benevolent yet dominating power can there ever potentially be equality of outcomes. Masculinity is a threat to them, because it's their cryptonite.
You can't have equity if men are firing on all cylinders. As u/50BMG wrote; they will fight among themselves at first to determine a merit based hierarchy, and then unify and take the fight to the external threat.
And so out of necessity, when more reasonable measures fail, they keep escalating to more and more unreasonable measure.
You start with telling men not to dominate. Then you tell boys in school. Still not working, so you need to do more than just tell them. What if you stop them from doing some stuff? Yeah, what if it's rough and tumble play that makes them this way. So you ban rough and tumble play. Then you put the message in every piece of art and entertainment. Maybe the problem is just that men can't be allowed to talk to other men, because behind closed doors they reaffirm to each other their masculinity, maybe they confirm to each other that they're not helpless and alone with their thoughts, so you ban mens clubs. Then you need to breach their new spaces and ruin those as well. Maybe if you take away their hobbies they'll have more time to sit through the indoctrination. Maybe if you control all information, and carefully make sure that they never see anything you don't want them to, they will change. And it's still not working. They're not going to stop, they are not going to give up, beucase they are acting out their genes.
All in pursuit of equity, which is a need that has its roots in the trait of neroticism. So it's not just women who push for equity, it also neurotic men, just that there are far fewer of those.
Except if made to feel more neurotic, which is the state of feeling under threat. An ideology that spreads through neuroticism, is going to optimize for more neuroticism, and push more people into neurotic states, and as it does it gets stronger.
To actually achieve equity they need blank slate theory to be correct. But it's not. So they will either lose or create a dystopia. History repeating itself.
None of this needs an organizer or a "them" btw, it's all happening organically. Our genes playing a metagame on a global scale.
Is there an evolutionary explanation for why they do this?
We know that women are high on neurotisicm from personality tests. And let's be honest here; from simple observation. Exactly why would be a combination of things and not easy to pinpoint.
Referring to u/50BMG again he mentions a few things here
Women are likely collectivists because they depend on groups to protect them, and because they for millennia were the keepers of the camp in constant social engagement with the need to maintain harmony and find indirect ways of resolving social conflict.
They are more neurotic probably because they were weaker and being attuned to anxiety and fear was likely a positive selection bias for most of history. Survival depended on seeking the protection of others, and things in the world like human or animal predators were a much bigger and more constant risk to them.
They are more risk averse for similar reasons. And more forgiving and submissive towards the in-group, and ruthless and passive-agressive towards the out-group.
They have always carried the flames of whatever ideology is dominant - it's what you would expect neurotic people to do; huddle together and embrace the groupthink for added feelings of protection.
Equity is just an extention of that. The promise of finally being able to shed that fear in a world where everyone is safe and equal - not reaalizing that the fear is screaming at them from their genes, not from society which is the safest it has ever been, and where they are already massively provledged.
It's at least partly driven by their zero-sum view of the world.
Because they just about worship equity, they've taken a mindset whereby taking something away from a person is the same as giving everybody else that something. That, combined with the hegemonic, totalitarian view of the world that's very common, means that there's a two-fold drive to make every activity about their religion - and simply remove any men's spaces because it's something women don't have.
I like this comment. I would add that destruction is plan 1A. Conversion is plan 1B. If they can make the space work for them, they will use it. If not, they will burn it down and move on.