The feminist movement was a societal shit test that men failed miserably. Now feminized boys are taking over womenโs spaces at a tiny percentage of what they did to male spaces and they cry murder. I hold no sympathy for women reaping what they sow, whatโs hilarious is now they are crying for masculinity while simultaneously trying to destroy it. Enjoy your bathroom rape and sensitivity training cunts, we tried to warn you.
Tempting to indulge in schadenfreude, but did you pick up on the author's subtext that we're facing the end of humanity? We have to negotiate with reasonable women and come to an agreement or it's game over.
I'm not a malthusian so I don't agree with population reduction as a matter of policy. The way I interpreted her fears was that the nightmare of transhumanism and the bio-security state could spell our doom if we don't settle our differences and start strengthening the bonds between men and women, creating strong families and reproducing in greater numbers.
The theory states that food production will not be able to keep up with growth in the human population
While that's probably true, it would also be self-correcting.
My objection to excessive numbers of people is because of what I've seen it do to our landscapes, and because of how overcrowding drives humans insane. Think it's bad now, just wait until 10 billion. Plus, there's not a single problem facing humanity that wouldn't be totally solved by a correctly sized population for the territory.
This is just a problematic way for you to be thinking because it's not rooted in freedom.
If we take your statements as a given, then who decides what the proper sized population is? Who decides what people have to die or be relocated? This is authoritarian thinking of top-down control, like Communist China. Maybe you solve some of the problems, but you're bound to create all kinds of new problems with these ideas.
'Who decides' is a problem because of how unintelligent our species is. Someone would have to impose functionality on us. It's not innate, and as you say, would require top-down control.
That alone is another reason to limit our numbers. But there's no solution from within, and we're determined to go right to total self-destruction. Survivors will be able to pick through our bones for metals and other resources, and hopefully that won't be productive enough to spiral out of control again.
What kind of problems do you foresee with humanity living in small towns and villages, producing most of their own food locally, and generally living in harmony with the environment?
To those on the Right who say โfeminism got us here; youโve made your bed ladies, now lie in itโ I say: I get where youโre coming from, but donโt be stupid.
Is this a TERF begging for an alliance with the right to solve the tranny problem? I know the idea is controversial in this community but regardless of how you feel about it I think we can all agree it would divide the right (probably a goal of hers). I'm also not convinced there's a way to go about it that won't result in the TERFs shitting everything up.
It's also important to remember that the TERFs and troons are playing the exact same game. The troons are just far better at it. We told them that the game is retarded, and both sides of the pissing match called us Nazis. The TERFs aren't outraged at tranny abuses. They're outraged that they're not the abusers. If we were to ride to the TERFs' rescue and make the tranny problem disappear the victorious TERFs would proceed to subject everyone to the exact same bullshit the troons are subjecting us to right now. Only the TERFs would be the abusers in that case, so they'd be fine with it.
Lets be honest, teaming up with feminism is a bad idea because feminisim uses people, governments, institutions and even ideas for their own purposes only to toss them away and trash them to get the next leg up. Any talk of allying would come with a knife in the back.
Relabel your movement as a "bio-libertarianism" takeover and deflect the blame there. Wow, very surprising tactic by the feminist.
Does she ask how or why these "bio-libertarians" succeeded? Does she ask why belief in the patriarchy is so widespread and deeply held among feminists? I think she is projecting when she says she is frustrated with conservatives not looking closer at feminism. She knows she is on a path that leads to a place that holds uncomfortable truth. She wants conservatives to stop it so that she can remain blissfully ignorant.
Funny how she advocates for more obligations, yet her refusal to actually articulate them stands out like an Adam's apple on a tranny's neck.
This is a pathetic plea asking stronger men to help her "retake" the movement because she admits that their ideals have no goal. Never trust anyone that won't declare how much they will be contributing to the pot.
I'm sure there's probably some cognitive dissonance at play with her. She's able to see all of these bad things feminism ended up causing but is it feminism's fault? Noooooo it couldn't be that! I-it's "bio-libertarianism!" Women were too focused on their own freedom!! This isn't real feminism!!! (Now, where have we seen this before? ๐ค)
She just needs to take that one last step out of the comfortable confines of her ideology but just can't bring herself to do it. That's understandable (note, I didn't say okay). Most women are feminists nowadays even if they don't actively call themselves feminist because that's what society pushes and that's what they're immersed in from early childhood onwards. Completely repudiating it would be incredibly damaging to their ego because they've spent their entire lives framing themselves and the world through the lens of feminism. Everything they thought and believed was true about the world and their role in it would be completely swept away in an instant. This is assuming they're even at the point of seeing all the cracks in the surface. Many still aren't there and may never get there.
It'd probably be easier to take that last step if they had a different framework to rest on, but they don't.
Interesting article thatโs probably a 10 minute read give or take a few. The writer looks at the current state of things with women, feminism, etc. She (imo) correctly notes how much of it has contributed to the atomization of people and how that has helped enable a sort of โneo-feudalismโ thatโs
underwritten by an emerging bio-security state that disciplines and surveils our bodies even as it proposes to terraform our souls. It would de-regulate human nature itself. Open up our bodies as markets for biotech. Applaud males for embracing a surgically feminised โgender identityโ, while re-branding females as โgestatorsโ, chestfeedersโ, โbirthing bodiesโ or just โuterus-haversโ.
That a lot of what feminism has done has made it easy for our humanity itself to be destroyed and remodeled โin the name of utopia.โ And that, through fighting this, feminismโs interest align with those of conservatives.
The articleโs worth reading just in that it shows even some left-aligned people are seeing how the things they fought for arenโt all they were cracked up to be. She's still a feminist though, so who knows whether they'll start actually backtracking or not.
Unherd.com is a UK based online magazine that was started by former Daily Telegraph and Independent journo Sally Chatterton so says Wikipedia. Iโm not familiar with the sort of slant it gives but it lists Ayaan Hirsi Ali as one of its contributors so it canโt be all bad. After a minute of skimming Iโd maybe say itโs center-left in its framing. Maybe something akin to a more lefty Quillette?
Yes, but I will not trust the reformed leftist because they were too blinded by their ideology to realize they were shifting the entire system to make EVERYBODY interchangable and thus replaceable and insignificant.
Well, this was what we were trying to tell you dumb cunts for decades: what you're doing will turn everything into shit. Now they got what they wanted and are complaining that it turned into shit, and are telling us we now have to turn their shit pile back into a functioning society.
Go blow. Men can have kids when they're old and can wait for the next gen of girls that are 18 and hungry for a man that doesn't like to suck cock or watch her get fucked by other men. Zoomers are nearly untouchables now.
>Nor is the sexual revolution going back in its box
k
What we need to face this challenge is not more freedom. Itโs more and better obligations.
Not a bad idea, I think we ca-
Marriage has the power to convene radical loyalty, in the interests of life in common. For a feminism that centres care, this is self-evidently a good thing. So here the interests of twenty-first century feminism converge with those of conservatives.
The feminist movement was a societal shit test that men failed miserably. Now feminized boys are taking over womenโs spaces at a tiny percentage of what they did to male spaces and they cry murder. I hold no sympathy for women reaping what they sow, whatโs hilarious is now they are crying for masculinity while simultaneously trying to destroy it. Enjoy your bathroom rape and sensitivity training cunts, we tried to warn you.
Tempting to indulge in schadenfreude, but did you pick up on the author's subtext that we're facing the end of humanity? We have to negotiate with reasonable women and come to an agreement or it's game over.
Live on your knees or die on your feet. The writer is the problem, compromising with people who view you as slaves will never end with balance.
Yeah, she picks up on that but still can't quite over that last hurdle of realizing feminism was a large part of why we've gotten here.
If we wanted to be uncharitable we could say she wanted men to come in and pick up the mess women made lol
It's the end unless we drastically reduce the human population.
I'm not a malthusian so I don't agree with population reduction as a matter of policy. The way I interpreted her fears was that the nightmare of transhumanism and the bio-security state could spell our doom if we don't settle our differences and start strengthening the bonds between men and women, creating strong families and reproducing in greater numbers.
While that's probably true, it would also be self-correcting.
My objection to excessive numbers of people is because of what I've seen it do to our landscapes, and because of how overcrowding drives humans insane. Think it's bad now, just wait until 10 billion. Plus, there's not a single problem facing humanity that wouldn't be totally solved by a correctly sized population for the territory.
This is just a problematic way for you to be thinking because it's not rooted in freedom.
If we take your statements as a given, then who decides what the proper sized population is? Who decides what people have to die or be relocated? This is authoritarian thinking of top-down control, like Communist China. Maybe you solve some of the problems, but you're bound to create all kinds of new problems with these ideas.
'Who decides' is a problem because of how unintelligent our species is. Someone would have to impose functionality on us. It's not innate, and as you say, would require top-down control.
That alone is another reason to limit our numbers. But there's no solution from within, and we're determined to go right to total self-destruction. Survivors will be able to pick through our bones for metals and other resources, and hopefully that won't be productive enough to spiral out of control again.
What kind of problems do you foresee with humanity living in small towns and villages, producing most of their own food locally, and generally living in harmony with the environment?
We're not being stupid.
Not at all.
In other words they want us to ride to their rescue so they can stab us in the back when they no longer need us.
Exactly.
Is this a TERF begging for an alliance with the right to solve the tranny problem? I know the idea is controversial in this community but regardless of how you feel about it I think we can all agree it would divide the right (probably a goal of hers). I'm also not convinced there's a way to go about it that won't result in the TERFs shitting everything up.
It's also important to remember that the TERFs and troons are playing the exact same game. The troons are just far better at it. We told them that the game is retarded, and both sides of the pissing match called us Nazis. The TERFs aren't outraged at tranny abuses. They're outraged that they're not the abusers. If we were to ride to the TERFs' rescue and make the tranny problem disappear the victorious TERFs would proceed to subject everyone to the exact same bullshit the troons are subjecting us to right now. Only the TERFs would be the abusers in that case, so they'd be fine with it.
All feminists can eat shit until they throw away feminism entirely. The enemy of my enemy is still my enemy.
Lets be honest, teaming up with feminism is a bad idea because feminisim uses people, governments, institutions and even ideas for their own purposes only to toss them away and trash them to get the next leg up. Any talk of allying would come with a knife in the back.
Relabel your movement as a "bio-libertarianism" takeover and deflect the blame there. Wow, very surprising tactic by the feminist.
Does she ask how or why these "bio-libertarians" succeeded? Does she ask why belief in the patriarchy is so widespread and deeply held among feminists? I think she is projecting when she says she is frustrated with conservatives not looking closer at feminism. She knows she is on a path that leads to a place that holds uncomfortable truth. She wants conservatives to stop it so that she can remain blissfully ignorant.
Funny how she advocates for more obligations, yet her refusal to actually articulate them stands out like an Adam's apple on a tranny's neck.
This is a pathetic plea asking stronger men to help her "retake" the movement because she admits that their ideals have no goal. Never trust anyone that won't declare how much they will be contributing to the pot.
I'm sure there's probably some cognitive dissonance at play with her. She's able to see all of these bad things feminism ended up causing but is it feminism's fault? Noooooo it couldn't be that! I-it's "bio-libertarianism!" Women were too focused on their own freedom!! This isn't real feminism!!! (Now, where have we seen this before? ๐ค)
She just needs to take that one last step out of the comfortable confines of her ideology but just can't bring herself to do it. That's understandable (note, I didn't say okay). Most women are feminists nowadays even if they don't actively call themselves feminist because that's what society pushes and that's what they're immersed in from early childhood onwards. Completely repudiating it would be incredibly damaging to their ego because they've spent their entire lives framing themselves and the world through the lens of feminism. Everything they thought and believed was true about the world and their role in it would be completely swept away in an instant. This is assuming they're even at the point of seeing all the cracks in the surface. Many still aren't there and may never get there.
It'd probably be easier to take that last step if they had a different framework to rest on, but they don't.
Interesting article thatโs probably a 10 minute read give or take a few. The writer looks at the current state of things with women, feminism, etc. She (imo) correctly notes how much of it has contributed to the atomization of people and how that has helped enable a sort of โneo-feudalismโ thatโs
That a lot of what feminism has done has made it easy for our humanity itself to be destroyed and remodeled โin the name of utopia.โ And that, through fighting this, feminismโs interest align with those of conservatives.
The articleโs worth reading just in that it shows even some left-aligned people are seeing how the things they fought for arenโt all they were cracked up to be. She's still a feminist though, so who knows whether they'll start actually backtracking or not.
Unherd.com is a UK based online magazine that was started by former Daily Telegraph and Independent journo Sally Chatterton so says Wikipedia. Iโm not familiar with the sort of slant it gives but it lists Ayaan Hirsi Ali as one of its contributors so it canโt be all bad. After a minute of skimming Iโd maybe say itโs center-left in its framing. Maybe something akin to a more lefty Quillette?
Yes, but I will not trust the reformed leftist because they were too blinded by their ideology to realize they were shifting the entire system to make EVERYBODY interchangable and thus replaceable and insignificant.
Well, this was what we were trying to tell you dumb cunts for decades: what you're doing will turn everything into shit. Now they got what they wanted and are complaining that it turned into shit, and are telling us we now have to turn their shit pile back into a functioning society.
Go blow. Men can have kids when they're old and can wait for the next gen of girls that are 18 and hungry for a man that doesn't like to suck cock or watch her get fucked by other men. Zoomers are nearly untouchables now.
The entire basis for TERFs hating on TRAs lies in their hatred of men. Fuck that cancerous shite.
Not once did she talk about walking back the law and policy that feminists put in place to discriminate against men.
The 19th Amendment was a bad idea.
>The sexual revolution killed feminism
>Nor is the sexual revolution going back in its box
k
Not a bad idea, I think we ca-
Oh no no no no
๐ผ๐๐๐ฃ๐๐๐ ๐ฝ๐๐๐๐๐๐ค๐
๐ฃ๐๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ฃ๐ ๐ฅ๐ ๐๐๐ฃ๐ฃ๐๐๐๐
Heaven forbid! ๐ฑ๐ฑ๐ฑ
It's a self-perpetuating problem.
This is a great writeup, thank you for your time!
Someone will be along soon to tell us this is a distraction. The feminists want you to think they're losing but really they control both sides.
I feel lied to. I still haven't seen that someone grace my thread with his presence ๐ญ
Italics in post titles?!?
Is it possible to learn this power?
Not from a jedi.
This comment nails it 100%.