Being a feminist is a massive loss of social capital, whether they'll admit that or not, it's the truth. Those who openly identify are the tip of the iceberg.
Being a feminist is not a massive loss of social capital in normie society, just a minor one. It's no worse than saying "I'm progressive". Especially when part of that 8-15% of women are the "Feminism just means wanting women to have rights, so therefore I'm a feminist" style Useful Idiots.
Which means that in the end, when you exclude the ignorant UI's, and include the secret Feminists, you might just have a wash of a still small 8-15% of women that are feminists.
I suspect that a lot of the issue is due to the way that the media panders to these narratives.
It's presented as "Giving women a chance to compete in the workplace!" - and the media will not ever question that or give time to anyone who does. If it were ever presented as "Women! Do you want your sons to be unemployable? Do you want your sons to know that they're disposable tools? Do you want them to lead such a hopeless life that they'll kill themselves before you're even on your pension? VOTE FEMINIST!" it'd get a lot less traction.
That's not even to say that I believe that every advance in women's rights must necessarily come at the expense of men's rights ... but that is a decent summary of feminist advocacy.
That's exactly my point about every protectionist measure. Protectionism looks like it favors the group they claim, and it really only favors the leaders, or the upper-echelon of that group that aren't under threat.
Unions do the same thing with labor, racists do the same thing with race, theocrats do the same thing with religion.
My problem with Impossible, is that he goes backwards and says: "See! Laborers hate individual bargaining! Unions opposes it, and they speak for laborers! I know because so many laborers are in unions." Except the numbers are worse for women & feminists than it is for unions & labor.
How can only 15% support it and even when the other party wins everybody bends over backwards to meet their insane demands.
I mean nobody is willing to undo the feminist "achievements" of the past and stripping women of all the privileges they have or burden them with the responsibilities men have, because doing so will lose them the whole female vote. So, in a sense, they are almost all feminist, wether they admit it or not.
Being a feminist is not a massive loss of social capital in normie society, just a minor one. It's no worse than saying "I'm progressive". Especially when part of that 8-15% of women are the "Feminism just means wanting women to have rights, so therefore I'm a feminist" style Useful Idiots.
Which means that in the end, when you exclude the ignorant UI's, and include the secret Feminists, you might just have a wash of a still small 8-15% of women that are feminists.
I suspect that a lot of the issue is due to the way that the media panders to these narratives.
It's presented as "Giving women a chance to compete in the workplace!" - and the media will not ever question that or give time to anyone who does. If it were ever presented as "Women! Do you want your sons to be unemployable? Do you want your sons to know that they're disposable tools? Do you want them to lead such a hopeless life that they'll kill themselves before you're even on your pension? VOTE FEMINIST!" it'd get a lot less traction.
That's not even to say that I believe that every advance in women's rights must necessarily come at the expense of men's rights ... but that is a decent summary of feminist advocacy.
That's exactly my point about every protectionist measure. Protectionism looks like it favors the group they claim, and it really only favors the leaders, or the upper-echelon of that group that aren't under threat.
Unions do the same thing with labor, racists do the same thing with race, theocrats do the same thing with religion.
My problem with Impossible, is that he goes backwards and says: "See! Laborers hate individual bargaining! Unions opposes it, and they speak for laborers! I know because so many laborers are in unions." Except the numbers are worse for women & feminists than it is for unions & labor.
It's worse, no?
How can only 15% support it and even when the other party wins everybody bends over backwards to meet their insane demands.
I mean nobody is willing to undo the feminist "achievements" of the past and stripping women of all the privileges they have or burden them with the responsibilities men have, because doing so will lose them the whole female vote. So, in a sense, they are almost all feminist, wether they admit it or not.
Because women vote on issues unrelated to gender?