Individuals acting in their own interest can make changes on the behalf of the group, so I don't know what that entire paragraph is trying to get to.

George Carlin's 'big club, and you ain't in it' only implies that a top 1% individual will risk himself for the class's benefit only if there's a visible outside threat, or if such actions would happen to significantly raise his status. Otherwise, the day-to-day modus operandi is individuals and factions vying for themselves; this has the added effect of ensuring the upper-class doesn't become unsustainbly large. The same principle applies to the peasantry, with how wages increased in the aftermath of Mongol invasions and black death.

Feminists, in this case, changed the playing field for all women despite being a minority of them.

And other commoners (losers in the Gervais Pyramid) were duped into thinking into thinking they were getting a great deal with feminism/progressivism/etc, while being distracted away from grand transfers of wealth throughout the 20th century.

"Powerful men" didn't bequeath power onto all women"

As in a king ceremoniously swearing in his loyal retainers. Some were swindled by beggars, but most were coerced by other elites and new bloods.

"You are speaking in flowerly vague terms to try and hold your point as 100% true in all cases possible, when a concrete example shows that its only usually true. I don't mean this to sound as aggressive as it does, but it was hard to even grasp what you were trying to say."

There's always generalisms and nuance; I'm just stating the overarching cause behind feminism 'succeeding' was social attrition, not top 20% men breaking down at the sound of pleading spouses and daughters.The entirety of the feminist movement, at least as pertains to politics, is my example. What you see as begging was really activists and pawns engaging in a whole bunch of maneuver and doublespeak. 'Oppose the newly passed 19th amendment and lose your business contacts while being placed on the wrong side of history.' I don't feel like conducting extensive archaeology on feminist history to pick out specific examples, since my original point was about not licking the boots of jannies and investor-hamstrung tech companies.

Individuals acting in their own interest can make changes on the behalf of the group, so I don't know what that entire paragraph is trying to get to.

George Carlin's 'big club, and you ain't in it' only implies that a top 1% individual will risk himself for the class's benefit only if there's an visibly organized outside threat, or if such actions would happen to significantly raise his status. Otherwise, the day-to-day modus operandi is individuals and factions vying for themselves; this has the added effect of ensuring the upper-class doesn't become unsustainbly large. The same principle applies to the peasantry, with how wages increased in the aftermath of Mongol invasions and black death.

Feminists, in this case, changed the playing field for all women despite being a minority of them.

And other commoners (losers in the Gervais Pyramid) were duped into thinking into thinking they were getting a great deal with feminism/progressivism/etc, while being distracted away from grand transfers of wealth throughout the 20th century.

"Powerful men" didn't bequeath power onto all women"

As in a king ceremoniously swearing in his loyal retainers. Some were swindled by beggars, but most were coerced by other elites and new bloods.

"You are speaking in flowerly vague terms to try and hold your point as 100% true in all cases possible, when a concrete example shows that its only usually true. I don't mean this to sound as aggressive as it does, but it was hard to even grasp what you were trying to say."

There's always generalisms and nuance; I'm just stating the overarching cause behind feminism 'succeeding' was social attrition, not top 20% men breaking down at the sound of pleading spouses and daughters.The entirety of the feminist movement, at least as pertains to politics, is my example. What you see as begging was really activists and pawns engaging in a whole bunch of maneuver and doublespeak. 'Oppose the newly passed 19th amendment and lose your business contacts while being placed on the wrong side of history.' I don't feel like conducting extensive archaeology on feminist history to pick out specific examples, since my original point was about not licking the boots of jannies and investor-hamstrung tech companies.

Individuals acting in their own interest can make changes on the behalf of the group, so I don't know what that entire paragraph is trying to get to.

George Carlin's 'big club, and you ain't in it' only implies that a top 1% individual will risk himself for the class's benefit only if there's an visibly organized outside threat, or if such actions would happen to significantly raise his status. Otherwise, the day-to-day modus operandi is individuals and factions vying for themselves; this has the added effect of ensuring the upper-class doesn't become unsustainbly large.

Feminists, in this case, changed the playing field for all women despite being a minority of them.

And other commoners (losers in the Gervais Pyramid) were duped into thinking into thinking they were getting a great deal with feminism/progressivism/etc, while being distracted away from grand transfers of wealth throughout the 20th century.

"Powerful men" didn't bequeath power onto all women"

As in a king ceremoniously swearing in his loyal retainers. Some were swindled by beggars, but most were coerced by other elites and new bloods.

"You are speaking in flowerly vague terms to try and hold your point as 100% true in all cases possible, when a concrete example shows that its only usually true. I don't mean this to sound as aggressive as it does, but it was hard to even grasp what you were trying to say."

There's always generalisms and nuance; I'm just stating the overarching cause behind feminism 'succeeding' was social attrition, not top 20% men breaking down at the sound of pleading spouses and daughters.The entirety of the feminist movement, at least as pertains to politics, is my example. What you see as begging was really activists and pawns engaging in a whole bunch of maneuver and doublespeak. 'Oppose the newly passed 19th amendment and lose your business contacts while being placed on the wrong side of history.' I don't feel like conducting extensive archaeology on feminist history to pick out specific examples, since my original point was about not licking the boots of jannies and investor-hamstrung tech companies.