Post: #1

I've been reading the Anglobitch blog and he says that our Puritan influence and the Pedestellization of Women that it's brought has morphed into another ridiculous form of female privilege: feminism. He makes a good point, especially when you look at that Women's Studies programs by country chart: we obviously have the most by far, with the UK and Sweden trailing behind us.

I don't know too much about Puritan history or Victorianism. What do you guys think? Is that why the US and UK was a great breeding ground for the feminist takeover? Or are there are other factors?

Post: #2

(10-12-2012 10:29 PM)megatron Wrote:  I've been reading the Anglobitch blog and he says that our Puritan influence and the Pedestellization of Women that it's brought has morphed into another ridiculous form of female privilege: feminism. He makes a good point, especially when you look at that Women's Studies programs by country chart: we obviously have the most by far, with the UK and Sweden trailing behind us.

I don't know too much about Puritan history or Victorianism. What do you guys think? Is that why the US and UK was a great breeding ground for the feminist takeover? Or are there are other factors?

I don't buy it frankly. Yes, first wave 19th century feminism - the Seneca Falls convention, for example - came out of the Northeast and New England, the home of Puritanism.

But if that wave of feminism dates from the 1840's, let's be real. Gender relations were just fine until basically a 120 years later.

No, it's second wave feminism that screwed everything up. Not the woman's vote and 19th amendment per se. Nor the women-led temperance movement. Women's suffrage was, after all, followed by the ultra-conservative 20's that rolled back the progressive era of the 1900's and teens.

Second wave (and third wave and subsequent waves) of feminism have ruined marriage, dating, work, and gender relations. And Puritans had nothing to do with it. Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinem had nothing to do with Puritanism.

Post: #3

Nah, it was all the men in society treating their daughters like 'daddy's little princess' which created over-inflated egos and huge sense of entitlement.

Post: #4

(10-12-2012 10:52 PM)ccurtis189 Wrote:  Nah, it was all the men in society treating their daughters like 'daddy's little princess' which created over-inflated egos and huge sense of entitlement.

Yes, but this goes in line with the Puritan and Victorian Pedestlization Syndrome that perpetuates the belief that women are angelic and men are sordid sexual creatures whose libidos must be controlled.

But why then is the US by far the most feminist country? And other Anglophile nations are very close behind . . . why us English speakers in particular?

Post: #5

(10-12-2012 10:57 PM)megatron Wrote:  

(10-12-2012 10:52 PM)ccurtis189 Wrote:  Nah, it was all the men in society treating their daughters like 'daddy's little princess' which created over-inflated egos and huge sense of entitlement.

Yes, but this goes in line with the Puritan and Victorian Pedestlization Syndrome that perpetuates the belief that women are angelic and men are sordid sexual creatures whose libidos must be controlled.

But why then is the US by far the most feminist country? And other Anglophile nations are very close behind . . . why us English speakers in particular?

US by far? I thought Scandinavia had us beat when it comes to Feminism.

Post: #6

(10-12-2012 10:59 PM)ccurtis189 Wrote:  

(10-12-2012 10:57 PM)megatron Wrote:  

(10-12-2012 10:52 PM)ccurtis189 Wrote:  Nah, it was all the men in society treating their daughters like 'daddy's little princess' which created over-inflated egos and huge sense of entitlement.

Yes, but this goes in line with the Puritan and Victorian Pedestlization Syndrome that perpetuates the belief that women are angelic and men are sordid sexual creatures whose libidos must be controlled.

But why then is the US by far the most feminist country? And other Anglophile nations are very close behind . . . why us English speakers in particular?

US by far? I thought Scandinavia had us beat when it comes to Feminism.

In what sense do they have us beat? We have, by and large, much more women's studies programs than any other country: a pretty good barometer of feminism's influence and legal power in a country.

Post: #7

I tend to agree on a slightly broader view of this, specifically that Puritanism/Evangelicanism/Protestantism was always about crusading to eradicate evil personal behavior (usually male), and using shaming tactics. Feminists, eco-nazis and the like are the spiritual descendants of those who wanted to ban shopping on Sundays, bare ankles, playing cards, drinking alcohol etc. While recent generations have rejected the trappings of religion, they perpetuate the same sick culture of passive aggressive shaming and a concealed desire to control.

Good evidence for this is the fact that Europe countries which had the strongest Evangelical culture in the 19thC are precisely the ones with the strongest feminist culture now - England, Sweden, Denmark. After that comes the other Protestant countries (e.g. Germany), with Catholic nations bringing up the rear. Of course the USA fits into the spectrum with the strongest Evangelical influence, although the religious picture is complicated.

Post: #8

Good point, we also have a very religious country: about 40% of Americans attend church regularly. I'm sure that's another huge reason and/or symptom of our Puritanical influences. What other westernized nation even closely approaches a 40% church attendance rate? Most of Europe is much more secular.

Post: #9

(10-12-2012 11:36 PM)RawGod Wrote:  I tend to agree on a slightly broader view of this, specifically that Puritanism/Evangelicanism/Protestantism was always about crusading to eradicate evil personal behavior (usually male), and using shaming tactics. Feminists, eco-nazis and the like are the spiritual descendants of those who wanted to ban shopping on Sundays, bare ankles, playing cards, drinking alcohol etc. While recent generations have rejected the trappings of religion, they perpetuate the same sick culture of passive aggressive shaming and a concealed desire to control.

Good evidence for this is the fact that Europe countries which had the strongest Evangelical culture in the 19thC are precisely the ones with the strongest feminist culture now - England, Sweden, Denmark. After that comes the other Protestant countries (e.g. Germany), with Catholic nations bringing up the rear. Of course the USA fits into the spectrum with the strongest Evangelical influence, although the religious picture is complicated.

Learn something new every day. I didn't know Scandinavia used to be evangelical, this explains why Catholic southern and eastern europe aren't feminist. The only exception to this is Catholic France, but that might be explained by their revolution.

Evangelicalism and specifically Pentecostalism is supposedly becoming more and more popular in Brazil. Could this be one of the reasons why feminism is taking hold there?

(10-12-2012 11:41 PM)megatron Wrote:  What other westernized nation even closely approaches a 40% church attendance rate? Most of Europe is much more secular.

Australia and the UK are both at or a little under 10%. I remember reading on another thread that not a single US state's church attendance even comes close.

Post: #10

I find the arguments pretty convincing, after reading it the last few years, at least in broad socio-historical terms. Feminism paints itself as disruptive and against the grain of western social mores and ideology ("patriarchy"). It seems to me more like a natural progression of gender ideology in the societies where it has taken root. I am more convinced as I have more deep experience with other cultures.

But, it is definitely counter-intuitive that slutwalks are the fruit of puritanism.

Post: #11

Anglo-Victorianism (itself in large part a result of Puritan thought) is a crucial progenitor of modern attitudes towards women seen in the post-feminist Anglosphere of today. Much of the pedestalization and feminization we see throughout the society can be traced back to Victorian attitudes regarding the inherent divinity and purity of women, attitudes that essentially held women up as a superior, morally ideal form of being. This pedestalization, of course, leads to all of the other negative factors we complain about in our culture. The combination of these two mentalities ("Victorian Puritanism") is to blame for what we see today.

I find that blog to be quite close to illustrating the realities of the culture we're in. Good find.

Post: #12

(10-13-2012 01:16 AM)P Dog Wrote:  

(10-12-2012 11:36 PM)RawGod Wrote:  I tend to agree on a slightly broader view of this, specifically that Puritanism/Evangelicanism/Protestantism was always about crusading to eradicate evil personal behavior (usually male), and using shaming tactics. Feminists, eco-nazis and the like are the spiritual descendants of those who wanted to ban shopping on Sundays, bare ankles, playing cards, drinking alcohol etc. While recent generations have rejected the trappings of religion, they perpetuate the same sick culture of passive aggressive shaming and a concealed desire to control.

Good evidence for this is the fact that Europe countries which had the strongest Evangelical culture in the 19thC are precisely the ones with the strongest feminist culture now - England, Sweden, Denmark. After that comes the other Protestant countries (e.g. Germany), with Catholic nations bringing up the rear. Of course the USA fits into the spectrum with the strongest Evangelical influence, although the religious picture is complicated.

The only exception to this is Catholic France, but that might be explained by their revolution.

France was a very conservative country up until the 1960s. The revolution hadn't really undermined the positions of catholicism in most of the country. Olympe de Gouges, the first feminist activist of French history actually took an active part in the revolutionary turmoils but she ended up being executed.

Just read the original of the Civil Code enacted by Bonaparte and you'll see that the whole family was legally put under the sole father's influence.

Our civil law was heavily reformed after the second world war, though. It's quite interesting to see that French feminism and the welfare state developped at the same pace.

Women were granted the right to open bank accounts in 1965 and from then on, the successive governments continued in that direction.

Post: #13

(10-13-2012 07:43 AM)rastignac Wrote:  I find the arguments pretty convincing, after reading it the last few years, at least in broad socio-historical terms. Feminism paints itself as disruptive and against the grain of western social mores and ideology ("patriarchy"). It seems to me more like a natural progression of gender ideology in the societies where it has taken root. I am more convinced as I have more deep experience with other cultures.

But, it is definitely counter-intuitive that slutwalks are the fruit of puritanism.

Yes, I'd agree with you before reading the Anglobitch blog. On the surface, your point makes sense, but think about it this way: the Slutwalks are, just like most of feminism, about gaining more and more priviliges for women (dressing anyway they want to, getting very drunk, sucking and fucking as many cocks as they want to,etc). without wanting to pay any of the consequences (being slut shamed by other women [and some men], having half-unconscious sex with some guy and then cry rape the following morning, not taking an iota of responsibility after getting "raped," judged, etc).

Why? Because again, this falls in line with the Puritan belief that women are spiritually and morally superior to men. Men are grovelling sexual predators who must be chained by society in order to keep things from exploding. It's the same rationale. Except that before Women's Lib, yes, women had less choices in their lives and in some arenas had less rights than men, but they also didn't have to bear the grave duties that came with those rights. Now, they want MORE rights than men with LESS the responsibilities.

Post: #14

I recently encountered the AngloBitch site, and find its ideas compelling - though not quite exclusive to AngloBitch.

The question is why has feminism found its strongest expression in ANGLOPHONE countries?

People like to lay blame on the current condition of American (and British, and Torontian lol) women at the feet of feminism. But the real question is why did those places become so susceptible to it in the first place? The pattern of feminism's spread suggests that there is something about Anglo culture that led to feminism's rapid ascension there. And that is what Anglo Bitch is trying to answer.

A lot of men are fond of blaming modern feminism. This falls short, for at least two reasons. One, Scandinavian feminism, while at least as extreme, is not quite as dysfunctional - http://www.rooshv.com/the-hypocrisy-of-a...n-feminism . Two, the flaws attributed to modern American women were also attributed to American women of previous generations - the passage below is from 1945:

• The much-vaunted sex appeal of American women is drawn from films, reviews and pin-ups, and is in large print fictitious. A recent medical survey in the United States showed that 75 per cent of young American women are without strong sexual feeling and instead of satisfying their libido they seek pleasure narcissistically in exhibitionism, vanity and the cult of fitness and health in a sterile sense. American girls have no hang-ups about sex; they are easy going for the man who sees the whole sexual process as something in isolation thereby making it uninteresting and matter-of-fact, which, at such a level, it is meant to be. Thus, after she has been taken to the cinema or a dance, it is something like American good manners for the girl to let herself be kissed — this doesn’t mean anything. American women are characteristically frigid and materialistic. The man who has his way with an American girl is under a material obligation to her. The woman has granted a material favor. In cases of divorce American law overwhelmingly favors the woman. American women will divorce readily enough when they see a better bargain. It is frequently the case in America that a woman will be married to one man but already engaged to a future husband, the man she plans to marry after a profitable divorce." Civilta Americana

In the spirit of that passage, you'll notice how Anglo women don't seek out love for its own sake - a husband is merely a necessary accessory for achieving their ideal life. Other key accessories of at least equal importance are children, granite kitchen countertops, foreign vacations at four star hotels, regular spa visits, Equinox (high end gym) membership, orgasms and so on. Their attraction and love for a man is a function of how much of this dream life he can deliver to her. Romance as devotion to the man is rare to non-existent. It is said in some monarchical countries that one serves at the discretion of the crown, at the discretion of the king or queen - the dynamic is much the same with Anglo women - you are hers, serving at her discretion. When you cease to be of use, you are to be discarded. The princess designation is apt.

In certain monarchical countries, there is also the idea that a king is wedded to his people, that he and his nation are inseparable, the bond eternal. And romantic relationships in certain cultures mirrors that ideal, as with ancient India (which Evola mentions), where a woman would immolate herself to death at her husband's funeral, to join him in the afterlife.

Evola actually faults Western romance in general ( http://www.returnofkings.com/7451/modern...ed-herself ), but it's clear, by our own eyes and Evola's, that Anglo 'romance' is far more flawed than that of the Continent.

Post: #15

Often forgotten is that the Bible is extremely Red Pill:

Quote:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.

20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins.

22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,

23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:

25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.

Joesph nearly dumped the "virgin" Mary... if he didn't get that message from God, he would have never stayed with her. He married this woman and found her pregnant, and thought to himself, "Okay, I've got a real slut for a wife here. Time to bail." BUT, because he was also a just man, he wasn't going to make a big fuss or stink. He was going to "put her away privly," which meant to simply leave her quietly.

The only reason he stayed was because he received a vision from God. Lesson: Don't stay with a slut unless God tells you to. But it gets better. Even after he received the vision from God, "[He] knew her not until she had brought forth her firstborn son," which in other words, he never fucked her. He probably looked at her with disgust, but conflicted with the orders from God, stayed until the child was born. It was a son, as the vision told him it would be, and after that he trusted Mary. Had a girl came out, he would have been out of there!

Clearly the Bible shows what it means to be a self-respecting man, without being an asshole misogynist. However, most people are too damn lazy to actually read the Bible, and very few understand it. That's why most Churches are full of shit today, because half of the priests do not bother to read the Bible or teach it truthfully.

Post: #16

(06-07-2014 06:15 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Often forgotten is that the Bible is extremely Red Pill:

...

Clearly the Bible shows what it means to be a self-respecting man, without being an asshole misogynist. However, most people are too damn lazy to actually read the Bible, and very few understand it. That's why most Churches are full of shit today, because half of the priests do not bother to read the Bible or teach it truthfully.

The Book of Proverbs is an excellent guide for how to lead your life. Even though I'm neither Christian nor a believer in the divine, its wisdom never fails to impress me. I recommend every man who has taken the red pill read it. It even tells you fucking a prostitute is better than fucking another man's wife because the other man will want revenge. Doesn't sound very Puritan to me.

Discounting all the "New Age" bullshit from the 20th Century, Puritan Christianity is the most blue pill religious ideology ever to be seen. Orthodox Christianity, on the other hand, is extremely red pill. That's why you see Putin macking away to glory while US politicians are deprived of quality sex.

Despite many forum members' criticisms of Islam, you cannot deny that it is very red pill. This may come from the requirement that it must only be read in Arabic so as to not dilute its original message.

If you want to know why almost every blue-pill society is Christian, ask yourself "how many Muslims know Arabic and how many Christians know Aramic?"

Post: #17

(06-07-2014 06:15 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Often forgotten is that the Bible is extremely Red Pill:

Quote:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.

20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins.

22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,

23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:

25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.

Joesph nearly dumped the "virgin" Mary... if he didn't get that message from God, he would have never stayed with her. He married this woman and found her pregnant, and thought to himself, "Okay, I've got a real slut for a wife here. Time to bail." BUT, because he was also a just man, he wasn't going to make a big fuss or stink. He was going to "put her away privly," which meant to simply leave her quietly.

The only reason he stayed was because he received a vision from God. Lesson: Don't stay with a slut unless God tells you to. But it gets better. Even after he received the vision from God, "[He] knew her not until she had brought forth her firstborn son," which in other words, he never fucked her. He probably looked at her with disgust, but conflicted with the orders from God, stayed until the child was born. It was a son, as the vision told him it would be, and after that he trusted Mary. Had a girl came out, he would have been out of there!

Clearly the Bible shows what it means to be a self-respecting man, without being an asshole misogynist. However, most people are too damn lazy to actually read the Bible, and very few understand it. That's why most Churches are full of shit today, because half of the priests do not bother to read the Bible or teach it truthfully.

^Staring at the cover of this peeking out of my work bag and God as my witness, the book mark is on....Proverbs. RVFer not by coincidence.

   

Post: #18

Here is an excellent article written by Murray Rothbard on "pietism" and how it influenced the development of American socialist thought. It was an attempt to create a "kingdom of god on earth." It was this pietism which influenced the progressive movement and related movements such as women's suffrage and alcohol prohibition.

Socialism and feminism have long been allies. The growth of one accompanied the growth of the other. They are still linked today.

http://mises.org/daily/2225

Post: #19

When Trotsky, split with Stalin, he and the early Bolsheviks fled to Anglophone nations. The Frankfurt School followed the Bolsheviks and Anarchists to the US when it was closed down by the National Socialists. In the US, these movements received generous funding by the NGOs, Charitable Foundations such as Ford, Carnegie, Rockefeller et al. The CIA created the NEW LEFT from these movements to keep the US youth and non-Capitalist European countries from Stalin's influence and exported the 60s politics to places like France especially which as a left-wing, conservative country, was particular susceptible to an accord with Russia.

Anglophone countries tend to be those where traditional labour organisation is at its weakest or non-existent as this is where strong labour unions where replaced by well-funded 'identity politics'.

People tend to forget that the US is a revolutionary state and the UK likes to support revolutions everywhere except in its own jurisdiction.

Post: #20

I disagree with everyone. Feminism is a trivial PR stunt, the face of moving women into the work force in the interests of Capital. They needed more workers, more slaves, and convinced women that this ability to be "professionals" was a great opportunity. Now EVERYONE'S exhausted, not just husbands.

Hypergamy has been built into females by evolution since, I don't know, the frogs we evolved from. Who had the biggest croak lolzlzl.

As the capitalist economy functioned better and better, and made some individuals wealthier and wealthier, (coinciding with better/more reliable lifespan nutrition , height, and symmetry for the winners) the competition (the amount and wealth of high status males) simply became stratospheric.

Women didn't take power, it was given to them by Capital who needed more members of the managerial class so they could do even less work. Hence female drones who think they're powerful but are merely pushing paper, or more accurately now, centralized data.

Today I was in trader joe's and the number of vigorous 6 foot+ blond girls from the upper middle class at the nearby university was amazing.

evolution is happening all around you all the time.

where do those girls come from? 6'3" insider ( connected to upper middle class money, 1M houses, several generations of savings and professional pursuits) fathers nailing hot 5'8" chicks, leaving me behind in the evolutionary race.

If you want hot chicks, simply do better-- because at every moment the rich get richer and the tall get taller.

Game is a hack , a way to temporarily end-run the evolutionary process, but women fundamentally seek the highest status males, and high status in America-- is pretty fucking high.

Nature won't negotiate.

I quote her: "Adapt, migrate, or die, bitches."

I've adapted financially, intellectually, and physically to about my limits, I prefer not to die in the immediate future, so the remaining optimal tactic remains:

Philippines!!!

Post: #21

(06-08-2014 05:51 AM)iknowexactly Wrote:  I disagree with everyone. Feminism is a trivial PR stunt, the face of moving women into the work force in the interests of Capital. They needed more workers, more slaves, and convinced women that this ability to be "professionals" was a great opportunity. Now EVERYONE'S exhausted, not just husbands.

Hypergamy has been built into females by evolution since, I don't know, the frogs we evolved from. Who had the biggest croak lolzlzl.

As the capitalist economy functioned better and better, and made some individuals wealthier and wealthier, (coinciding with better/more reliable lifespan nutrition , height, and symmetry for the winners) the competition (the amount and wealth of high status males) simply became stratospheric.

Women didn't take power, it was given to them by Capital who needed more members of the managerial class so they could do even less work. Hence female drones who think they're powerful but are merely pushing paper, or more accurately now, centralized data.

Today I was in trader joe's and the number of vigorous 6 foot+ blond girls from the upper middle class at the nearby university was amazing.

evolution is happening all around you all the time.

where do those girls come from? 6'3" insider ( connected to upper middle class money, 1M houses, several generations of savings and professional pursuits) fathers nailing hot 5'8" chicks, leaving me behind in the evolutionary race.

If you want hot chicks, simply do better-- because at every moment the rich get richer and the tall get taller.

Game is a hack , a way to temporarily end-run the evolutionary process, but women fundamentally seek the highest status males, and high status in America-- is pretty fucking high.

Nature won't negotiate.

I quote her: "Adapt, migrate, or die, bitches."

I've adapted financially, intellectually, and physically to about my limits, I prefer not to die in the immediate future, so the remaining optimal tactic remains:

Philippines!!!

But how is it evolution if most careerist women are dying off in droves without any children? Seems like de-evolution to me.

Right now nature is selecting for the women who hate work:

- The stupid.
- The lazy.
- Or the rare few who place family above money.

Post: #22

(10-12-2012 11:36 PM)RawGod Wrote:  Good evidence for this is the fact that Europe countries which had the strongest Evangelical culture in the 19thC are precisely the ones with the strongest feminist culture now - England, Sweden, Denmark. After that comes the other Protestant countries (e.g. Germany), with Catholic nations bringing up the rear. Of course the USA fits into the spectrum with the strongest Evangelical influence, although the religious picture is complicated.

Keep in mind that Catholicism is Aristotelian. Protestantism (especially Luther) rejected that in favor of Platonism.

Post: #23

(10-12-2012 11:36 PM)RawGod Wrote:  I tend to agree on a slightly broader view of this, specifically that Puritanism/Evangelicanism/Protestantism was always about crusading to eradicate evil personal behavior (usually male), and using shaming tactics. Feminists, eco-nazis and the like are the spiritual descendants of those who wanted to ban shopping on Sundays, bare ankles, playing cards, drinking alcohol etc. While recent generations have rejected the trappings of religion, they perpetuate the same sick culture of passive aggressive shaming and a concealed desire to control.

Good evidence for this is the fact that Europe countries which had the strongest Evangelical culture in the 19thC are precisely the ones with the strongest feminist culture now - England, Sweden, Denmark. After that comes the other Protestant countries (e.g. Germany), with Catholic nations bringing up the rear. Of course the USA fits into the spectrum with the strongest Evangelical influence, although the religious picture is complicated.

This is pretty much what I was going to say. Though the relationship between modern Cultural Marxism and the Puritanism of the past may seem counterintuitive, a further analysis will reveal that the SJWs of today and the Puritans of the past share a similar pathology.

And this Puritan attitude is why I think Anglo countries are prone to binge drinking and feminism - because they have very weird hangups about sex. Mark Manson wrote a while ago that shame was the modus operandi regarding sex in those cultures, and this would explain a few things we see:

- Binge drinking makes it easier and more socially acceptable to hook up.
- Feminist harpies whining about "rape culture" does what we all know over at RVF - gives women an excuse for hookups they regret and a way to weed out unattractive men.

Even the so-called "sex positive" feminism reeks of fragile egoism and overcompensation, because this weirdness regarding sex still exists from those Puritanical times. It is not a coincidence that this stuff is non-existent or at least not nearly as prevalent in Continental Europe and other places.

So while SJWs, Cultural Marxists, and feminists of all stripes try to say that they're breaking away from the past, they are the ones most complicit in the perpetuation of cultural retardation. This is something we would do well to use against them.

Post: #24

(06-08-2014 05:51 AM)iknowexactly Wrote:  I disagree with everyone. Feminism is a trivial PR stunt, the face of moving women into the work force in the interests of Capital. They needed more workers, more slaves, and convinced women that this ability to be "professionals" was a great opportunity. Now EVERYONE'S exhausted, not just husbands.

Hypergamy has been built into females by evolution since, I don't know, the frogs we evolved from. Who had the biggest croak lolzlzl.

As the capitalist economy functioned better and better, and made some individuals wealthier and wealthier, (coinciding with better/more reliable lifespan nutrition , height, and symmetry for the winners) the competition (the amount and wealth of high status males) simply became stratospheric.

Women didn't take power, it was given to them by Capital who needed more members of the managerial class so they could do even less work. Hence female drones who think they're powerful but are merely pushing paper, or more accurately now, centralized data.

Today I was in trader joe's and the number of vigorous 6 foot+ blond girls from the upper middle class at the nearby university was amazing.

evolution is happening all around you all the time.

where do those girls come from? 6'3" insider ( connected to upper middle class money, 1M houses, several generations of savings and professional pursuits) fathers nailing hot 5'8" chicks, leaving me behind in the evolutionary race.

If you want hot chicks, simply do better-- because at every moment the rich get richer and the tall get taller.

Game is a hack , a way to temporarily end-run the evolutionary process, but women fundamentally seek the highest status males, and high status in America-- is pretty fucking high.

Nature won't negotiate.

I quote her: "Adapt, migrate, or die, bitches."

I've adapted financially, intellectually, and physically to about my limits, I prefer not to die in the immediate future, so the remaining optimal tactic remains:

Philippines!!!

^^This^^

Maybe first wave feminism had honest goals, but after that is was nothing more than an unholy marriage between capitalists and ugly crazy chicks. The capitalists wanted cheaper wages and more compliant workers. The ugly chicks got jobs so they wouldn't be sent to do terrible jobs.

What we have right now is the macro consequence of letting a bunch of weak and feckless individuals work our government bureaucracies. When you get passive aggressive people together you get the demon we have right now.

Post: #25

I don't buy the supposed link between Puritanism and feminism. You can point to areas where the stridently religious and the strident feminists agree even today, but you could also point to areas where the stridently religious and the Bolsheviks agreed (like about homosexuality, for instance). It's more of a stopped clock is right (or wrong) twice a day thing than some actual relation or evolution.

To me it seems more like feminism was born on the left. I don't think it's coincidence that it gained prominence in America in the late 19th and early 20th centuries the same time anarchism, socialism, "Christian" Socialism, communism, etc. were making waves here.

Just because something occurs in America and its supporters are fanatical to sort of a same degree (or a little lesser) than Puritans were, doesn't mean it's because of the Puritans.

It's just some innate human desire for some people to belong to a movement and try to force others to live like they do.