Feminism is obsolete

[Is_Yde_opN]

@Pandora

Feminism was supposed to protect and empower the dependent women who were left with a short end of the stick because they either had to endure emotional/physical abuse of their husbands or were left empty-handed when their role as lover/mother was served and were no longer needed.

Women have always organised themselves in communities. And this provided pressure or support on individual members of a community.
At the same time nobody is protected perfectly all the time, not women and certainly not men, neither should everybody be protected from his/her own stupidity. A woman making a careful choice when it comes to a husband (and vice versa) is an important element in genetic selection.
Maximising security for everybody at all costs is the downfall of any society, it promotes and selects for carelessness, stupidity and so forth.
Doesn’t mean that there should be no consideration for protection of weaknesses but maximising it is dysgenic in nature.

Another thing, depending on where and when, women were not throughout history without property or rights.

What feminism did and still does, from the first wave to the last wave is dismantle patriarchy, in other words, destroy the organisations of men.
Not that women had those feministic ideas all by themselves at large. It’s relatively few, usually those not invested in the communities themselves who propagate those destructive ideas and narratives. Men being often naive when it comes to women bought into those ideas as well. It’s kind of like Adam and Eve and the snake, now that I think about it.

Again, if anything to consider from what I just wrote it’s that feminism is not this magical creation and prior to it there were no women organising themselves.
There always have been. Point is that feminism is about destroying men’s organisation. Why? Because it’s oppressing women, apparently. And you know, it’s true, depending on how oppression is understood. Men try to dominate women and the patriarchal ways of organising (some of them good some of them not so much) help them do so. But without that domination - that leadership - women and effeminate men destroy society and a destroyed, weakened, society simply gets conquered or torn apart by another society and dominated or killed by them. And that’s usually not better, neither for men nor for the women overall.

[Arminius]

@James S Saint

@Arminius

@Pandora

And what exactly will follow from this?

What I wanted to say with that post was to remind of the “two sides of that coin” when it comes to the said “re-learning”. But it would not make much sense, if only men “re-learned” what it means to be a man again or if only woman “re-learned” what it means to be a woman again. If both sexes did this, then (and only then) the “re-learning” would be successful. But there is another problem: Those who are powerful do not want men and women to “re-learn” what it means to be a man and a woman. They rather want the “Eloi”.

Exactly.

My point was that men can teach women how to be women (mostly because women are easy to teach. They listen). But women cannot teach men how to be men, because that is something that women do not instinctively know. Women can nurture boys only so far before it becomes “boiling the kid in its mother’s milk” - spoiling the infant within the boy and starving the man within the boy. Women instinctively and unintentionally teach growing boys how to be women, not how to be men (because that is the man’s job, who instinctively knows the ways of a man). And men are “hard-headed” in that once they get an idea in their head, it takes a serious beating to get it to change. That is a part of what makes them men (durability of direction).

Males are cursed during this age because it was decided to change the social world into a new design. That means that those who are stubborn are to be oppressed, broken, and killed off, the men. And also that those who easily comply, can be easily convinced to serve, are rewarded and prosper, the women and feminized males (Hillary and Trump).

It is spelled out in Deuteronomy (Torah); “First destroy the men (secretly and mostly medically), then take the property, women and other live stock for your own use” [paraphrased].

@Arminius

@Pandora

If a woman becomes nurturing/feminine before an immature/feminine man (boy) she will end up playing a guide/protector role in the relationship and essentially assume the caretaker/mother role. Which will bring us to next question, can a ‘mother’ make a man?

No. So this would be the wrong way. Both human sexes will either “re-learn” or become the “Eloi”.

The only way to teach a male is to get or keep him healthy (if possible) and then demonstrate the principles of war. He learns hardcore discipline as his pride and holy virtue as his guide (far more than a female could learn … which is why she is categorized “FE-male” - “easily pliable male”). It is not an issue of merely knowledge, but of conditioning what is already inherent in the DNA (thus the new-age war is upon the DNA - “retro-viruses”).

@Arminius

What about the “islamic world” where the sexes are segregated and men protect their women (as it was in the “western world” too before all this modern “civil revolutions” occurred) - would that be an option?

That would be the goal if enough women were merely taught how to do the above. As the wizard Walt Disney suggested; “To repair it, put it back the way it was”. Of course that entails the destruction of Mr. Newswater’s usury.

@Arminius

@James S Saint

Their situation made an offer that they couldn’t refuse.

Which situation do you mean exactly?

The “serpent in the garden”, thousands of years of accumulated knowledge on how to surreptitiously use others for one’s own service, “usury”. Offered the “keys to the kingdom”, not many can refuse.

Yea.

[Arminius]

@Is_Yde_opN

@Pandora

Feminism was supposed to protect and empower the dependent women who were left with a short end of the stick because they either had to endure emotional/physical abuse of their husbands or were left empty-handed when their role as lover/mother was served and were no longer needed.

Women have always organised themselves in communities. And this provided pressure or support on individual members of a community.
At the same time nobody is protected perfectly all the time, not women and certainly not men, neither should everybody be protected from his/her own stupidity. A woman making a careful choice when it comes to a husband (and vice versa) is an important element in genetic selection.
Maximising security for everybody at all costs is the downfall of any society, it promotes and selects for carelessness, stupidity and so forth.
Doesn’t mean that there should be no consideration for protection of weaknesses but maximising it is dysgenic in nature.

Another thing, depending on where and when, women were not throughout history without property or rights.

What feminism did and still does, from the first wave to the last wave is dismantle patriarchy, in other words, destroy the organisations of men.
Not that women had those feministic ideas all by themselves at large. It’s relatively few, usually those not invested in the communities themselves who propagate those destructive ideas and narratives. Men being often naive when it comes to women bought into those ideas as well. It’s kind of like Adam and Eve and the snake, now that I think about it.

Again, if anything to consider from what I just wrote it’s that feminism is not this magical creation and prior to it there were no women organising themselves.
There always have been. Point is that feminism is about destroying men’s organisation. Why? Because it’s oppressing women, apparently. And you know, it’s true, depending on how oppression is understood. Men try to dominate women and the patriarchal ways of organising (some of them good some of them not so much) help them do so. But without that domination - that leadership - women and effeminate men destroy society and a destroyed, weakened, society simply gets conquered or torn apart by another society and dominated or killed by them. And that’s usually not better, neither for men nor for the women overall.

Both men and women are the victims of feminism.

[Ultimate_Philosophy (Ultimate Philosophy 1001)]

@"James S Saint [strikethrough

Arminus[/strikethrough]"] (far more than a female could learn … which is why she is categorized “FE-male” - “easily pliable male”). I

Nonsense, everybody knows women are stubborn as a mule. FE means IRON…Iron is stubborn until you get it hot.

[Arminius]

@Ultimate Philosophy 1001

@Arminius

(far more than a female could learn … which is why she is categorized “FE-male” - “easily pliable male”). I

Nonsense, everybody knows women are stubborn as a mule. FE means IRON…Iron is stubborn until you get it hot.

You quoted me falsely. It was not my text.

[James_S_Saint]

@Ultimate Philosophy 1001

@James S Saint

(far more than a female could learn … which is why she is categorized “FE-male” - “easily pliable male”). I

Nonsense, everybody knows women are stubborn as a mule. FE means IRON…Iron is stubborn until you get it hot.

Pure iron was one of the softer metals and easily corrupted. You can bend an iron nail with your fingers. Try that with brass or steel. Of course if they had aluminum back then, you might be calling them “males and alumales”.

[Arminius]

@Ultimate Philosophy 1001

… everybody knows women are stubborn as a mule. FE means IRON…Iron is stubborn until you get it hot.

So you are saying that all humans (females and males) are stubborn. Hmmh …

[Ultimate_Philosophy (Ultimate Philosophy 1001)]

@Arminius

@Ultimate Philosophy 1001

@Arminius

(far more than a female could learn … which is why she is categorized “FE-male” - “easily pliable male”). I

Nonsense, everybody knows women are stubborn as a mule. FE means IRON…Iron is stubborn until you get it hot.

You quoted me falsely. It was not my text.

Sorry i had a headache and felt sick.

[Arminius]

The reasons for the non-sex-segregation, feminism, genderism, … (and so on and so forth) are not only the sexes themselves but also and especially the interest in the human resources.

If the societies of the west do not stop using the human resources like a common property, then the Tragedy of the Commons will go on and lead to the death of that societies.