Feminism

[norman]

"Why would I want to watch this video with a title like that"

The title and thumbnail of this video, although well connected to the content of it,are very misleading away from why you WOULD want to watch it. It's a well summarised history of feminism and a spiritual truth bomb on it's purpose and function. Why the title doesn't actually say that, I don't know, unless it's about algorithm calculated click success with a specifically targeted audience who need it most.


What's REALLY Behind the Lack of Good Men?
Kait Ann-Michelle - Aug 20, 2025

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=tsdBIANof8w

“Feminism Changed Everything” - The Birth Rate Crisis No One’s Talking About
Shawn Ryan Clips - Jul 10, 2025

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=scnYVZyJ280

How the Government Secretly Broke Your Family
Shawn Ryan Clips - Jul 12, 2025

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=i7qm02UvHDU

Chase Hughes - How They Broke us All - WARNING: GRAPHIC

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=SRb1sbuCNWA

They rewired what you believe.

This film exposes the hundred-year experiment that turned psychology into a weapon—how war-era mind research evolved into advertising, media manipulation, and now…the algorithm running your nervous system.

You’ve felt it your whole life: the dread, the noise, the endless chase for validation.
It isn’t random. It was built.

Watch until the end—and decide what’s really yours.

[Tintin]

I've encountered some quite shocked responses when discussing, and stating what I've observed over time summarising it as best I can as: feminism, the ideology, violates the sanctity of womanhood. Then witness the immediate emotional pushback and predictable conflation of feminism with femininity. It's quite the thing to be exposed to in real time. And near impossible to have a sensible dialogue around that. As the recent video posted by norman here addresses briefly: in certain circumstances, as a man, you can be immediately guilty in their minds - this includes certain Beta male types as well - of all sorts of nonsense eg misogyny, sexism, when of course the very opposite is the case. And I've made my case calmly with an element of forcefulness. Then you get shouted down. Frustrating yet symptomatic of the grip of ideology over biology.

This article is interesting as it deals with the gradual feminisation of the workplace (or is that the wokeplace?) and argues that the male propensity to logical solutions to let's say dispute resolution is often over-ridden by a more female emotional approach where, as we have invariably seen over time and I've witnessed it direct myself, focuses more on feelings than objective facts.

The Great Feminization
Author: Helen Andrews
Publication: Compact Mag

[Extracted]

"The problem is not that women are less talented than men or even that female modes of interaction are inferior in any objective sense. The problem is that female modes of interaction are not well suited to accomplishing the goals of many major institutions. You can have an academia that is majority female, but it will be (as majority-female departments in today’s universities already are) oriented toward other goals than open debate and the unfettered pursuit of truth. And if your academia doesn’t pursue truth, what good is it? If your journalists aren’t prickly individualists who don’t mind alienating people, what good are they? If a business loses its swashbuckling spirit and becomes a feminized, inward-focused bureaucracy, will it not stagnate?"

------------------------

In 2019, I read an article about Larry Summers and Harvard that changed the way I look at the world. The author, writing under the pseudonym “J. Stone,” argued that the day Larry Summers resigned as president of Harvard University marked a turning point in our culture. The entire “woke” era could be extrapolated from that moment, from the details of how Summers was cancelled and, most of all, who did the cancelling: women.

The basic facts of the Summers case were familiar to me. On January 14, 2005, at a conference on “Diversifying the Science and Engineering Workforce,” Larry Summers gave a talk that was supposed to be off the record. In it, he said that female underrepresentation in hard sciences was partly due to “different availability of aptitude at the high end” as well as taste differences between men and women “not attributable to socialization.” Some female professors in attendance were offended and sent his remarks to a reporter, in defiance of the off-the-record rule. The ensuing scandal led to a no-confidence vote by the Harvard faculty and, eventually, Summers’s resignation.

The essay argued that it wasn’t just that women had cancelled the president of Harvard; it was that they’d cancelled him in a very feminine way. They made emotional appeals rather than logical arguments. “When he started talking about innate differences in aptitude between men and women, I just couldn’t breathe because this kind of bias makes me physically ill,” said Nancy Hopkins, a biologist at MIT. Summers made a public statement clarifying his remarks, and then another, and then a third, with the apology more insistent each time. Experts chimed in to declare that everything Summers had said about sex differences was within the scientific mainstream. These rational appeals had no effect on the mob hysteria.

This cancellation was feminine, the essay argued, because all cancellations are feminine. Cancel culture is simply what women do whenever there are enough of them in a given organization or field. That is the Great Feminization thesis, which the same author later elaborated upon at book length: Everything you think of as “wokeness” is simply an epiphenomenon of demographic feminization.

The explanatory power of this simple thesis was incredible. It really did unlock the secrets of the era we are living in. Wokeness is not a new ideology, an outgrowth of Marxism, or a result of post-Obama disillusionment. It is simply feminine patterns of behavior applied to institutions where women were few in number until recently. How did I not see it before?

Possibly because, like most people, I think of feminization as something that happened in the past before I was born. When we think about women in the legal profession, for example, we think of the first woman to attend law school (1869), the first woman to argue a case before the Supreme Court (1880), or the first female Supreme Court Justice (1981).

A much more important tipping point is when law schools became majority female, which occurred in 2016, or when law firm associates became majority female, which occurred in 2023. When Sandra Day O’Connor was appointed to the high court, only 5 percent of judges were female. Today women are 33 percent of the judges in America and 63 percent of the judges appointed by President Joe Biden.

The same trajectory can be seen in many professions: a pioneering generation of women in the 1960s and ’70s; increasing female representation through the 1980s and ’90s; and gender parity finally arriving, at least in the younger cohorts, in the 2010s or 2020s. In 1974, only 10 percent of New York Times reporters were female. The New York Times staff became majority female in 2018 and today the female share is 55 percent.

Medical schools became majority female in 2019. Women became a majority of the college-educated workforce nationwide in 2019. Women became a majority of college instructors in 2023. Women are not yet a majority of the managers in America but they might be soon, as they are now 46 percent. So the timing fits. Wokeness arose around the same time that many important institutions tipped demographically from majority male to majority female.

The substance fits, too. Everything you think of as wokeness involves prioritizing the feminine over the masculine: empathy over rationality, safety over risk, cohesion over competition. Other writers who have proposed their own versions of the Great Feminization thesis, such as Noah Carl or Bo Winegard and Cory Clark, who looked at feminization’s effects on academia, offer survey data showing sex differences in political values. One survey, for example, found that 71 percent of men said protecting free speech was more important than preserving a cohesive society, and 59 percent of women said the opposite.

The most relevant differences are not about individuals but about groups. In my experience, individuals are unique and you come across outliers who defy stereotypes every day, but groups of men and women display consistent differences. Which makes sense, if you think about it statistically. A random woman might be taller than a random man, but a group of ten random women is very unlikely to have an average height greater than that of a group of ten men. The larger the group of people, the more likely it is to conform to statistical averages.

Female group dynamics favor consensus and cooperation. Men order each other around, but women can only suggest and persuade. Any criticism or negative sentiment, if it absolutely must be expressed, needs to be buried in layers of compliments. The outcome of a discussion is less important than the fact that a discussion was held and everyone participated in it. The most important sex difference in group dynamics is attitude to conflict. In short, men wage conflict openly while women covertly undermine or ostracize their enemies.

Bari Weiss, in her letter of resignation from The New York Times, described how colleagues referred to her in internal Slack messages as a racist, a Nazi, and a bigot and—this is the most feminine part—“colleagues perceived to be friendly with me were badgered by coworkers.” Weiss once asked a colleague at the Times opinion desk to get coffee with her. This journalist, a biracial woman who wrote frequently about race, refused to meet. This was a failure to meet the standards of basic professionalism, obviously. It was also very feminine.

Men tend to be better at compartmentalizing than women, and wokeness was in many ways a society-wide failure to compartmentalize. Traditionally, an individual doctor might have opinions on the political issues of the day but he would regard it as his professional duty to keep those opinions out of the examination room. Now that medicine has become more feminized, doctors wear pins and lanyards expressing views on controversial issues from gay rights to Gaza. They even bring the credibility of their profession to bear on political fads, as when doctors said Black Lives Matter protests could continue in violation of Covid lockdowns because racism was a public health emergency.

One book that helped me put the pieces together was Warriors and Worriers: The Survival of the Sexes by psychology professor Joyce Benenson. She theorizes that men developed group dynamics optimized for war, while women developed group dynamics optimized for protecting their offspring. These habits, formed in the mists of prehistory, explain why experimenters in a modern psychology lab, in a study that Benenson cites, observed that a group of men given a task will “jockey for talking time, disagree loudly,” and then “cheerfully relay a solution to the experimenter.” A group of women given the same task will “politely inquire about one another’s personal backgrounds and relationships … accompanied by much eye contact, smiling, and turn-taking,” and pay “little attention to the task that the experimenter presented.”

The point of war is to settle disputes between two tribes, but it works only if peace is restored after the dispute is settled. Men therefore developed methods for reconciling with opponents and learning to live in peace with people they were fighting yesterday. Females, even in primate species, are slower to reconcile than males. That is because women’s conflicts were traditionally within the tribe over scarce resources, to be resolved not by open conflict but by covert competition with rivals, with no clear terminus.

All of these observations matched my observations of wokeness, but soon the happy thrill of discovering a new theory eventually gave way to a sinking feeling. If wokeness really is the result of the Great Feminization, then the eruption of insanity in 2020 was just a small taste of what the future holds. Imagine what will happen as the remaining men age out of these society-shaping professions and the younger, more feminized generations take full control.

(the article continues here)

[norman]

Posted by Tintin (here)

. . . . . The point of war is to settle disputes between two tribes, but it works only if peace is restored after the dispute is settled. Men therefore developed methods for reconciling with opponents and learning to live in peace with people they were fighting yesterday. Females, even in primate species, are slower to reconcile than males. That is because women’s conflicts were traditionally within the tribe over scarce resources, to be resolved not by open conflict but by covert competition with rivals, with no clear terminus. . . .

Academia itself does the feminine method. It does it in the worst of ways too. It does it with a masculine ass-sitting approach to having no clear terminus.


So how do we fix all this ?

I'm in no doubt that we are in a war for the survival of both sexes together. I don't want a perpetual war, or a jinxed play-for-time truce. I want it settled and done with. And, of course, I want that we win.

The data about feminine biology shows that even in war where men do the bonded strength front against the threat/enemy the women much more casually shuffle around within the scarcity space competing for selfish opportunity.

Is that because they do not recognise "war" as war ?

It seems that in the case of ww2 German women did not. Was that because they were the smart ones who understood the difference between a staged conflict and a Just War and set their sites on the outcome of a culling they couldn't prevent?

If it had really been a just war, would they have behaved any differently ?


The Female Loyalty Study So Dangerous the Nazis BURIED It
Psychrypt - Sep 26, 2025

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=EKLAYGi77QM

[norman]

Gender - by Ivan Illich

An amateur audio recording (minus the extensive footnotes)


'The break with the past, which has been described by others as the transition to a capitalist mode of production, I describe here as the transition from the aegis of gender to the regime of sex.' Ivan Illich insists that we survey attitudes to male and female in both industrial society and its antecedents in order to recover a lost 'art of living'. 'While under any reign of gender women might be subordinate, under any economic regime they are only second sex... both genders are stripped, and, neutered, the man ends up on top.' He argues that only a truly radical scrutiny of scarcity, with special attention in this study to the sexes and society, past and present, can prevent an intensification of this grim predicament

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=xtG-9kvn-ys

[norman]

Why am I posting this in a thread titled "Feminism" ? find out.

Sacred Sons - Teal Swan on Mastering Masculinity
Sacred Sons - Dec 1, 2025


I found this to be a high value watch/listen.

In the early part it proceeds as a Man counsellor session but it gradually becomes much more than that.

1 hr:30 min

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=vLdf8CN7nZg

[onawah]

BONUS: Sexual Objectification, Empathy, and the Michael Teachings
David Gregg
Dec 07, 2025
https://substack.com/home/post/p-180983029
(Anyone unfamiliar with The Michael Teachings can get an overview here: https://www.michaelteachings.com/ )

"A Michael Teachings View: Why cases like Epstein’s are symptoms of a deeper problem—and how empathy and heart-centered sexuality can change it.
Here’s a bonus edition of the newsletter. And warning…this is a heavier topic.

Given the current media firestorm about the Epstein files, the people possibly implicated, and the woefully forgotten survivors, I thought this older channeling I did about sexual objectification was more relevant than ever before. The piece is not about Epstein, in particular, but the discussion is highly relevant. It’s also not a condemnation of men, but an invitation to notice where they don’t want to be part of the problem.

We live in what’s often called a rape culture — a culture where sexual assault is normalized, excused, or quietly tolerated, and where victims are blamed more easily than perpetrators.

This channeling explores not only the issue itself, but how empathy and heart-centered sexuality can begin to change that.

I’ve also included the Michael charts of both Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell.

Sexual Objectification, Empathy, and the Michael Teachings
Sexual objectification, locker room talk, female body parts, rape culture, sexual assault -- these are terms that define a systemic problem in society, a problem too often inoculated with unsavory comments and excuses like she had it coming, or boys will be boys, or she’s a ****.

Victim blaming, often defined in derogatory terms as **** shaming, are cruel yet common reactions, especially when an assault involves young girls at the high school level. That under-aged boys involved in these crimes rarely face punitive charges -- or even realize the gravity of their crimes -- is another distressing symptom of a societal attitude where men are seen as whole persons and women are seen as objects.

The problem of sexual objectification has become ubiquitous. Ads that objectify women are run daily in magazines and TV commercials; entire lines of clothing are designed for sexual appeal, not comfort, and physical attractiveness is equated with self-worth. While studies linking the objectification of women to sexual assault are still hotly debated, the growing disconnect amongst people who place their self-centered desires above the rights of others is an alarming trend.

Audrie & Daisy (Documentary): When Assault Meets Public Humiliation

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=H1DUFZ4Fnd8

Audrie and Daisy is a powerful and disturbing documentary about two high school girls sexually assaulted while intoxicated. One of them later committed suicide following an aftermath of public humiliation. The documentary should be mandatory viewing in ALL high schools.

The usual fallout of small-town corruption unfolds throughout the film, which includes the community taking sides, vicious attacks against the girls on social media and even burning down a house. The documentary exposes the sad degree of unconsciousness that exists in ignorant minds.

Deeply moved by the courageousness in the girls that came forward (and the ensuing media firestorm that ignited their court cases), I asked the Michael entity to comment on the issues raised by the film.

Michael’s Comments
Michael on Polarization, Karma, and the Need for Early Empathy
When a documentary like Audrie & Daisy begins the important discussion about sexual assault, objectification and shaming, the polarity this incites in the conversation draws the opposing sides out into the open. This creates an opportunity for change around an issue.

Polarities can be divisive and contentious and many voices in a community maintain their views in silence. Exposing the raw nerve of an issue, however, brings the matter to the surface -- not just to simmer, but to boil. That is what was seen in the court cases involving these girls.

The desired outcome to any corrosive issue is best realized when you reveal that it exists and then work to quickly neutralize it. By neutralizing, though, we are not suggesting that the problem should be minimized or viewed with indifference, but that a neutral playing field is established where understanding, negotiation and appropriate action lay the groundwork for change. Until both sides hear each other, until they are empathetic to the opposite view, change will not easily occur.

Karmic-inducing acts that run amok in the lives of others are the result of false personality (and its henchman, the negative alter-egos). In situations like sexual assault or the sexual objectification of women, where empathy is non-existent, the optimal solution is education, and education should begin at an early age and involve seeing and understanding the commonalities that exist between all living beings.

Objectification occurs when the division between others, especially the opposite gender, becomes so great that an energy of separation prevents an empathetic connection.

When sexual feelings develop in the psyche of an adolescent, for example, and the empathetic qualities of the heart are underdeveloped, the lack of empathy might prompt sexual desires that objectify rather than see a person as a whole. In contrast, when someone is able to see a part of themselves in all the people they encounter, they are less likely to malign or harm others.

Three Practical Exercises for Developing Empathy

These exercises can be modified and taught to both children and adults. They would only need to cater to the level of experience and understanding.

1) This first exercise is an age-old variant on the Walking a Mile in the Shoes of Another adage.

In this variation, take a day and imagine that you’re briefly occupying the body of any person that attracts your attention. This can be a bank teller conducting an account transfer, a street worker digging a hole while you wait in your car at a traffic stop, or a homeless person sifting through trash in an alley dumpster. The person or situation is unimportant. The exercise is only about briefly using your imagination to inhabit the physical space of another and empathize with their worldly experience.

If it’s a street worker, imagine feeling his physical sensations as he works outdoors under a hot sun, hammering through the asphalt. Feel how his muscles ache and his body perspires. Feel his growing fatigue. Go deeper and imagine the thoughts and emotions of the worker. Is his labor mixed with pressing concerns about his life? Push for specifics. Imagine what it would be like if you were this person.

If you suddenly spot an elderly man pushing a walker down the sidewalk, transport yourself into his experience. Feel his crippled limbs, sense the frustration he endures to no longer possess a young and healthy body.

The goal of the exercise is to strengthen your empathetic skill by placing yourself into the lives of the people you encounter in your daily life.

2) This exercise is called Melding. The goal is to no longer just occupy the body of another person but to BECOME that person.

Pick someone you might encounter over an extended part of the day. This could be someone at work, a family member or friend. You simply need to be in their space for several hours.

Now imagine that this person is another aspect of YOU. They may possess different personality traits (role, overleaves) and different life experiences, but the person is still another expression of your soul occupying their body. Their experience is now your experience; their emotions are now your emotions.

Throughout the day watch them from afar and also interact in appropriate ways relevant to your relationship. How does it feel to be looking at another expression of yourself? Have your feelings changed knowing that this isn’t a separate, disconnected person standing before you, but another manifestation of YOU?

The next day, imagine at least two people who are another YOU manifestation. How far can you extend your personal expression during the week? How many times can you multiple yourself?

3) Our final exercise is called Bridging the Gap. This exercise is easy to do but requires a little tolerance up front.

If you encounter someone who is behaving negatively or rudely, imagine an understandable cause behind their behavior that has nothing to do with them being naturally ill-tempered.

If someone angrily honks their horn behind you because you didn’t notice the traffic light had changed to green, imagine that they’re anxiously racing home from work to care for a sick child. If someone unfairly berates you at your job for a mistake you made on a document, imagine that your co-worker is overcome with the stress of a difficult divorce.

In short, use your imagination (and growing empathy) to bridge the gap between you and a challenging personality. Fill the gap with something that helps you understand their behavior. It doesn’t matter if it isn’t true or if the person is really a jerk. Your goal is to model compassion and develop greater empathy for others.

If practiced with diligence and sincerity, these exercises will provide invaluable life lessons for you.

Curious about the root cause of sexual objectification, I asked the Michael entity to address the how and why of female objectification and how that can be transformed into a more loving expression.

Michael’s Comments

Michael on Sexual Objectification and True Union
To objectify another, to fixate on certain body parts that stimulate sexual arousal, is to only see a fraction of the infinite beauty of another soul. The stigmatization of female body parts as sexual objects -- idolized in advertising, movies, and the global culture -- is certainly nothing new. Physical attraction is an undeniable factor in the biological act of procreation; the sexual urge is a hard-wired instinct in most living beings.

Like anything, though, the components of love and fear are prominent players in this sexual dance. For your present culture, sex is often an instinctive mechanism with little room left for making an emotional connection. With this marked tendency to view others as instruments of physical gratification alone -- or in parlance common to your society, “Wow, she is really HOT” -- a negative alter ego is created that is instinctive centered and disconnected from seeing someone as a whole person.

Negative alter egos are independent parts of the false personality (or ego) that supplant the personality when certain emotions and fixations are triggered. The sexual expression and behavior of a negative alter ego is self-indulgent and has little to do with the creation of a sexual union that brings two souls together as one. The sexual act then becomes a form of mutual masturbation.

In extreme cases, an alter ego created around sex can lead to animalistic displays of sexual behavior, with a sole focus on achieving gratification with or without the consent of the partner. Many instances of sexual assault and rape occur when the alter ego races out of control, feeding on the negative energy generated from a lack of connection to essence. Remarks made later such as “I don’t know what came over me” are common explanations following an assault. The instinctive energies, coupled with the programming of the sexual alter ego, override the more loving dictates of the higher self (or essence).

This, however, does not remove karmic responsibility for criminal acts. The creation of an alter ego -- in this case, with a fixation on sex -- is the result of repeatedly objectifying women (or men) at the personality level. Evaluations concerning the shapeliness of breasts, legs, and so on, are limiting and shallow, and act as a barrier to appreciating the whole of another human being.

Ideally, all connections to a sexual partner should begin as a connection to the heart, not the loins. When sexual energy is not tempered with proportional energies from the heart, a true sexual union cannot be achieved. Blending heart energy with sexual energy creates a criss-cross exchange that momentarily unifies two souls in a mutual expression of ecstasy. This rarely occurs, though, if the sole focus is on having an orgasm or “getting-off.”

A true union with another is less about sexual attraction and more about the openness of the heart. True union cannot be achieved unless both partners transcend the effects of false personality -- at least for the duration of the act. This is not as daunting as it sounds, though. Sexual intimacy, when shared with love -- and this is important -- helps boost the spiritual immune system, so to speak, against the negative effects of false personality.

True union is possible when the energies of the heart are the focal point. Without the energies of the heart, sex is just a fulfillment of biological urges, an instinctive-driven act of procreation.

The creation of the whole, the climatic point of any loved-based sexual expression, is the ultimate goal. Penetration and even orgasm are not necessary for this union to occur -- although an orgasm often marks the release of this energetic wholeness. It is even possible for a sexual union to occur by gazing into the eyes of a partner without any physical contact at all. The intention is simply connection and oneness.

Heartbreaking Note: Audrie committed suicide 9 days after the assault. Daisy lived on, became an actvist to help process what she had experienced, but eventually committed suicide in 2020.


The Overleaves of Epstein and Maxwell


Jeffrey Epstein (Channeled 12/5/25)
2nd young scholar, discarnate warrior ET, artisan casting (2/7/3), dominance, realist, aggression, moving/intellectual, greed/impatience/arrogance.

Ghislaine Maxwell (Channeled 12/5/25)
4h young priest, discarnate sage ET, king casting (7/2/3), acceptance, idealist, passion, moving/emotional, arrogance/impatience.

In my next newsletter I hope to introduce new material to the Michael teachings. It still needs a couple more weeks to percolate. But you’ll be the FIRST to see it!

Until next time, thanks for reading!

All the best,
David Gregg "

[norman]

Helen Andrews, Again.

The Problem With Feminising Society - Helen Andrews
Triggernometry - 1 day ago

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=pfbilhs5dt4

[onawah]

For anyone who may have wanted to read "Bloodline of the Holy Grail" by the late Sir Lawrence Gardner but just hasn't got around to it yet, I've copied 2 pages of an outline of it here:
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/sho...=1#post1697214

But for the purpose of better understanding how and to what extent since the time of Christ the Church has discriminated against women, there are 5 pages in all, and they all have something to contribute to that understanding, starting here: https://www.karenlyster.com/body_bookish1.html

The complete book is over 400 pages long, a best seller first published in the UK in 1996. More about the book and author, the late Sir Lawrence Gardner here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurence_Gardner

[norman]

DEBATE: Feminist Women Vs Non-Feminist Women
The Diary Of A CEO - Jun 19, 2025

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=ZHuZ_8VYCWA

⏱ Timestamps:

00:00 Intro
02:14 Introducing the Panel
03:28 What Is the Sexual Revolution?
10:01 Autonomy, Freedom, and Agency as a Byproduct of the Sexual Revolution
14:48 Casual Sex and Hookup Culture
30:47 One Sexual Partner for Life
33:00 Age of Marriage Increasing Over Time
33:40 Emotional Consequences of Sex
39:36 Feminists Typically Have Had Trauma
43:13 Agency as a Personality Trait
47:27 Sex Education in Schools
49:19 Female Pleasure
51:12 Is Sexual Freedom Making Us Happy?
53:36 Feeling Bullied by the Narrative of Freedom
57:29 Ads
59:32 Manosphere and Tradwives
01:06:55 Do Women Want Men to Be Providers?
01:07:46 Children and Gender Roles
01:12:08 Poor Mothers Looking After Children
01:18:17 The Role Feminism Has Had on Motherhood
01:22:20 Would Steven Take 3 Years Off Work to Raise Children?
01:23:28 Men and Women's Nurturing Hormones
01:27:57 We Can't Be Neutral About Policies
01:30:24 The Narrative That Having Children Is Miserable
01:32:12 Female Guilt
01:33:20 Parenthood and Narcissism
01:41:27 Birth Rates Declining
01:42:51 Traditional Gender Roles
01:48:29 Demonizing Feminism
01:52:38 Link Between Political Stance and Number of Children
01:56:48 Ads
01:58:33 Pornography
02:06:02 Masculine Virtues
02:11:16 Do Boys and Girls Need to Be Parented Differently?
02:12:45 Chivalry
02:13:50 Evolutionary Differences
02:19:05 Quotas in Education
02:21:02 Final Thoughts



A head banging extravaganza.

[petra]

Posted by NancyV (here)
I'm glad I actually watched this video! I wasn't going to because I thought it might be another boring feminist rant and I detest rabid feminists. But it turned out to be a logical, intelligent and well presented argument pointing out the flaws, inconsistencies and hypocrisies in the usual feminist arguments and beliefs. Many of her views agree with mine.

Women can actually be very dangerous to men's self esteem and feminists have used their considerable female power to try to make men feel guilty by placing women in the role of victims who have been abused by men. I'm glad feminists haven't yet managed to emasculate ALL men although they sure as hell have tried. Thanks, I really enjoyed the video.

I'm glad I read this posting because I don't want to watch videos I much prefer this text approach

Fascinating and I'll try to be less dangerous too, shiiiit

[norman]

Posted by norman (here)


So how do we fix all this ?

I'm in no doubt that we are in a war for the survival of both sexes together. I don't want a perpetual war, or a jinxed play-for-time truce. I want it settled and done with. And, of course, I want that we win.

The data about feminine biology shows that even in war where men do the bonded strength front against the threat/enemy the women much more casually shuffle around within the scarcity space competing for selfish opportunity.

Is that because they do not recognise "war" as war ?

It seems that in the case of ww2 German women did not. Was that because they were the smart ones who understood the difference between a staged conflict and a Just War and set their sites on the outcome of a culling they couldn't prevent?

If it had really been a just war, would they have behaved any differently ?


The Female Loyalty Study So Dangerous the Nazis BURIED It

This lesser known Machiavelli writing whittles it down to painful brutal truth with a stark implication of "how do we fix all this". In my own takeaway understanding of what he wrote, I agree.

This Message Machiavelli Left You About Women

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=_FEDknpRKjA

Interestingly, I recently heard about the DNA historical research showing that between 8 and 5 thousand years ago 80% of male DNA lines went extinct while all the female lines carried on without a glitch.

The 'experts' conclude that male losses in battles could not account for this 80% loss of the male lines in parallel with a straight line of continuity of the female lines. They conclude that the reason has to be a drastic restructuring of the mating and reproduction behaviour during that period. They assess that there was a ratio of 17 females to 1 male reproducing the species at that time.

I could go further into the social and economic changes and how they match them up with the observation but for now I'll skip straight to a spooky correlation between that data to a current set of data collected from modern dating apps.

That very same figure of 80% has shown up again in the ratio between male match successes and female match successes.


How weird is that ?



I'll add a bit of my own longer term thinking here.

Even throughout the animals of this world, long term, The species that developed hierarchies and so whittled down their DNA pools became the species that "cut themselves off at the pass" as the conditions of the environment evolved and changed stressing their diminished DNA variety and adaptability beyond it's ability to keep up.

That's why I get so angry with people who believe that racial 'purity' eugenicism is the right way to go.

Helen Andrews' proposition that feminising society is a huge mistake may have a much deeper evolutionary dimension to it too. These missing 80%ers (male) are the gaps appearing in the biological hierarchy that very well could be leading us, over time, to a stupefied state that "cuts us ALL off at the pass"..