全 39 件のコメント

[–]fundude12 23ポイント24ポイント  (11子コメント)

Men were fooled into feminism because:

1) Men had a false notion of female sexual nature. They thought becoming less "repressive" would mean there would be an equal distribution of pussy for all the men. They never realized that the VAST majority would only ride the CC for the top 10%.

2) Misunderstood female hypergamy in terms of no fault divorce (natural extension of feminism). Men truly believed women were "pure" creatures who would never break up marriages. After all, it was the MEN who cheat right?

3) Misunderstanding that women will use beta bucks guys (if they can't secure an alpha) but lose sexual attraction to him after riding the CC. This leads to unhappy marriages for men who didn't realize women with a lot of sexual partners were bad.

4) Affirmative Action was supposed to be about "equality". Women quickly voted in SUPERIORITY int terms of academic admissions standards. This is naturally going forward in business as well.

5) Collapsing birth rate and single mothers. Men never expected women to avoid having children until older ages. They also assumed women were "monogamous" and only cared to have kids in marriage.

False assumptions of female's "pure" nature is the biggest reason feminism got off the ground in the West coupled with the average man thinking he would get more "sexual access".

Neither has proven true but its too late for the betas since the genie is out of the bottle.

[–]Endorsed ContributorLastRevision[S] 11ポイント12ポイント  (10子コメント)

Another false-presumption/fallacy of Progressivism is how the group that is perceived to be oppressed is somehow made inherently good through their struggle with such perceived oppression, and when given charge at naming their demands, will be fair and even-handed when doing so.

This is why women are allowed to define the parameters of rape and misogyny, and why the UN is patiently listening to two idiots ramble about their internet feelings.

[–]fundude12 4ポイント5ポイント  (8子コメント)

I think Chivalry and men's false notions on female nature has really screwed things up.

Most men really believed women are the "pure and innocent sex".

Only now, after feminism has been in full swing for about 10 years, do men see the actual REAL nature of women.

TRP is a response to these changes.

Notice how the older men you talk to are diametrically different in belief about women than younger men.

Older men still believe in the "pure nature" of women while younger men who have experienced feminism at waking up.

[–]1oldredder 6ポイント7ポイント  (1子コメント)

I see the opposite. I see middle-old men bowing to women, young men using them and the oldest men saying "I told ya so"

[–]fundude12 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yes. WW2 generation were red pill.

The baby boomers are the men who fell for the bullshit.

The younger generation of men who were the FIRST to experience true feminism are figuring shit out. The baby boomer men never experienced feminism even though they are the ones who instituted it starting with Clinton.

[–]Dravous 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

the actual REAL nature of women.

I'm not a religious person, but but this was actually warned about in the bible. nobody in recent history took original sin seriously, they really should have.

[–]Dangerestdrag -2ポイント-1ポイント  (4子コメント)

Feminism is 100 years old bro

[–]themanwhosaid 3ポイント4ポイント  (2子コメント)

Older than that, but the last half century is when it really started gaining traction.

[–]fundude12 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Yes but if you look at the "elite" levels, white men basically dominated until the mid 90s. Then things shifted dramatically in med schools, law schools, etc. Obama got in under AA during the early 90s.

Business schools have shifted largely in the 2000s to 2010s

[–]themanwhosaid 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yep, that's a testament to how they want to dethrone men and put women at the top. I say men because they'll do the same thing to males in different ethnic groups soon enough just look at black feminism. To be honest the progressive bloc in this country is mostly white and naturally white men have made up the main auxiliary force in subsequent feminist waves.

Funny how they always want to deflect the notion that they're just trying to dethrone certain groups of people.

[–]fundude12 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yes it is but not implemented as aggressively since Clinton. (Bush and Obama were no better).

The baby boomers started the "modern feminist movement". They remained marginal in centers of the govt and even academia until the WW2 generation passed.

Look when laws were aggressively changed. Look when women became the "majority" in colleges, etc.

[–]themanwhosaid 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I have been trying to think of a way to illustrate that and you have done better than I ever could! Bravo! Bravo!

[–]iLLprincipLeS 7ポイント8ポイント  (0子コメント)

Corrupt the young, get them away from religion. Get them interested in sex. Make them superficial, destroy their ruggedness. Get control of all means of publicity and thereby: Get the peoples mind off their government by focusing their attention on sports, sensual entertainments, and other trivialities. Divide the people into hostile groups by constantly harping on controversial matters of no importance. Cause the registration of all firearms on some pretext, with the view of confiscating them and leaving the population defenceless. Always preach true democracy but seize power as fast and as ruthlessly as possible. Encourage government extravagance, destroy its credit, produce fear with rising prices, inflation and general discontent. Encourage civil disorders and foster a soft and lenient attitude on the part of government towards such disorders. By specious argument cause the breakdown of the old moral virtues: honesty, sobriety, self-restraint.

  • Vladimir Lenin, Communist Rules for Revolution.

[–]1moodyprism 4ポイント5ポイント  (22子コメント)

I always found a good examlpe of this to be slavery. All around the world through out the millenia humanity has engaged in slavery. Without slavery do you think the world would have progressed and incubated the right conditions for the industrial revolution to happen and make slavery obsolete? Probably not.

[–]Piroko 5ポイント6ポイント  (14子コメント)

Slavery, however inefficient and even counterproductive, serves ONE economic role.

It places an artificially elevated floor on the value of a human life.

Despite progressive mewling to the contrary, it is possible to put a price on human life; in fact it's impossible to not have a price. The absolute floor of the price of a human life is 1500 kcal/day. Without that, you don't have a living human, you have a dead human killed by starvation.

But a slave is not useful at 1,500 kcal/day. That's just the energy necessary to keep the body from dying. It takes 2,000-2,500 kcal/day to be physically productive.

Now, we have today a situation where we have more workers than the economy needs to provide for everyone's needs. But the economy is still based on earning in order to obtain your needs.

Our economy has responded by becoming more service oriented but even this is still too efficient, we have more people than we need. So sooner or later we're going to have to get to the point of people being subservient simply to make themselves worth their 1500 kcal/day.

[–]lycanthr0py 0ポイント1ポイント  (12子コメント)

Not everybody has to work, if we configure the economy differently. It's not necessarily going to be the way you say. The better self sufficient tech gets the easier it is to not ”work” in the traditional sense. There are a lot of possibilities. It won't just reduce to slavery guaranteed.

[–]Piroko 1ポイント2ポイント  (11子コメント)

if we configure the economy differently

Which we won't.

I live in Iowa and I'll tell you: feudalism is alive and well, I've seen it, and its called Nebraska.

The people who control the means of production for that 1500 kcal/day, ABSOLUTELY WILL NOT tolerate collectivism. They barely tolerate the degree of socialism we have now, and only because they get their own handouts in the Farm Bill.

[–]lycanthr0py 1ポイント2ポイント  (6子コメント)

I fully agree. The powers that be will not allow us to share even if its all voluntary. It will always be more more more, always demanded from the lowest on the totem pole. We could greatly move to ”post work society" in a large part if we were not viewed by the psychopath-like powers that be as an expendable resource.

[–]Piroko 0ポイント1ポイント  (5子コメント)

Don't mistake me for being sympathetic. I'm not.

I'm with them. I would rather a Dickensian dystopia where my successes are meaningful and failure is something to be avoided. Because I AM successful, I worked for everything I have, harder than many. In that Dickensian world I would shine even more than I do today.

[–]lycanthr0py -1ポイント0ポイント  (4子コメント)

Sure. I'm not into free shit for everyone, especially not off my back, but I am for people changing a system that doesn't work for them, living differently, stopping their support for a system that isn't in their best interest. etc. It won't happen because people are too stupid, but I won't be farmed like that. Most people will.

You don't need a Hard Times to become reality to have your accomplishments mean something. They should mean something to you regardless of what others think.

It's funny how a significant portion of the red pill sub thinks it can join the upper crust. They won't. They are tax cattle too, just more useful since their misguided admiration of their farmers furthers that exact interest even more. It's a shame that people are so degraded that they don't even realize where their best interests lie as a populace. Too bad. At least you can enjoy the decline.

[–]Piroko 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

It's funny how a significant portion of the red pill sub thinks it can join the upper crust.

I don't think they actually think that.

I think they think that what they do accomplish will be meaningful. Which it would be. Today sloth is rewarded and diligence penalized. The housing bailout. Welfare. SNAP. These things should not exist.

You don't need a Hard Times to become reality to have your accomplishments mean something. They should mean something to you regardless of what others think.

No, because we give equal outcomes. The housing bailout. Welfare. SNAP. The consequence for failure to earn enough to eat should be starvation and death. That is what makes successfully earning enough to eat meaningful. We take away the meaning of success by taking away the consequence of failure.

[–]lycanthr0py -1ポイント0ポイント  (2子コメント)

Their accomplishments won't be meaningful intrinsically, they will just make up a theory of meaning, justify it to themselves and feel good about it. It's all totally meaningless. We create our own meaning out of nothing. Then you die. It's not any Les made up than Santa.

Truly, you have to be amazingly inept to literally die from laziness. People who support welfare should fund it. Those who don't shouldn't be extorted. Not for Tyrone and Keisha, and not for Royal Dutch Shell and JP Morgan. Some people regard the ability to share and the subsequent feelings it gives them as a part of their success. Any theory of meaning is arbitrary and Human. It's all made up. Some of it will be more useful.

[–]Piroko 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

People who support welfare should fund it. Those who don't shouldn't be extorted.

That is how the world used to be.

It ought be that way again. End welfare. End SNAP. End the bailouts. No taxes for social assistance. No public debt for social assistance.

[–]2 Endorsed Contributorvengefully_yours 2ポイント3ポイント  (3子コメント)

Please expound upon Nebraska. I'll add to it also. I grew up there, was divorce raped by that state, left homeless, and they wanted more. Being from Iowa, it's interesting what you allude to, especially since the corn champion is Chuck Grassley. Give me your perspective, not to argue though.

[–]Piroko 3ポイント4ポイント  (2子コメント)

There are counties in Nebraska where 90% of the land is owned by ten or fewer landowners. These are no longer "family farms". The owning entities have become effectively feudal lords, only modestly less powerful than Walt Disney was with his Reedy Creek Improvement District (which allowed Disney World to effectively secede from Orange and Osceola County, making it subject ONLY to state and federal law; RCID has absolute authority within its boundary for building codes, zoning, but also responsibility for 911 service).

The Reagan farm recession precipitated this situation.

They have become lords. Wage employees work the land they own, effectively as tractor-riding knights. Most use the land to feed their own mass animal enclosures, complete with their own salaried veterinarians. Many own their own elevators, some even with their own rail spurs and switching engines. Their own dusters and paved airstrips. Some are beginning to purchase their own wind turbines rather than waiting for MidAmerican Energy to make an offer. Now that 1.5-3 mw turbines are basically a turn-key operation, there's just the matter of the initial investment, which they can increasingly afford. A few have even pooled their funds to start their own wholly owned ethanol refineries. Some even operate their own crop insurance agencies and credit unions (the USDA had to crack down on that a couple years ago). Some no longer directly oversee the operation of their lands and assets, and instead spend time dabbling in show or race horses.

This is an example I like to use. The top picture is the Boeing Everett Factory, the largest factory in the world. Makes 747's. The bottom picture is a chicken farm in central Iowa; one of the top ten largest chicken farms on the planet. The two pictures are exactly to scale. Only one of these has public shareholders.

[–]2 Endorsed Contributorvengefully_yours 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

That's one way to look at it. My cousin owns or farms most of the county I grew up in, he drag races instead of show horses. I find it strange that he is so resistant to ethanol, but I am relatively certain he thinks it's just like methanol. I know people like those you speak of, since my dad sold Case IH for a few decades, I got to know them when I came home from our lovely oil wars in Iraq.

I'm not much of a fan of monoculture farming, and industrial chicken/hog enclosures, but it meets the demand for KFC. That kind of farming isn't so much about feeding people, even if the massive feedlots are. The land required to feed the entire world is a small fraction of what is farmed today. There used to be pastures and grassy run off areas, even terraces and dams to control rain run off, but with center pivots being cheap and easy that is all shrinking.

For me, I'd rather we had super wealthy farmers instead of mega wealthy oil barons and sheiks who fund terrorists. Still, that much power and influence tends to be self serving and can be very destructive.

[–]Piroko 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

My point is that control of the US food supply is concentrated in the hands of a very small number of people, numbering in the thousands. They are incredibly wealthy and increasingly operate like the Japanese keiretsu.

Many would sooner burn it all in spite than see it collectivized.

drag races

Tractor pulling is another such pasttime. (Yes, those are jet engines.)

[–]larrythetomato 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Our economy has responded by becoming more service oriented but even this is still too efficient, we have more people than we need. So sooner or later we're going to have to get to the point of people being subservient simply to make themselves worth their 1500 kcal/day.

This is an interesting idea, slavery happens when the productivity of a human is greater than required to keep them alive. But now that we are so productive, a small number of workers can keep everyone alive, and provide a high standard of living to everyone (for many of the bureaucracy, their only goal is to force others to spend resources on their bureaucracy, society would be better off if we still paid their salaries and they did nothing).

This was an idea that was explored in Brave New World Aldous Huxley. Their solution was to halt progress, encourage extreme consumption (throwing away things instead of repairing them) and supply 'Soma' (a pleasant, no side effect drug, possible metaphor for any vice). Sound familiar? Funnily enough in the story, they even talked about an experiment where they reduced work hours from 8h to 4h and all they noticed was an increase in Soma consumption. This prompted them to artificially keep ~40% of the population in agriculture, as basically a make work initiative to keep them doing something (sound familiar?).

Who knows, maybe the progressives are actually smarter than they look, and this is their end goal: coopt a bunch of the stupid to do their bidding, while they legalise drugs in order to keep the majority of the population busy and unproductive, creative make work, while destroying the family structure to discourage investment. It sure seems like that is where we are heading.

[–]Ladd_MaccAodh 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

It's a symptom, but too emotional to make for good rhetoric.

My favorite example comes from sci-fi. Robert Heinlein was a straight white male who liked adventure and manliness. Clearly a shitlord, right? And the modern progressives certainly think so, if they think about 1950's sci-fi at all. He had attitudes about women and men and society that seem awful and evil by today's leftist standards. However, he used to have minority protagonists, female protagonists, polyamorous relationships, and other things now taken for granted. He paved that way for some of them in modern literature. He created worlds where anyone could have strong values and stand by them in the face of adversity, regardless of their sex or race.

But to the progressive, the perfect is always the enemy of the good. Yesterday's champion of Progress is tomorrow's shitlord, and if the leftists writes the history, then yesterday's champion will either be villified or forgotten outright.

It's the same with the free and wealthy society we have today. The founding fathers were Evil White Rich Racists. Nevermind that they paved the way for the next big Progressive step, they weren't perfect by the standards of today's leftists and therefore must be scorned. Free speech? No state religion? No religious test for office? Due process for all? A normal person sees that and admires their courage. A leftists sees a society of evil people who failed to immediately create 21st-century tolerant love socialism.

[–]sir_wankalot_here 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Heinlein gets slammed heavily by both the right and left because he does not fit into a mold. His books where written to provoke thought and where thought experiments.

So the book "Starship Trooper" is asking the question "Who should be allowed to vote ? How should it be decided ?"

Also Hielien understood nothing ever stays static. There is constant change. Human beings strive for security and stability.

Feminism is a direct result of technological progress plain and simple. It is also a result of the conservatives not adjusting to technological progress.

[–]RedPharaohRising 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

As an extension, we only realise the mistakes of the past standing on the platform of all the things they got right.

[–]Freddy_Fedora 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

Well I wouldn't argue that slavery is exactly productive. I mean Africa currently has more human slaves then it has ever had and their still living in mud huts.

Let's be real here. Humanity has been a bit of a shit hole until the Industrial Revolution. Before the industrial revolution we didn't have proper medicine, or means to manufacture tools. The industrial revolution had nothing to do with slavery. The progress of humanity is not a steady climb. It is a mess of vast peaks and valley, and we've been skyrocketing into unimaginable quality of life changes in the last 250 years.

The white man built the modern world, and traditional gender roles made it possible (as well as a few world wars).

"A strong civilization relies on men who have a reason to want a prosperous future beyond their lifetime."

This point stands out the most. Men don't feel a need to build society anymore, the moral fibre of our civilisation is gone. The best we can do is take as much of it as we can before it's all gone.

[–]sir_wankalot_here 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

You slavery statement sums it up, slavery does not make economical sense.

The white man built the modern world, and traditional gender roles made it possible (as well as a few world wars).

This statement is 50% correct. The statement about traditional gender roles are 100% incorrect. Before the industrial revolution the largest producer of cotton cloth was India and China. The industrial revolution was based on Britain spinning cotton.

Several things happened at the time, because of urbanization women did not need to work as hard. As a result there was all these cheap labour which was available to work in textile factories.

Not following traditional roles allowed Britain and USA to win both WW1 and WW2. During WW2, Japan and Germany followed traditional gender roles and relied on slave labour. Britian and USA relied on female labour as a result they could out produce Germany and Japan who relied on slave labour.

All of the technology on how to product textiles was stolen from India and China. Neither of the two countries could have an industrial revolution because they refused to break gender roles.

[–]themanwhosaid -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

Ummm I think the abolition of slavery was one of the things that really got things working actually. If people are free they can compete and sell their productive labor giving employers incentives to be more efficient and provide for their workers.

[–]mugatucrazypills 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

regarding the 60's

Apollo and Dionysus

A concretization of the issue of reason vs. emotion via an analysis of >two contrasting events of 1969: the glorious achievement of the >Apollo 11 moon flight and the mindless mud-wallowing of the >Woodstock rock festival.

the gist of this is shall we compare the "achievements" of a society run on reason to one run on feminine"feelz", ... well obviously there is no comparison one takes to the moon, the other leaves you wallowing in the mud

[–]2Red_August 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

What's interesting here is that with all this talk about the evils of progressivism, there is an undercurrent clamouring for the return of what can only be described as sexual socialism - rules by which the chattel of women is divided more equally, that each man shall receive a woman.

[–]1oldredder 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Feminism and progressivism overlap but are not the same.

If you lived in the time of slavery and wanted it ended: you were progressive

If you lived in a time when children were locked up slaves and wanted to end it: you were progressive

today if you want actual real liberty from state oppression: you are, actually, progressive, because that's certainly how now things are done traditionally.