Wednesday, May 19, 2021

How New Wave Feminism and Hypergamy destroyed My Humanity and made me question my Leftist assumptions. AKA :Confessions from a Volantary Celibate: or part 2 in my series in Leaving the 'Left': Taking the Red Pill: My Break with New Wave Feminism.

I was once told that I have an extreme case of hatred for women.  At first I was kind of taken aback by the idea. At the very least I always thought I liked women. But maybe it's time for me to be brutally honest and explain just what it is that I really think about women, and why I think New Wave Feminism might just destroy society. 

Like most men in the red pill movement I have an easy time complaining about women. Unlike those men I'm not afraid to admit how the lingering effects of growing up in the Patriarchy has left toxic scars on me. That's because my negative view of women hasn't just been informed by the games that men and women play in order to form relationships. It can also explained by evolutionary psychology.  You see I believe evolution has programmed women to play the game of hypergamy instead of equality.


If you ask woman on social media what the problems are with men they rarely mention the existential risks women face from toxic men. Instead they'll talk about incels, the nice guy syndrome, and they flash their distaste at the men who they've placed in the friendzone. You can almost smell the privileged from here. White upper and middle class women respond to such inquiries with a list of the things their failed suitors do to make their lives somewhat uncomfortable. Then they deplore the end of chivalry and ask, "Where have all the good men gone? 


I used to think it was funny to call my self an incel because I've been single and alone most of my life, alienated from female affections just like many of my brothers in the red pill movement. It ain't just my status as a short, poor, bald, simping, beta male that situates my grievances against women. It's a failure of women to evolve from their evolutionary imperative of hypergamy to seek true equality with men.

Women create nice guys. They devalue masculinity with their words, and wonder why men are shy. They watch as high paying manufacturing jobs disappear, but wonder why men abandon their roles as protectors and earners. They insist men stop burying their feelings, but insult the emotional man when he cries. They hold out the possibility of a relationship, all along knowing they are using him for his emotional support and resources and then deposit his bitter defiance into the friend zone. 

Does that belief have you sensing hostility from me instead of truth seeking? I hope not, but if you do I hope you'll give me a chance to explain myself.*

We are in the entering into an era of major societal changes for men and women. With future directions seeming to point ultimately to the near or total extinction of the male gender. You may think I'm engaging in hyperbole, but I don't quite know what to think about the possibility of male extinction. And ultimately, no one is sure what form evolution or human directed policies will take us. But at the very least there are major forces of selection lining up against men. Those forces will require massive transformation on society's part as well as adaption from males and females at speeds that evolution simply didn't prepare us for.


Now, let's talk about masculinity in more detail so we can understand why it might be selected against in the future . On the plus side, male aggression has been partially responsible for getting us out of the jungle. It's creative impulse has helped develop civilization. But civilization itself thrives only so much as male aggression is sublimated into the creative and world building process. 

From the negative perspective, toxic male aggression poses certain challenges in keeping the peace: internally within the male, between individuals where we find men committing most of the violence against others, within male dominated social structures which prevent women from rising to power, and between nation states where the prospect of going to war is largely a violent male activity. 

Now while I would place the physical/sexual/mental aggression males often commit under the rubric of 'toxic' masculinity just like many feminists what I don't think qualifies is the kind of perceived threat that only the New Wave Feminists (NWF) and their allies make against the men. You know the kind of feminist that loves to deride the toxic men who ride public transportation with their legs spread six inches too far. To label that kind of action "territorial and aggressive" is absurd arm chair sociology, you may grant the kind of pseudo-anthropology of baboon observing anthropologists applying cross species comparisons to humans, but I just can't get worked up about micro-aggressions like that. Nor do I buy that the domination of women is explained by the vague, nebulous background radiation of 'the patriarchy' which allows men to interrupt women with a mouthful of mansplaining when women speak up in business meetings. 

There may indeed be issues here worthy of our discussion, but there are existential threats made against women every day.  When a woman is killed or sexually attacked you can bet it was one of her close male companions, or one of her male family members. 

If I were in charge of the feminist agenda I'd focus less on micro aggression and more on the physical, mental, and sexual abuse of women by men. When I speak as a male advocate speak against the negative affects of the Patriarchy on men, I concentrate on the self-harm men do to themselves and others. I do that because I think it's quite easy to show how the patriarchy negatively effects men and that often the very proponents of New Wave Feminists {NWF} (here I mean middle and upper class white women) are actually the beneficiaries of male aggression through their hypergamic dating strategies. 

So why do we hear about these men out there getting upset about the feminist agenda? Ironically, it's similar to a position that many feminists articulate. Men are worriedthat their voices have been silenced on many issues that concern them. Men's rights groups in particular feel they are being asked to silence their voices when they discuss how patriarchy and toxic masculinity effects them.

I'm too am accused of speaking out against the feminist agenda. I get lumped in with the conservatives, the religious right, the extreme MRM and even though I never quite understood what those conservatives, incels, and many on the MGTOW guys meant by a 'feminist agenda.' Did they mean that they were against women voting? Were they against equal pay or are they not for women feeling safe when they walk home alone? Because if that's it, we've had that debate for the last 100 years or so and those archaic ideas lost. So, no, I don't actually think anti feminists disagree with the goals of the first feminists, unless we're talking about the extreme right wing religious groups like the Dominionists. Dominionists may actually want to keep women in the kitchen barefoot and pregnant, but frankly most people don't accept those ideas. 

Instead Red Pill guys are trying to carve out space to talk about how men are  disproportionately impacted by our society too. MRM proponents offer up statistics on how men are discriminated against in child custody cases. Women are more likely to initiate divorce and benefit from aggressive child support and alimony. Men are disportionatly impacted by society as well. You can see this when in statistics where men end their lives at higher rates, they are more likely to become incarcerated and for longer times even for the same crimes as women. Men die of natural causes earlier than women. We suffer mental illness without treatment which leads to higher rates of male homelessness. Since men go without mental health care we are more likely to be drug addicts and more likely to overdose. Men also suffer violence from other violent men. In addition there is a crisis for boys in schooling. We graduate at such low rates that only 40 percent of college graduates are men despite being greater than 50 percent of the population in that age group. Women graduate now in greater numbers with Master's degrees and PhD's. Though not in Science or Engineering degrees because women tend to prefer useless degrees in social science and women's studies. And finally, men are are much more likely to hold the dirty and dangerous jobs, and we are far more likely to die at work than a woman. Women here are the beneficiaries of male work and risk, yet they complain that all the good jobs are siloed by toxic men. 

Hypergamy Hates Equality

BUT before men can finish even making those  arguments New Wave Feminists interrupt to tell them that they are actually trying to do is silence women and avoid taking responsibility for their aggression, or they are trying to change the subject so they don't have to help change the toxic men. New Wave Feminism denies men the right to be victims, because after all men can only be perpetrators in the patriarchy not victims. 

New Wave Feminism doesn't just have a feminist agenda of promoting women at the expense of men. NWF has an ulterior motive against equality. It promotes the silencing of Men. It shames male victims and buries male concerns in order to present only women as victims. 

In addition, New Wave Feminism is at the core of new set of social mores that are filled with anti-science rhetoric. Denying differences between males and females it promotes the unrealistic flattering of women through girl power and female worship. 

NWF promotes harmful sexual practices. Some men see this in the slutification of women. AKA Sex work is empowering. Don't wear bras in public. Practice non-monogamy. To be honest I don't have a  problem with these things. I do think sex work is far more problematic than liberal feminists lead on. But I say hooray to exploring your sexual selves. And ladies if you want to show me half your ass, go  right ahead. But here's where my first problem with women starts they are full of contradictions. 

Júrgen Habermas spoke of the performative contradiction. A woman that wants to display her body, but also wants, "to be allowed to be comfortable in her skin" is a bit of a walking contradiction. She insists that the display of her body is unsexual. But she constantly ignites the male gaze. 


But I protest. A naked body is sexual. One must acknowledge that historically the body has been seen as sexual; however, society and FWF are trying to normalize female display. We have the campaign to free the nipple. Female dress has become relaxed showing more skin. Form fitting fitness clothing has become fashionable and is routinely worn outside of the gym. There is an odd preoccupation with the female anus instead of breast. 

The actual reason fitness wear and tight yoga pants became so fashionable is from a reaction against feminists promoting fat acceptance, along with their perverse desire to animalize men into worshipping the butt. 

In shape people first started wearing their gym attire in public to prove how attractive and fit they were. Out of shape women use the fitness wear in order to co-opt the hallmarks of attractiveness. So despite the denials of sexuality found in revealing clothing or the calls by feminists that empowerment is confirmed by wearing it, displaying one's body is still wrapped in the ornamental nature of female sexual display. 

Men see through this rubric. Our animal nature is engorged. But feminism has largely succeeded in altering the male mind. The ass becomes a focus of male sexual projection. This is simply another path to defund the male desire for procreation. It is hoped men devalue the vagina, the giverer of life, and devalue the breast, the nurturer of the new born. Men fall victim to this because of the near extinction level decrease in testosterone  today. 

A possible future the Handmaid's dystopia 

I see a future where the world slips into dystopia. This plausible future has continued pollution, environmental problems, and modern lifestyles continuing to lower sperm count and testosterone. Sperm count decline alone could necessitate the rise of cloning practices which could drive my gender extinct. Women live in fear and the increase in female political power will only exacerbate the increase of social control of aggressive men, first through uncontrolled hyper surveillance of capitalism (which men will create) and then through the increased control of our genetic endowment. Women will seek to empty men of their aggressive impulses leaving us emotionally neutered sperm donors at best, or worse physical slaves for the dirty work they choose not to do. 


That's because in their hearts women have been genetically programed to resent democracy and equality. Women evolved to let the natural alpha lead. Male dominance is as we are told undemocratic. So the informed female has always understood her aversion to democracy. She has never sought equality. She has sought protection and procreation from her alpha mate and she has encouraged dominance from men by her sexual selection. But evolutionary psychology also predicts her  to desire resource harvest from beta men. Today's technology allows women to shrug off evolution's natural male dominance. It allows for the non- monogamous. Women can scan for alpha on tinder and use hook up culture to avoid social embarrassment at sleeping around. The advent of new technologies like Only Fan's and Venmo allow women to turn their orbiters into paying customers, finally realizing the dream of women to resource harvest from beta and procreate with alphas. 


I promise I'm not George Orwell. Matriarchy only promises hypergamy. The social dominance of women leaves 80% of men without a mate. Since the beginning of the Patriarchy men have been proscribed mates. Equality. In patriarchy nearly the whole of society got married. Most men. Most women. The percentage was in the high 90's.

But not today. Not with the advent of of the New Wave Feminist. Marriage rates are plummeting. Especially for young men. There is a huge rise in male virginity. And many men no longer have access to any sex at all. Conversely, the loosening of mortality's hold on sexual behavior has the body count of women rising exponentially. 
She's got it and she flaunts it. 

Her words are, "I want only to be treated as a man. To be able to display my body with no sexual meaning." 

But the male body has no sexual meaning only because the woman has no need for the vast majority of male bodies. Therefore the naked penis is a violent act. A criminal conspiracy of suggestive rape. 

The woman does not actually wish to be seen as a man. She seeks only his annihilation! 

*I mean it's not like I brought my AK-47 to a  fitness center to shoot down a bunch of hot 20 year old girls? Did I admire the guy who did? Sure. Did I add his name to my list of heroes on Facebook? Of course. Does that make me toxic, or just funny? You can decide if you have a sense of humor. 

No comments: