#patriarchy theory

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

A major discussion at the very centre of the gender debate, asks: why are men and women different?

Are they different because we tell them to be different? Through toys in childhood, TV in adolescence, and a continual bombardment of gender norms from society, our media, our family, our friends, from everyone.

Is our gender shaped through society, through ‘social constructivsm’?

Alternatively -

Are our gender preferences innate?

Are we born masculine or feminine; born with our gendered thinking, like we are born with our sexuality?

Are the preferences, behaviours and temperaments of men and women, part of our biology? And if so, are they immutable?

So many questions.

Well, a new study from 2018 has reopened the debate.

Showing that the more equal and wealthy a society, the more men and women grow apart in their behaviour.

That’s right.

The wealthier and more equal the country, the *more* its men engage in risk taking behaviour, and the more altruistic its women become, for example.

It’s an annoying spanner in the works for the social constructivists, and feminists, who insist we are all the same blank slates – and are simply brainwashed, or coloured in, by society. But are we?

-

Sources:

Scientific American: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-times-are-good-the-gender-gap-grows/

Study: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aas9899

Study:

Abstract

Preferences concerning time, risk, and social interactions systematically shape human behavior and contribute to differential economic and social outcomes between women and men. We present a global investigation of gender differences in six fundamental preferences. Our data consist of measures of willingness to take risks, patience, altruism, positive and negative reciprocity, and trust for 80,000 individuals in 76 representative country samples. Gender differences in preferences were positively related to economic development and gender equality. This finding suggests that greater availability of and gender-equal access to material and social resources favor the manifestation of gender-differentiated preferences across countries.

--

More studies:

Abstract

Men's and women's personalities appear to differ in several respects. Social role theories of development assume gender differences result primarily from perceived gender roles, gender socialization and sociostructural power differentials. As a consequence, social role theorists expect gender differences in personality to be smaller in cultures with more gender egalitarianism. Several large cross-cultural studies have generated sufficient data for evaluating these global personality predictions. Empirically, evidence suggests gender differences in most aspects of personality-Big Five traits, Dark Triad traits, self-esteem, subjective well-being, depression and values-are conspicuously larger in cultures with more egalitarian gender roles, gender socialization and sociopolitical gender equity. Similar patterns are evident when examining objectively measured attributes such as tested cognitive abilities and physical traits such as height and blood pressure. Social role theory appears inadequate for explaining some of the observed cultural variations in men's and women's personalities. Evolutionary theories regarding ecologically-evoked gender differences are described that may prove more useful in explaining global variation in human personality.

Abstract

Using data from over 200,000 participants from 53 nations, I examined the cross-cultural consistency of sex differences for four traits: extraversion, agreeableness, neuroticism, and male-versus-female-typical occupational preferences. Across nations, men and women differed significantly on all four traits (mean ds = -.15, -.56, -.41, and 1.40, respectively, with negative values indicating women scoring higher). The strongest evidence for sex differences in SDs was for extraversion (women more variable) and for agreeableness (men more variable). United Nations indices of gender equality and economic development were associated with larger sex differences in agreeableness, but not with sex differences in other traits. Gender equality and economic development were negatively associated with mean national levels of neuroticism, suggesting that economic stress was associated with higher neuroticism. Regression analyses explored the power of sex, gender equality, and their interaction to predict men's and women's 106 national trait means for each of the four traits. Only sex predicted means for all four traits, and sex predicted trait means much more strongly than did gender equality or the interaction between sex and gender equality. These results suggest that biological factors may contribute to sex differences in personality and that culture plays a negligible to small role in moderating sex differences in personality.

Abstract

Previous research suggested that sex differences in personality traits are larger in prosperous, healthy, and egalitarian cultures in which women have more opportunities equal with those of men. In this article, the authors report cross-cultural findings in which this unintuitive result was replicated across samples from 55 nations (N = 17,637). On responses to the Big Five Inventory, women reported higher levels of neuroticism, extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness than did men across most nations. These findings converge with previous studies in which different Big Five measures and more limited samples of nations were used. Overall, higher levels of human development--including long and healthy life, equal access to knowledge and education, and economic wealth--were the main nation-level predictors of larger sex differences in personality. Changes in men's personality traits appeared to be the primary cause of sex difference variation across cultures. It is proposed that heightened levels of sexual dimorphism result from personality traits of men and women being less constrained and more able to naturally diverge in developed nations. In less fortunate social and economic conditions, innate personality differences between men and women may be attenuated.

Abstract

We investigated sex differences in 473,260 adolescents’ aspirations to work in things-oriented (e.g., mechanic), people-oriented (e.g., nurse), and STEM (e.g., mathematician) careers across 80 countries and economic regions using the 2018 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). We analyzed student career aspirations in combination with student achievement in mathematics, reading, and science, as well as parental occupations and family wealth. In each country and region, more boys than girls aspired to a things-oriented or STEM occupation and more girls than boys to a people-oriented occupation. These sex differences were larger in countries with a higher level of women’s empowerment. We explain this counter-intuitive finding through the indirect effect of wealth. Women’s empowerment is associated with relatively high levels of national wealth and this wealth allows more students to aspire to occupations they are intrinsically interested in. Implications for better understanding the sources of sex differences in career aspirations and associated policy are discussed.

==

There's no "patriarchy." Men and women are just different.

Hell, here's four studies of primates that show comparable sex-linked tendencies, preferences, habits and instincts as humans:

Sex differences in rhesus monkey toy preferences parallel those of children: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18452921/

Toy story: Why do monkey and human males prefer trucks?: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2755553/

Young female chimpanzees treat sticks as dolls: Growing evidence of biological basis for gender-specific play in humans: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/101220121109.htm

Sex differences in response to children's toys in nonhuman primates: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513802001071?via%3Dihub

Social constructivism is complete horseshit. Not only is "Patriarchy Theory" an explicit denial of evolution, but a full-blown conspiracy theory.

https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/the-new-evolution-deniers-in-retrospect

Given that humans are sexually dimorphic and exhibit many of the typical sex-linked behavioral traits that any objective observer would predict, based on the mammalian trends, the claim that our behavioral differences have arisen purely via socialization is dubious at best. For that to be true, we would have to posit that the selective forces for these traits inexplicably and uniquely vanished in just our lineage, leading to the elimination of these traits without any vestiges of their past, only to have these traits fully recapitulated in the present due to socialization. Of course, the more evidenced and straightforward explanation is that we exhibit these classic sex-linked behavioral traits because we inherited them from our closest primate ancestors.

[bellasophies]

“Honor Killing” needs to leave our lexicon, it’s the same as “revenge porn”. It should be called what it is: religiously motivated femicide.

[lilithism1848]

[lebensmudewing]

Why "male loneliness epidemic" is a male supremacy psyop

I said in a former post that the "male loneliness epidemic" is not real and is a male supremacy psyop, and I want to explain more broadly why it is.

Manosphere

If you don't know about it yet, there is a thing called "Manosphere", a name that stands for a group of communities created by men and oriented towards men. Manosphere is composed by incels, redpill, blackpill, MGTOW and MRA ideologies.

Incels are "involuntarily celibates", men who want to date but can't do it. The term was created by a woman called Alana (invcel) and mostly refered to people who felt isolated and incapable of forming romantic relationships or trapped on a dying relationship.

Redpill stems from the Matrix scene where Neo has to choose between the redpill and the bluepill, being the redpill the one who will awaken him. The whole ideology started to take its form in pick up artistry forums such as SoSuave, and states that in order to mate and get laid a lot you have to become a "high value male", while also understand "female nature". The original big three exponents of these ideology were Rollo Tomassi, Chateau Heartiste and Roosh V, but nowadays only Rollo remains moderately relevant.

Blackpill is the most pessimistic and nihilistic version of the redpill, it is tied to incels but is not exclusive of them. It focuses on biological determinism, and states that the most important thing on mating is looks.

MGTOW started as an independent community, with a first manifesto written in 2001 in a male forum. In the manifesto they advocated in favor of a society with enforced gender roles and a smaller state. But nowadays they are connected to redpill and blackpill. It is mostly overlooked, but in spanish communities there are also two other manifests, MGTOW 2.0 and MGTOW 3.0. I don't know if there is a fourth one, but both help to understand the transition MGTOW has made over the years and how manosphere ideologies have been adopted by this group.

MRA stands for Men's rights activism, also called Men's rights Movement (MRM). The father of the movement is Ernst Belfort, who wrote against women's rights and the "legal subjection" of men, in response to feminists and John Stuart Mill. Nowadays is also tied with redpill, given that prominent figures of the movement promote or believe in redpill ideology, such as Paul Elam or Karen Straughan.

In 2014, Cassie Jaye who was allegedly a feminist by that time, did a documentary on MRA called "The Redpill". It's not clear why she called it that way, but it is suspected that it was with the purpose of dragging more people on the redpill. It is also said that she received money from Theredpill subreddit. The documentary was international, since it reached both english and spanish audiences (I don't know much about other languages/countries). It exposes a lot of problems men face, such as dying in war, losing custodies and domestic violence, but never explains what MRAs do to help those men.

That term

Once you become familiar with all these communities, you start to see how they are all the same. They share the same stats, the same studies, the same terms, the same narratives. The only thing that changes is the label, if the members can or not to have sex with women, if the members want or not to have sex with women, and if the members "care" or not about society.

One of the core terms that is transversal to almost all communities is "Hypergamy". (The central one on MRA is Gynocentrism). And is a tricky one.

Men on these communities are used to gaslight and belittle external people, but also they bully each other constantly. In spanish, for example, MGTOW ones used to dedicate each other long livestreams and called each other cucks, betas, manginas, etc. One point of discussion and "artistry" on the manosphere is hypergamy. It has inspired long videos, livestreams, books, blogspots and debate among its members. Entire communities have been divided over this concept, and others have been created.

In their videos and "private" spaces they call any woman hypergamous. MacKenzie Scott divorced Jeff Bezos, and she was called hypergamous by these people, arguing that she planned it all and ignoring that she divorced because Jeff cheated on her. Women who date men who are more attractive than them are hypergamous, women who date men who are less atractive than them but have money are hypergamous, women who date men with less education than them are hypergamous. Women who rate men "below average" (another male bullshit story) are hypergamous.

Women's nature is hypergamous and male nature is not, even if men also leave their geriatric wives for 20 year old women, even if men also cheat with a more attractive mistress, even if men marry more educated women, even if men marry women with more money. They are not hypergamous, they are polygamous, but also don't mind to settle with a woman given that "women choose" and men barely have any chance with women.

Are you getting it, right? Anything a woman do is hypergamy. Except when you call them out and tell them it's all fake. Then, they come with studies on hypergamy. "How can you say that women are not hypergamous if this study say that they 'marry up'?". Suddenly the term only applies to marriage.

Here's the deal. Hypergamy is a term used by social scientists that is related to marriage and the act of marrying up in social class, annual income or status. Since superior education in the west is a high sign of status (repeated two times in a list of status signals among men and women across 14 countries), studies on the subject account for income and degrees.

The research found that women are married to men who earn more than them, but don't have more education than them, so men are "marrying up" in status. Such trend has no substantially changed among decades. Nevertheless, it is recognized that it doesn't translate on men being the breadwinners, given that most marriages are dual income.

But it's enough to them, even when the second they provide those studies they make it clear they are being dishonest. The seeds have been planted; women are choosing only the rich ones to marry, leaving poorer men single. The one who is debating them and the ones watching the exchange, only have to start to believe that female hypergamy is rising, being amplified by technology and being extended to other aspects of relationships.

The Lie

The manosphere term is not the one that social scientists use. It is whimsical and doesn't have sense...on the surface. The magic is on repeating that women are hypergamous, that they will choose all the time only a few men and let the rest sexless, single or childless, that sexual revolution and women's freedom of choice is a disaster and contrary to civilization. If the lie is repeated enough times, people will start to believe it.

And well, it worked. It worked so well that feminists, instead of checking the data, see the male strategy and debunk the nonsense, decided to repeat the same lie. Women are choosing better, women are making men single and sexless! Pussy Power! There is literally a book on this.

White supremacists also adopted the term, and the manosphere also adopted white supremacists perspective; they quote the work of Roger Devlin, Sexual Utopia in Power from time to time.

Normal people also believe in it. They say that there is a male sexlessness crisis, singleness crisis, marriage crisis, birthrate crisis. And women are the problem, they should lower their crazy standards, they should stop being delusional.

Women are rating 80% of men below average! They are delusional! Their simps make them believe they are 10/10!

It's extremely easy to fall in the rabbit hole. They start hearing about a disbalance on the distribution of sex, or dating, or in dating apps matches. They start hearing about a singleness crisis among men, and they have already accepted that such disbalance, such crisis is a modern thing, because no one seemed to talk about it in the past. (right?)

They hear about male loneliness and mental health issues, and they understand that the disbalance is a bad thing. So they are one step away from start believing that mating is a process that should be regulated and controlled by the state, religion or cultural norms. Like, one click away from watching Jordan Peterson saying exactly that.

The manosphere have been repeating this idea for more than 10 years. At least one decade feminists had to stop this shitshow and they didn't, which is surprising given that the whole thing is perfectly summarized in the white supremacist essay I linked above.

The ones who spread and believe in this idea don't care about the data, they want the narrative, and it can be used to promote diverse agendas. So, instead of debunking and calling out, they prefered to use the narrative for the feminist cause and they are now losing. Women are losing. Women lost.

The truth

While the General Social Survey graph from 2018 is made viral again and again on social media, the same survey on more recent years is completely ignored.

The most repeated bunk of the last couple years.

Reality is that in both 2021 and 2022, the sexless in those years where below the 20%, which is consistent with former years. Most men and women were having sex. In 2021, women even reported being slightly more sexless than men.

The survey also included a variable to measure people who were sexless for the last 5 years. Less than 10% of men and women reported being sexless.

It is also repeated constantly that there are more single men than women, and it is suggested that it is because women are part of soft harems with High Value Males. This idea has been repeated so many times that even researchers have adopted it.

But the truth is that this disparity has been a thing for decades, even a century.

Before the sexual revolution, when everyone was married (right?) there was also a disparity between single men and single women. The key here is that the disparity exists between young people, and the most near explanation is age gap relationships. But also, nowadays people report less interest in having a relationship.

I't curious how the "women and men are different" crowd swear that single women are looking for casual dates with "high value males" when it has been proven over and over than men have a higher sexual drive.

Dating apps don't seem to aggravate any human mating tendency, hook up culture has remained the same since the 80's. Here's a deep dive on dating apps and dating.

Academic naiveté(?

Manosphere gives a final push for the hypergamy narrative by quoting the experts on the matter. And somehow, researchers don't have a problem with it.

It has been said that there is or will be a mating crisis among educated women, because there will be a shortage of high income husbands. They say "women don't marry because there are not enough economically attractive men". And with "don't marry" they understand "remain single and childless".

Such crisis doesn't exist. Marriages between college educated people are the longest ones, even there are less widows and divorces. Educated women are more likely to be married than the opposite.

Their focus is on marriage, and I don't know why. They willfully ignore that between 40% and 60% of children are born outside of marriage in most European countries and how american women see children as a need and marriage as a luxury.

In the US, the poor are cohabitating and having children together, but they can't afford to marry or are afraid to marry and divorce just a couple of years later. Women are mating and having children with men that barely can pay bills, but they keep pushing for the "women are too picky" narrative.

The real crisis is happening among classes, the poor are poorer and the rich are richer. They are sharing their assests with each other and forming strong families while the poor live paycheck to paycheck.

Ironically, equality and women's choice have achieved what these men are apparently longing for. The secretary marrying her boss or the nurse marrying the surgeon is becoming a thing of the past. The doctor is marrying other doctor, the boss is marrying a woman with a Phd. Notice how rich men are not dating down, even when rich they marry rich women, not the cashier 20 years younger than them.

To counteract this they quote Leonardo Dicaprio and his creepy behavior, without noticing that the man is not marrying or having children with those women. While even richer men are married and with kids with women at their level.

The future

It's clear to me that the agenda is settled, and they will do anything that can reinforce it. They won't be able to use sexlessness or singleness gap as a thing, so they have created a new term: "dysphoric singlehood". And they will start measuring it soon.

The stats, the terms, the memes will change. But the core will remain the same; "women will destroy civilization" at worst and "women's nature cause pain to men -and only men- and it should be controlled or put in check" at best. And there are and there will be groups who will propose tight control over women as a solution.

Conclusion

It is important to understand that evolution doesn't allow everyone to reproduce. It's nothing new that some men and women didn't pass their genes, this was a thing in the past and will always be.

The influence of women on reproduction is discussed, but given that even in cultures with arranged marriages the future wife has a word on it and mothers, who are also women, have also a said in who the husband should be, I highly doubt that there was a long period of time in human history where women had no choice at all. But even if that scenario is true, the whole genetic side of mating still plays a role on it; female bodies reject embryos who are not fit or genetically compatible with them.

Mating, having sex and therefore, reproducing is not a right. The whole point of evolution is that only fit subjects can make it, and the few remaining ones are left behind. This process is not being blow up by technology or women having more freedom.

The most important lesson about data on human relationships, is to be careful with the word "single", because most of the time it is about unmarried people. There is a default focus on married people and anyone who is not married is put in the "single" cage and overlooked. The second lesson here is to not believe a great narrative that relies on only one source or one result obtained in only one given year.

Finally, I think this whole deal exposes feminism as a fraud. They are not rooting for women. Women have been terrorized and killed by men who genuinely believe that there is a crisis caused by women. Instead of thinking on this, they chose to integrate the same narrative for ideological purposes and give women a false sense of power and victory over men.

[autogyne-redacted]

(Coercive) Gender is a power structure that works to produce certain classes of subjects (men, women, and others) that are useful to the broader political system (the nation, civilization, etc), and to structure relations within and between these groups. 

While gender presents itself as natural, it is far from stable, rife with tension and contradictions that are necessary to its functions. You *are* a man, fundamentally, (passively, unchangeable part of your essence) if you are camab, but you also must *be* a man (actively, complying with the expectations of masculinity). Even if we only look at relatively normative cis men, it's extremely common to feel alienated from the ideals of manhood (“I don't feel like a real man” is a common refrain). 

A certain amount of distance from the ideals of gender is normal, and part of what makes it a useful motivating system. But the system is backed by coercive force, which reveals itself as people deviate more dramatically from gendered expectations. 

Everyone has friction with gendered expectations – both as they grow up and in ongoing ways –but the naturalized, path of least resistance is to identify with your assigned gender, strive to live up to its expectations, and to give up on the sides of yourself that would put you into open conflict with it. 

While the exact details of masculinity are highly variable (over time, and from group to group), common threads are displaying power/competency/dominance and avoiding weakness/femininity. This is structurally tied to being able to produce soldiers, workers, and for men broadly to serve as a class of enforcers. 

The coercion used to produce womanhood as a class has generally been viewed as part of misogyny (and while it’s experienced unevenly, it’s a broad force meaningfully acting on all women and all ppl expected to be women). The coercion that produces manhood forms a core aspect of transmisogyny, and it's primarily focused on a small minority of people, which is part of what leads to the intensity of transmisogyny. Transmisogyny carves away, and what's left is normative manhood. 

In this way, transfems can constitute a kind of sacrifice class. Wherein gratuitous violence against small minority gives potency to the implicit threat when others are told to “man up” or “stop being a sissy,” and tries to render it unthinkable to be anything other than a compliant man.

[mizandria]

something shifted in my brain

[isawthismeme]

[crumblinggothicarchitecture]

Someone smarter than me needs to do an in-depth analysis on how swift weaponizes sex. So many of her lyrics involve cheating as revenge and picking fights with her partners about other girls. She makes it sound like some godly privilege to be with her and if she masterminded her way into your life you're just soooo lucky. Even "touch me while your bros play GTA" plays into that. Like "why would you want to have fun and game with your friends when ill let you finger me". (Sidenote a bunch of her lyrics and all of Me! sounds like an abusive partner daring you to leave and dare to find someone better) It's creepy how she's so juvenile and egotistical at the same time. She's mastered the "any mention of my bfs, even the underage ones, is slutshaming" move and uses it to get out of any criticism. Like, have all the sex you want be safe whatever but don't act like some sad little girl who got taken advantage of when the game you started goes poorly.

Ask, and ye shall receive. Because this a very insightful observation! Thanks!

It is true that Swift clearly uses sex and sexuality like a "gotcha" moment. I was always quite perturbed by her songs that glorify cheating. It's just so strange, but I think it ties into her enjoyment of revenge fantasies. Anyway, I was planning to write about how Swift's music often engages with and reinforces heteropatriarchal social standards. I think your idea adds an interesting new layer to the ways in which she manipulates through sex- both in the performance of passivity to masculine authority, as the patriarchy, and the ways in which she commodifies female sexuality by weaponizing it.

You're right it's incredibly egotistical and juvenile.

Also, I have a major bone to pick with the way Taylor Swift uses feminism to shut down criticism- like OMG do I have a problem with her there. She's only ever spent her career crying about how "women who talk bad about me are bad women" yet, she never really does or says anything actually feminist. In fact, most of her music, like I said above, reinforces the patriarchy. She herself is guilty of so much slut-shaming, too. I will go into detail, with a real argument, in a separate post soon. And I thank you for pointing out the weaponized sexuality aspect of her, often, overtly patriarchal tone.

BTW- "ME!" is Such a weird song -> "I know that I went psycho on the phone" uhh... excuse me?

[notsoanonymousfemcel]

marxist feminism

as much as i appreciate and agree with marxist feminism and what it has done for feminist theory and organizing, when they (Marxist feminists) start talking about how women's oppression stems from capitalism they lose me. the patriarchy predates capitalism, after the fall of capitalism patriarchy will still be here.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

If there is one thing I am sure of within suicide, it is that I have no idea why men do it. And neither do you.

Even those closest to those lost; parents, partners, friends and family, are left never really knowing ‘why?’

Heartbreaking and impossible questions, that may never be fully answered, by anyone.

And yet, somehow an entire army of social justice warriors, moral guardians and cereal box psychologists, seem entitled to present their own one word answer to ‘why men do it’ anyway.

That’s right.

The devastated partner has no idea, and yet some asshole on Instagram has the answer.

Not just the answer for one man, but all men, all doing it for the same reason, apparently.

So we arrive at ‘toxic’ this, and ‘patriarchy’ that; each slogan doing its best to pathologise masculinity, and provide simple and meaningless answers, without evidence, to impossibly complex, individual problems.

And it’s not good enough.

What’s more, as a man, I have learnt to sit down and listen when it comes to women talking about women’s issues.

I agree, discussion for women, must be led by women.

So the same is true for men.

Discussion on men, and particularly male suicide, must be led by men and boys, and bereaved families, and not gate kept by bogus feminist theory.

Suicidal men, and the families of those who have lost loved ones, must be our eternal point of reference for male suicide advocacy and research. It is where we must start, and continually return to, forever and always.

More than any other, #malesuicide is not the place to make bigoted blanket assertions about masculinity or men. It is a place to listen, without judgement, and with compassion.

So let’s do that now.

Let’s ask the men dealing with suicidality, how it feels, and what we can do to help.

~

Study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4611172/

==

There's always a scramble to cast male suicide as a flaw of men, or maleness itself. This seems to function as a way to deny that there could be external factors that disproportionately affect men. You know, except the mythical dragon of "tHe pAtRiArChY."

[bellasophies]

[lilithism1848]

[mikasasrippedtoenail]

Women's existence as a social class is a profound reality. The poorest man-bruised and battered by the capitalists- still has access to the labour of a woman-his wife. With what little strength he posseses, he exploits her cooking, her cleaning and ofcourse her sex. Misogyny is the oldest form of slavery. When it comes down to men and women, no barriers of race, caste, creed or class prevent men from abusing women. The belief that women of upper station live in ivory towers that shield them from sex based oppression needs to die. The hold of patriarchy upon them is albeit light; howerver, you cant dismiss that their performance of feminity is also a show for the poorest of men. The poor man is a sex buyer, a wife beater and a rapist. His poverty does not dissuade him from committing violence against women. Unlike women, it does not make him more vulnerable to sexual exploitation. Removing class will not dismantle the patriarchy for men will hate and violate all women regardless, be they rich or poor.

[haggishlyhagging]

It has been said that female separatism is radical feminism's natural and logical conclusion. Most radical feminists have chosen not to follow their politics all the way to that end and do what they can to avoid, ignore, or deny it. Anti-separatist feminists engage in what has been called "thought termination," meaning the act of refusing to follow one's own thoughts to their logical conclusions, in order to justify their decision to stay connected to males. They also encourage this thought termination in other women, wanting to undermine female separatism as a legitimate political and personal choice for their own selfish reasons.

When making political and feminist analysis or when attempting to determine in your own life if a particular decision is feminist or anti-feminist, it is useful to ask the ancient Roman legal question: "Cui bono?" or "Who benefits?" Of course, women do stand to gain certain rewards and privileges from engaging in male loyalism, misogyny, and anti-feminist actions, but whatever the matter at hand, an anti-feminist and anti-female decision will ultimately benefit males the most. When we ask "Who benefits the most?" from women and girls choosing to lead male-inclusive and male-centric lives, the answer is clear: males do.

The most recent studies have found that heterosexual marriage makes men happier and women more unhappy overall. The overwhelming majority of domestic labor and childcare continue to fall on the wife's shoulders in heterosexual marriage throughout the developed world, and this is true even while most married heterosexual women in developed countries work full-time throughout adulthood. Heterosexual and bisexual women openly admit to experiencing sex in their heterosexual relationships that ranges from inorgasmic and boring to violent, humiliating, and painful. Outside of heterosexual relationships, women and girls often find themselves on the losing side of unequal relationships with male family members and friends who take advantage of their labor, emotional and otherwise, and do not reciprocate or bother suppressing their sexism.

The power struggle between males and females has always been sexual, both in the carnal and reproductive sense. Even the word patriarchy rests on the sexual, social, and familial arrangements that exist in a predominantly heterosexual, mixed society where men and women live in constant contact with each other: rule of the father assumes that women and girls are in a position to be ruled, both socially and physically. It assumes the presence of a man.

Female separatism is the unavoidable, ultimate conclusion of radical feminist politics for the simple reason that separatism alone prevents the male objective driving men's oppression and domination of the female sex: using women and girls as sexual, domestic, social, and economic resources. If this is the point of patriarchy, how can anything other than female separatism be the solution to it? In a system where males already have all the power and control, women and girls will never be able to change their own status or achieve liberation from oppression through cooperating with males and granting them everything they demand.

Males want sexual access to female bodies above all else, and furthermore, they rely on women and girls to perform the domestic labor, social labor, and professional labor that keep men comfortable physically, emotionally, and psychologically. For thousands of years, men universally made sure that women and girls could not survive independently of them by locking us out of education, paid work, and the political arena and refusing to give us basic rights to own money and property. They knew and feared that if women had the option to survive and thrive apart from men, most of us would choose to do exactly that.

The only reason women now have the legal rights and protections that allow us to reject heterosexual marriage and motherhood is because we fought hard for those rights and protections over the course of at least a hundred years in developed countries, and we are still fighting all over the world, not only to gain what we lack but to protect what we have. Men have never yielded any political concessions to women willingly, easily, or readily. They have resisted us every step of the way, and they will never cease their attempts to take back the progress we've made.

If female separatism was of no consequence to the male sex, they wouldn't have spent all of recorded history making it virtually impossible. They wouldn't now be going out of their way to destroy any and all female-only spaces, both physical and digital, in the name of transgenderism. They would not have lorded physical and sexual violence over us since the beginning of time as punishment for our resistance and disobedience.

-Sekhmet She-Owl, “Female Separatism: The Feminist Solution” in Spinning And Weaving: Radical Feminism for the 21st Century

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

If you make your political ideas a fundamental part of who you are, it makes them so much harder to change.

When your beliefs are built into your community, your work, your lifestyle, and how you identify; when you’ve quite literally bought and worn the t-shirt, changing such opinions is much like changing your skin.

It’s difficult.

One of these stubborn ideas is the antiquated notion of domestic violence being a “gendered crime”, and that ‘the vast majority of victims are women’; with male survivors a mere rounding error.

Such an idea is not reflected in the data – which continually proves that women and men are equally violent in relationships.

Straus, Dutton, Gelles, Desmarais, Steinmetz, Whitaker, Fiebert… the world’s leading researchers line up to show us the reality of domestic violence, and we wave them away. Why? Because our sassy mug, garish t-shirt, or that savage tweet says differently.

Paper after paper, survey after survey; each is slid across the table, to show equal rates of abuse, and each is rejected like a petulant child splitting out their vegetables.

Dozens, hundreds, thousands of studies, each showing gender symmetry, have been ignored, erased or denied for decades; so as to protect the egos and livelihood of the misinformed and the malicious.

And so the truth of the domestic violence industry becomes clear…

The mission is not really to protect abuse victims, it is to protect a divisive and outdated feminist ideology, and to save face, at the cost of lives.

So how high does the mountain of evidence have to grow before we accept the uncomfortable truths it unveils?

How many sources, studies and surveys do you need?

How many lives will such people sacrifice for their own pride?

How many times will the toddler stamp its feet, whinge and whine, before quietly chewing upon what the data tells us?

The ugly but uncontroversial truth – that women can do anything a man can, and that includes being abusive.

--

Partner Abuse State of Knowledge (PASK) Project: https://domesticviolenceresearch.org

--

==

As we already know, evidence can help correct a misinterpretation, a misunderstanding, a misconception.

But there is no amount of evidence that will address a belief based on faith and ideology, because they did not come to the belief based on evidence.

Faith is not a virtue. Neither is dishonesty.

[bellasophies]

Talking with a friend: the term “revenge porn” is actually disgusting, because it implies the victim did something to deserve it. It should be called a sexual terrorism video, it’s done to instil fear in all women and children. It was uploaded to lead to the victim’s social death. The uploader wanted to punish their victim sexually.