L
You only want equality when you are at a position that you deem as uncomfortable.
Wanting equality is just a hidden want for power. And because power is a limited thing it automatically means restricting the rights/freedoms of all the out-groups.
Instead of honestly expressing that desire it is masked, hidden beneath dozens of useless euphemisms and empty platitudes. And even when it's not directly intended it will always lead to exactly the same thing but this time only with your group on the top and with the others in an undesirable position (simply due to the Tocqueville effect which describes that the amount of demands and the aggressiveness in which they are pursued both rise with the fullfillment of your goals), this dynamic can be found everywhere.
It was always like that. Feminism never cared about equality, it never cared about toxic masculinity or anything like that.
Suffragettes were more than happy that men did the traditional thing (e.g. sacrificing themselves for women/children) on the Titanic, feminism is only against tradition when it is associated with even the smallest hint of responsibilities for women. They want to keep all the advantages of womanhood with none of the disadvantages.
Not even in the start the feminist movement was anything except a claim for power and for destroying/subjugating men even more than they already were by traditional ideals (now only without the male advantage of getting something in form of a loving family back for your efforts).
Obviously all of that is "Water is wet" and nothing new for anyone with a remotely functioning brain - now to the important part:
The thing is whenever feminists say that men are in a power position (which is easily recognizable as a lie on its own - if you didn't sleep during the last decade) you shouldn't answer with facts/logic because this puts you in the position of the defendant, instead you should respond as follows: "And if I was - why should I have any incentive to give away my power and thereby diminish my own life quality for the sake of others if it is in most cases not unguaranteed that they would do the same for me? What advantage would I gain from that?"
With that you bring her into a position of the defendant. When you just argue with facts against it, it won't matter, you come off as a barking dog with no teeth - because (if you didn't sleep during the last decade) facts don't matter for almost everyone, metapolitics/narratives/propaganda/optics do. Furthermore, you now put her into a position where she actually has something to lose because previously she could only gain something, now she is reminded that her position (that she already deems as uncomfortable) could even be worsened by her pursuits (now real stakes exist, previously it's a victim-free test run for how far she can go, which means that she previously could only gain something). Furthermore, she is now cursed with the task of finding a way to show you how feminism benefits men (most whores just say it benefits men without giving any examples of advantages). With that you put them down in a more effective manner (and this is what matters because with facts alone you only convince those who are already convinced even more).
Wanting equality is just a hidden want for power. And because power is a limited thing it automatically means restricting the rights/freedoms of all the out-groups.
Instead of honestly expressing that desire it is masked, hidden beneath dozens of useless euphemisms and empty platitudes. And even when it's not directly intended it will always lead to exactly the same thing but this time only with your group on the top and with the others in an undesirable position (simply due to the Tocqueville effect which describes that the amount of demands and the aggressiveness in which they are pursued both rise with the fullfillment of your goals), this dynamic can be found everywhere.
It was always like that. Feminism never cared about equality, it never cared about toxic masculinity or anything like that.
Suffragettes were more than happy that men did the traditional thing (e.g. sacrificing themselves for women/children) on the Titanic, feminism is only against tradition when it is associated with even the smallest hint of responsibilities for women. They want to keep all the advantages of womanhood with none of the disadvantages.
Not even in the start the feminist movement was anything except a claim for power and for destroying/subjugating men even more than they already were by traditional ideals (now only without the male advantage of getting something in form of a loving family back for your efforts).
Obviously all of that is "Water is wet" and nothing new for anyone with a remotely functioning brain - now to the important part:
The thing is whenever feminists say that men are in a power position (which is easily recognizable as a lie on its own - if you didn't sleep during the last decade) you shouldn't answer with facts/logic because this puts you in the position of the defendant, instead you should respond as follows: "And if I was - why should I have any incentive to give away my power and thereby diminish my own life quality for the sake of others if it is in most cases not unguaranteed that they would do the same for me? What advantage would I gain from that?"
With that you bring her into a position of the defendant. When you just argue with facts against it, it won't matter, you come off as a barking dog with no teeth - because (if you didn't sleep during the last decade) facts don't matter for almost everyone, metapolitics/narratives/propaganda/optics do. Furthermore, you now put her into a position where she actually has something to lose because previously she could only gain something, now she is reminded that her position (that she already deems as uncomfortable) could even be worsened by her pursuits (now real stakes exist, previously it's a victim-free test run for how far she can go, which means that she previously could only gain something). Furthermore, she is now cursed with the task of finding a way to show you how feminism benefits men (most whores just say it benefits men without giving any examples of advantages). With that you put them down in a more effective manner (and this is what matters because with facts alone you only convince those who are already convinced even more).
Last edited:
