Gender relations - another way of looking at them

In this thread I’ll explain why I think the current way many approach how the two human gender relate/compare to each other in society fails to adequately explain it, and I will propose my own explanation.

Let’s start with the obvious. All except the most insane of the feminists and MRAs will agree that male and female are 2 biologically different sexes, meant to fulfill distinct but complimentary roles. So, we can establish that the sexes are not equal - men are superior at some things, and women are superior at others. In my experience I’d say that MRAs are generally a bit more receptive to this information than feminists, but another time about that.

Despite recognizing the differences between males and females, many of these very same MRAs and feminists will also argue that men and women should be “equal under the law”. I will show why equality under the law fails.

Since men and women are different when you make them equal under the law, depending on with regards to what you made them equal about, you are benefiting either one side or the other. I’ve discussed this concept a lot on PhilosophyForums and I’d link to the specific thread, but unfortunately that site has been fucked for quite some time now so I’ll just explain it shortly here:

Let’s say there is a race between an ostrich and an eagle. If the law/rule of the race is: no flying, then the ostrich and the eagle may be equal under that law in the sense that they are both equally banned from flying, and yet the law clearly handicaps the eagle, and by handicapping the eagle it benefits the ostrich. Likewise, if the rule/law stated no running, that would benefit the eagle even if they were both equally banned from running.

This is, in short, why equality under the law fails. Because different entities have different advantages and disadvantages, if they are held to the same law, that same law will affect them differently - one will benefit, the other will be handicapped. So I don’t think what we need is equality, I think what we need is something more akin to BALANCE, or rather, BALANC-ING, since absolute balance would be impossible. Something close to what traditionalists advocate but more based on a scientific, evolutionary understanding of reality instead of just tradition.

So it is clear that in order to create a fair society (by natural standards) we must take into account what men evolved for and what women evolved to see what either side has to offer (what their advantages/disadvantages are) so we can predict how certain laws would affect the two sides differently, and to try to balance it out. Keep in mind though, that this is a matter of which sex is GENERALLY better suited for something, not that EVERY member of a sex must be superior in that aspect to every member of the opposite sex.

What men have to offer to women is protection (dealing with threats) and provision (extraction of resources from the environment), this includes both the physical aspect of doing it and the intellectual aspect of coming up with more refined ways of dealing with threats/extracting resources. Essentially, dealing with the external world, reality, nature is the most important thing men can offer to women, and what makes masculinity irreplaceable. The second thing is sperm, less important because it is abundant in relation to eggs.
What women have to offer to men is, primarily, access to reproduction - their pussy and, more importantly, womb. This is what makes females irreplaceable. The secondary thing females can offer is homemaking (dealing with the internal world, a man’s home), this is less important because men can do it themselves.

So far it seems balance is had. I am reminded of the movie blue lagoon, which to some extent has this scenario of balance and harmony between male and female, displaying male/female interactions in their purest, most natural form, without any external interventions.

What disrupts the balance between males and females is when the state, a masculine force, intervenes and begins determining the behavior of its subordinates. This can result in balance which favors males, or balance which favors females, by replacing certain things that individual males and/or females have to offer, which reduces the value of these males/females since they can obtain what the other has to offer from the state directly. The law of the market dictates that if something is scarce and/or difficult to obtain it is valuable, while if it is abundant and/or easy to obtain, it loses value.

Although in principle it could go either way, in practice, since the state is a masculine entity, it by necessity replaces more of what males have to offer than what females have to offer. It makes what males have to offer (protection, provision) easy to obtain, and thus less valuable. Depending on circumstances, it also replaces what females have to offer, varying from high replacement (the most oppressive patriarchy you can imagine) to low replacement (the most feminist society you can imagine).

I’ll shorten state replacement to SR, and M will stand for males, while F for females. (-) will mean state replacement is not present, aka, male/female retain their value, + indicates state replacement is present, which makes individual males/females less valuable.

The following combinations thus exist, 2 of them are balanced and about different types of equality (just to show feminists what REAL equality would mean. Neither equality 1 nor 2 or any of their more moderate forms have ever existed, since a state of equality is impossible and societies have always and will always lean a little bit more to either gyno or andro centrism. The other 2 are about the actual kinds of societies which have and will exist, the only kinds of societies possible. What follows are 4 extremes on a spectrum similar to the famous political compass 4 side spectrum, of course there are also positions inbetween, in fact, the only reason I’m showing the extremes is so you can understand all that is inbetween by implication.

1. SRM+ SRF+ (state replaces both men and women completely) EQUALITY TYPE 1

The state replaces both what men have to offer to women, and what women have to offer to men. Men don’t have the control who to protect and provide for, while women don’t have the control over to whom they grant access to their womb/vagina, basically everybody protects and provides for everybody and everybody fucks everybody and this is enforced by… everybody. A sort of communism mixed with hippie sexuality in its most extreme form, a truly non-discriminate and tolerant society and yet something feminists would never advocate for.

2. SRM+ and SRF- (state replaces men completely women not at all) GYNOCENTRISM, FEMALES GENERALLY BENEFIT

The state replaces what men have to offer to women, aka, it forces men to protect women and provide for them while not replacing what women have to offer, instead women are given complete freedom to use the benefits of their own sexuality which is physically ensured by other men (police/military). This raises the value of females in relation to men. The extreme of this part of spectrum is feminist utopia, more moderate is gynocentric traditionalism. Due to the above mentioned fact that the state itself is a masculine entity, on the more moderate side of this part of the spectrum one can find the average, the most common type of society throughout history and especially in modernity, with regards to gender relations - some form of gynocentric traditionalism.

3. SRM- and SRF+ (state replaces females but not males) ANDROCENTRISM - MALES GENERALLY BENEFIT

In this case men can choose who to protect and provide for (so no police/military protecting women and threatening men and no general transfer of resources from men to women through taxation), so they are given the advantages of their sexuality, while women are not given the advantages of theirs and the access to their womb/pussy is controlled by men, so women don’t have anything left to offer and the value of men is higher than the value of women. THIS is actual male oppression of women, not the nonsense feminists talk about. Perhaps a few ancient, patriarchal (androcentric) traditionalist societies which were warrior cultures existed on this part of the spectrum, albeit in a more moderate form. Also possible during short transitory stages of anarchy, where there is nobody to keep males in check and they can naturally dominate females. The prevalent type of society when many men die in wars and thus women become abundant in relation to men.

4. SRM- SRF- (state replaces neither females nor males) EQUALITY TYPE 2

In this type of equality men have the complete freedom to choose whom to protect and provide for (no state forcing police and military to protect all women and no state taxing men and transferring resources from men to women under threats of violence), and women have complete freedom to choose whom to grant access to their womb/vagina to (no state controlling female sexuality under threats of violence).

Neither equality 1 nor 2 or any of their more moderate forms have ever existed, since a state of equality is impossible and societies have always and will always lean a little bit more to either gyno or andro centrism. I included the equalities just to show how absurd and impossible they are, and that it’s not what any feminist would ever want.

[youtube]8nSSIBQcMGA[/youtube]

This video gets to the core of feminism, explaining its very origins.

Feminism is just the consequence of women forgetting that the world, the human world of social constructs, isn’t built on ‘proper grammar’, ‘correct political opinions’, or ‘nice manners’. It is a consequences of women beginning to take masculine protection/provision for granted and starting to think that whatever comfort they enjoy is purely a consequence of their own success, and has nothing to do with the infrastructure backing them - that if anything, men are the ones who always held them back. It is the inversion of reality.

Like when the spoiled child of a successful man inherits wealth and thinks he deserved it himself.

The world of human social constructs becomes THE WORLD for them, and any trace of THE WORLD, nature as it is, becomes cruel, evil and oppressive.

I’ve also noticed this lack of balance myself, by just observing real life. It was always odd to me how my uncle has to do a backbreaking physical job 8 hours a day for a month (a minimum of 200 hours of work) to get the same pay a prostitute can get in less than 1 day of work, which is less than 8 hours.

Neither of the two jobs require any sort of training, but the former can only be done by a man and the latter can only be done by a woman, so they are a good example of how little masculinity is valued in relation to femininity when, as Satyr said in his Feminization of Man, men are restricted from acting upon the advantages of masculine sexuality and dominating females to determine the price of pussy (should go without saying, but just in case - this does NOT necessarily mean rape), while females can fully use the advantages of their own sexuality. Naturally, this means that the price of what females have to offer skyrockets, while the price of what males have to offer is lowered, since the protection/provision of any individual male cannot match that of the daddy state.

the problem with a post such as this, is it is so wrong on so many
levels that answering it is impossible… to point out one simple idea…
the idea of equality under the law is to prevent those who are stronger
and able to take advantage of those who are weaker from doing so…
if I am a man and I can beat up a women, (no great feat but one haters
seem to want) the equality of the law protects the women…
the idea of the state is to protect those who can’t protect themselves…
to defend those who can’t defend themselves… that is the point of the
equality of the law… we are equal under the law regardless of
our economic and political status and physical status…
this is to give legal protection to those who need it…
the haters of the world want to be able to beat up women as
turd and others around here have suggested and to attack liberals
in every way possible…the haters hate equality in the law because it
prevents them from hating on those they hate…

the haters wants the law to allow them to verbally attack and if possible
physical attack those who the haters hate… thus the attack on
the equality of the law…because it prevent haters from hating…

Autsider has called for the genocide of people in the thanksgiving thread
this is typical hater fashion… hating on those who disagree with him…

gender relations to autsider means the ability to do what he wants
to whom he wants without giving protection to those to whom he wants
to attack… it is a dam shame that gender relations gives those protection
to whom autsider thinks should be attacked thus this thread… attacking
gender relations because it doesn’t allow autsider to word attack and word
violence and physical attack those who autsider wants to attack…

it is a dam shame…

Kropotkin

As usually Kropotkin, you are wrong about everything. I wouldn’t advocate for the abuse of anybody, not even my enemies - I may murder them because they are consuming resources and taking up space and expanding, becoming a threat to my own kind, but their suffering wouldn’t bring me pleasure, and if possible, I would grant a quick, painless death.

And I certainly wouldn’t advocate beating up women of my own ingroup or sexually violating them. I wouldn’t even advocate that for the women of the outgroup.

Violence is a means to an end, not an end itself. The end (objective) is to perpetuate a certain type of order. Violence is sometimes necessary for that, and yes, those who refuse to submit would have to be killed. Even you agree so far.

Where we disagree is that the type of order I would want to perpetuate is more akin to natural order and thus more sustainable, whilst yours is based on delusion and fantasy, sometimes even the complete inversion of natural order, thus it is non-sustainable.

EDIT: For example, in principle I have nothing against a honor killing. An occasional decapitation isn’t a bad thing if it is well deserved, and some actions certainly deserve decapitation as punishment.

But that doesn’t mean I would agree that a drunk, abusive husband should have the right to beat up his wife on a whim.

[quote=“AutSider”]
As usually Kropotkin, you are wrong about everything. I wouldn’t advocate for the abuse of anybody, not even my enemies - I may murder them because they are consuming resources and taking up space and expanding, becoming a threat to my own kind, but their suffering wouldn’t bring me pleasure, and if possible, I would grant a quick, painless death.

K: and you answered my points quite nicely: you admit to wanting to commit genocide on those
who you disagree with, a quick and painless death is still death to protect your ideological
purity…

Aut: And I certainly wouldn’t advocate beating up women of my own ingroup or sexually violating them. I wouldn’t even advocate that for the women of the outgroup.

K: and even separating those to those in group and to those outgroup… and I am sure they
are divided by race and ideological purity… in group shares your opinions and the outgroup
don’t…

A: Violence is a means to an end, not an end itself. The end (objective) is to perpetuate a certain type of order. Violence is sometimes necessary for that, and yes, those who refuse to submit would have to be killed. Even you agree so far.

K: and no, I disagree… a certain type of order is those who are ideological pure and white…
that is your criteria and you have admitted as much…so you are in favor of violence and even
killing to protect your “ideological purity” and perpetuate a “certain type of order” does Aryan mean
anything to you?

A: Where we disagree is that the type of order I would want to perpetuate is more akin to natural order and thus more sustainable, whilst yours is based on delusion and fantasy, sometimes even the complete inversion of natural order, thus it is non-sustainable.

K: and you should probably tell us your idea of the “natural order” and why that is superior
to not allowing the natural order… sustainable should be the goal however, I believe
your idea is not sustainable and following the natural order is not always the best way to
go about sustainability…

I: EDIT: For example, in principle I have nothing against a honor killing. An occasional decapitation isn’t a bad thing if it is well deserved, and some actions certainly deserve decapitation as punishment.

But that doesn’t mean I would agree that a drunk, abusive husband should have the right to beat up his wife on a whim."

K: and once again believing that violence will solve whatever problem you might have and
society, is there any solution you believe in that doesn’t involve violence?
and yes, to maintain a certain order, the natural order you do agree that a drunk
abusive husband should beat up a wife… it is for the best to maintain the natural order
because that is the natural order even though you to save your life, can’t tell me
what the natural order is?

Kropotkin

Of course you agree, Kropotkin. You cannot not agree. You can say that you disagree, but the promotion of your anti-natural ordering requires much more state intervention than the promotion of natural order, so while you can say one thing in order to continue promoting your liberal nonsense you have to contradict yourself in action.

Giving child authority over its parent requires an intervening force, the state, actively subduing the parent with threats of violence, and helping the child.

A parent requires no external intervening force to have authority over their child. That is what I mean by nature/anti-nature.

And yes, you have to threaten and do violence on everybody who disagrees with your kind of ordering (the liberal, anti-nature kind), for example - people like me, and everybody else who opposes you.

You may think you are better because the kind of order you ultimately promote (liberal) is better, but the means by which you promote it are just as violent as anybody else’s, so you can cut the bullshit.

I think that you have both missed the purpose of a State. A State is formed, not to create equality nor to defend the helpless. Both of those notions were introduced merely as what some people thought would be good uses for an already established State (displaying Autsider’s correct analysis of the second generation taking a State for granted while ignoring the original purpose and means).

The actual purpose of every State is to provide by group what cannot be provided by individual. Even a dictatorial kingdom forms so as to use greater mass to implement the wishes of an individual (the dictator or King).

The folly comes in when the State, being so very much more powerful than the individual is given the right and means to make its own choices as to its own purpose. That is what was once called the “breath of life”. The State should never be given its own life. The state should always remain an implement merely to carry out whatever goal it is given.

In the case of the USA, it was proposed that a Congress of more educated men (not women) were to gather from across the country and, through a process of debate and resolve, settle upon a goal that was to be given to the President to enforce. In recent times, again as Autsider pointed out, that concept got lost to presumption and corruption wherein Congress is not often making the decisions, but rather the competition of special interests (such as feminism, zionism, racism, monetary domination, medical domination,…).

The “bleeding heart liberal” sees a State as a means to provide for the meek because he sees himself in that role. It is actually a very self centered bias. He favors the socialist State wherein the masses have no say at all in decisions of State, but rather a select “bleeding heart liberal” elite making all decisions for all others to obey, regardless of equality or actual benefit for the meek. His purpose for the State is to exercise power over the mass’s choices in order to escape what he fears, just as the dictator but without need of personal courage. And when his toy is taken from him, as in the last Presidential election, he gets scared and violent as he senses his dominion collapsing in on him.

Most people in fact, see the State as a means to control those other people rather than a means to provide a service or accomplish a goal. They never seem to be able to decide what a good goal vs bad goal really is. After all, such a decision is a philosophical decision, and thus beyond the scope of the greater, if not the entire, population.

If you look throughout the history of governments across the world, there is a pattern involving men vs women. The men accomplish the State, conquering whatever they see fit to conquer, an then, not being able to clearly discern a goal to accomplish, they hand control over to women (or become feminine themselves). And in every case, for thousands of years, that is exactly when that State begins its fall.

The issue is choosing the goal. And not having a goal is death. As someone once said, “Nothing fails like success”, because once the goal has been accomplished, how are decisions to be made? There is a sudden loss of purpose (again).

No matter which version of governing, SRM, SRF, +/-, or whatever, once that balance has been achieved, the method for maintaining it is lost. How just or right minded the goal was, it all gets destroyed by its own success (usually slightly before).

States collapse into corruption and oblivion because the State is merely a tool and usually a tool for a blind and foolish entity obscured by his numbers with no means to follow reality or correct for his own insanity (“absolute power => absolute corruption”). Yes, the State cannot provide for actual equality in any sense of the word, because equality is merely one of the inanities of the State’s insane host. And such has always been.

The idea of “equality” came, not from gender roles, but from prior social class roles. There was to be no upper and lower class, the distinction between who had civil rights and who didn’t. Yet such division is the very goal and intent of the socialism that the second generation presumed to establish (much like the democratic society voting in a king).

The purpose of the State is to simply to serve a congress and its culmination of all representatives of all of the issues throughout the nation (much like the central nervous system of a body). The only particular ideals befitting the State’s eternal goal are complex when viewed from such a primitive time as this one.

The eternal purpose of the state is the exact same one as your own. Can you settle on what that one is? The population can’t.

Yes, JSS, you are right mostly.

The reason groups form is ultimately, survival - due to synergy, as you said, forming groups is a more effective survival strategy than not doing so, thus it gets selected for.

And yeah, I also agree there are cycles. To my knowledge, every ancient culture which has ever become an advanced civilization is patriarchal in its roots, because patriarchy is the only way to truly conquer nature and rise above it, and when it comes to harsher circumstances, such as threat of war and constant conflict, patriarchy/a warrior culture is necessary even just to survive. Matriarchies, or otherwise overly gynocentric/female domianted societies can only exist if male provision/protection is taken care of by some other means, f.e.

1. due to geographical isolation, such as living in hardly accessible area rich with resources, meaning you don’t need males to protect since nobody can invade you/knows about your society existing, and you don’t need masculine resource extraction cause resources are naturally abundant. Basically, there is no reason for anything to progress, there is no stress to stimulate growth.
   Or
   2), as you said, after a patriarchy has successfully conquered nature and established its borders (exerted its dominance), creating an environment of cheap protection and provision internally it transitions from androcentrism to gynocentrism.

I don’t think it is possible to change this cycle because although those of us who are aware of it also participate in it and direct it, the ones who are ignorant of it or deny it will always be the majority and they will just blindly act upon their instincts and call it politics, not aware of reality outside of social constructs, and thus not aware of the full consequences of their actions, which makes them vulnerable to repeating the same mistakes over, and over, and over again.

Motherly nurturing to manly dominating to sweet fruition to mindless spoiling to need of seed … and all over again … and again … and again…

But then natural processes are not the only options. It isn’t about merely following what has been into an eternity of more of the same.

If you really, really want to do the absolute most good for Man, analyze and discover the means to establish vast agreement upon the purpose. As a hint, in so doing, you become that purpose for both male and female.

Nature has already done most of the work. Males and females, of every evolved specie in existence, have complimentary functions which culminate upon a sexual trade-off. The equation is simple. Females own the sex (pleasure) and males are relegated to labor and/or warfare. Eggs are almost if not always exponentially more valuable than sperm. Thus the value of a single male is a small fraction the inherent value of a female of the same specie. All of this applies to Race in human species as well. However, with humans, people observe and try to understand the gender-relations of different societies, cultures, histories, and races. The sexual relationship between a white male and white female is different than between yellow male and female, black male and female, or brown male and female. And when it comes to modern-day miscegenation and race-mixing, again, the gender relations are either complimentary or adversary. Some races are more-or-less compatible than others (known as “tolerance”).

Gender relations of the modern world fall into the ‘politics’ category. It is a sub-category of Democracy, Liberalism, and Globalist values. Despite the rise of “feminism”, female humans are more valuable and privileged than ever before. And human females will probably continue to increase in (inherent) value while males decrease. The advent and rise of “Feminism” in the western world was never about “equality” but has always been about keeping females very privileged and males not privileged at all, just for being born. For example, “It’s not okay to hit a woman”, rape statistics (especially the non-existence of white males raping black females), maternity leave, the pay-gap mythology, etc. Again the assertion is simple, women are more privileged than ever before while average males are still left with the shit jobs (garbage men, industrial workers, sanitation workers, plumbers, soldiers, etc). Even with all the fruits, benefits, goods, surpluses created by the modern Global world, what are women “achieving” today? Read the news, watch the television, there you can see what women are up too: almost always hedonistic pursuits, Kardashian family, Taylor Swift, Melania Trump, Ivanka Trump, Paris Hilton, etc. Females are immersed in the “female world” which is socializing, competing for popularity, superficial friendships and loyalties, beauty, and all general forms of hedonism.

Females are the ‘consumptive’ side of nature. Males are the productive side.

In-exchange for this natural equation, males are promised some (small) benefits which a system/state/government either reinforces or neglects. After a lifetime of back-breaking labor (like your Uncle mentioned in the OP), what do average men “deserve”? Anything at all? Sex? An ugly wife? No, usually the benefits afforded by average men is “free time” which women have a lifetime full of, and men have little to none. Males must “pay” back into the system (owned by females), usually to access hedonistic pursuits: sex, drugs, rock and roll, free time, indulgences, fetishes, taboos, entertainment (sports or movies), etc.

Although quite true, there is still more to it than even that … involving insidiously arranged genocide and domination.

To understand the female mindset of the modern world, just use this example today. After thousands of years of “Progress”, what is on the minds’ of women today?

yahoo.com/news/ivanka-and-t … 04664.html

Matching outfits.

Most “genocides” and exterminations of humans have been battles for supremacy of one race against another. Europeans, Arabians, and Asians have been battling wars for this reason for centuries in the Eastern Hemisphere. However it did not take long for the British to conquer the North American Indians and the Spanish conquer the South American Indians. East Asians still dominate China. Arabs still dominate Saudi Arabia. Europeans in Europa. Africans have been colonized thoroughly. When all of this meets Gender, as is the topic of the OP, people must consider the class status of beauty of different races of women. Today the world’s leading beauties are Germanic (white, blue eye, blonde hair, pale skin) white women, East Asian pale skinned women, and in some cases, paler skinned Latinas and Hispanic (brown) women. Almost universally, whiter skin is perceived as more beautiful and of a higher (biological) class. This is because paler skin has been selected for (evolved), over centuries, to represent a higher innate privilege (superior breeding choices) than darker skinned women.

Intelligence quotients and genetics both tell the same story. Sorry, liberal-leftists, there is no arguing these scientific facts away. This is Nature. This is Evolution. This is Fitness and “superiority”.

A(Eon?)

Minor corrections:

1. Different tribes belonging to the same race warred too, let’s not forget. For now, it would be wise if all whites stuck together simply because we are threatened with extermination. But once (or if) the threat has passed, of course there would be infighting.

2. Technically, pale skin has been selected for in response to climates with less sun, but yes, it is interesting how both white men and women are generally perceived by all other races as the most sexually appealing while some other races, like negroes and aborigines, are perceived as least appealing generally. Coincidentally, negroes and aborigines are also the ones to have distanced themselves the least from non-human primates in terms of physical and mental traits.

The way I, personally, perceive and understand the sexes is as follows. Males and Females are almost completely different and opposed, except the two halves meet with ‘Sex’. So to understand gender and the countless biological and pathological differences of the sexes, a young thinker must first discover and investigate sexuality in its rawest forms. Why do males seek-out (beautiful) women? The answer is obvious, for males. To be a male is to understand your sexual ‘drive’, full of testosterone (passion), and this creates a natural disposition to achieve pleasure through sex, synonymous to how a hunter and predator would chase down a prey animal, capture, kill, and consume it. Sex is equivalent to eating, in this regard. A male seeks beautiful women to sate his sexual appetites. Average men are relegated and forced to mate with uglier women, because women are always ‘owned’ by some person or entity. Very few Moderns, if any, discuss how females are owned today, presumably by their biological fathers, who himself is loyal to his state/society/church. Thus there is no such thing as “free women”. Women are the opposite of free. Therefore to talk about an “independent woman” is oxy-moronic. There is no such thing. All women are owned, by society if not (directly) their biological parents.

These plain facts echo my previous post. Because females are more valuable than males (inherently), the state/society does not really want males around. Males are unwanted and unnecessary in any society. And so males are naturally pushed to the periphery or lowly classes of any long-lasting, enduring society. Males are unwanted and expendable. Not only is gender “unequal”, but it has never been “equal” in human history nor could it ever be. Rather feminism focuses on maintaining, and/or extending, female privilege. Females, naturally, are concerned with “their own kind” (other women) and this is an instinctive habit, no nurturing required for it to occur. Males are vastly more competitive as a result (criminal) and this is why a vast majority of murders, throughout any period of human history including this one, are male-on-male crimes. Society doesn’t really care that males kill each-other.

This fact leads to the natural occurrence of warring, and how populations tend to ‘cleanse’ their male over-population in some periods by killing-off their own, or foreign males. Males, who literally have nothing to lose (no possessions, no assets, no hopes, and definitely no access to women, no access to prostitutes, and absolutely no access to mating-rites) become very willing and susceptible to war propaganda. Thus males find in war what other, more emasculated and civilized (feminine) males, will never find throughout their whole lifetimes: meaning, purpose, self-created value.

As a predator would, you ought to peak and peer into the mind of another, observing and learning its behaviors and then its rationality. What do average women think, feel, and why? Any female is born into a position of relatively high and worthy (innate) value in life. It’s like being born with an inheritance, say, one million dollars. While others (males) are born with no inheritance, or worse, with a massive debt. Females try not to spend their inheritance, and this means, not being too slutty or promiscuous, or openly degenerate. Thus degenerate females will engage in some drug-abuse, and some promiscuity, but never on par with males. Because females have a value/worth/dignity/pride to maintain. And females are very, very aware of this.

One thing I’ve inspected and observed over the past decade is how females interact with each-other, when it comes to sex. Females will try to goad and devalue each-other, to their own individual and personal benefits. Using emotionally manipulation, psychological attacks, baiting, bullying, etc. females are constantly at odds with each-other. But it’s less physical than it is between males. Males are more brunt, obvious, and “honest” with aggression. Males react, naturally and instinctively, with brutality and physical battle. Females ‘invert’ that same male infighting and competition, and turn it into emotional and psychological warfare. Thus the hatred between women, is similar in degree but not of kind, as hatred between men.

The competition between women has a different quality and nature, than competition between men. And this also extends to competition between groups. How one tribe of humans competes against another tribe, also defines it.

Because Modernity is defined as a ‘Triumph’ of humanity over all foreign obstacles, this concludes that humans will begin infighting. In fact this human infighting has been occurring for 2000 years now. Thus humanity is already at “the end” of its out-group competition. Humans no longer fear threat of annihilation from things such as: natural disasters, volcanoes, lions, wolves, bears, diseases, etc. Thus humanity turned against itself. And this applies to how genders have “turned against” each-other as well.

Females obviously have a stronger social connection than males do. Females are the ones who become pregnant (gestating another human life), give birth, rear and raise young children. Thus females find most of their validity, value, meaning, self-worth in that arena (as feminine mothers). Childless women are degenerate, and the result of many failings throughout life.

That isn’t why.

A society “wants” only what the people of the society put forth; war, wealth, famine,… feminism. And all being put forth by males. Which males expect to gain from the feminization of society and removal of males?

Specifically, it is Aryan whites which are universally appealing. Gentiles and barbarians tend to be disgusting. Since subsaharan africans did not breed with the Aryans, there is usually a higher concentration of the Aryan gene in whites.