Women, the final frontier

So after reading the first part of sperm wars, I think I know why the second wave of feminism hit us.
Let's assume that there are a lot of evolutionary and biological factors that go into human relationships.
Women generally will be the deciding factor in a relationship, and pick amongst a group of males.
Men will be opposing force, and strive for quantity of offspring.
My guess is that women who have lesser control over their throbbing biological urges will tend towards feminism in order to secure a better mate than they would have through traditional means.
This is expressed through abortion, the ability to weed out inferior genes.
Women actually have a natural way of doing this in long term relationships, by ejaculating sperm from a male, while not drawing sperm into the womb via the cervix.
This isn't conscious, of course.
At a passing glance telling other women not to dress like sluts in public while securing the right to do it themselves is a defensive measure.
Preventing other women from mating while securing their own genes.
Wanting more disposable income via the wage gap, could be an urge to make sure their own children have enough, but I'm still not totally sure on that one.
So the ultimate question is what triggered this in the first place?
has it just gradually gotten worse, and it's only been in recent years that people noticed it?
nytlive.nytimes.com/womenintheworld/2015/04/22/anita-sarkeesian-talks-trolls-tropes-and-the-coolest-new-video-games/

Other urls found in this thread:

sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130425160214.htm
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

maybe they want to be treated like human beings with personal goals and ambitions instead of baby making machines?

I would agree with you, but they already have that in first world countries.

That's actually the opposite, they want to be baby machines, and are acting like insufferable degenerate whores in the hope to wake us the fuck up and restore the patriarchy.
Unfortunately white men are spineless now.

Wrong.
Feminism has nothing to do with biology or selective pressure. It along with male female relationships are purely social.
Also, it is because of this social relationship that women are the deciding factor and this is only a recent development.

The reason why we see this explosion of feminazi, sjw, lgbtbbq bullshit is that reproduction, and the social structure that revolves around sex are no longer necessary for continuing the human race.

Passing of DNA to convey information pertinent to survival is no longer relevant. With how fast the world is changing, and how efficient our communication is, these new social pressures will dominate the evolution of our species

When I said that evolution was involved, I was not suggesting that evolution was taking place over the course of a hundred years, but that feminism is a new way of competing for dominance rather than equality.
The preexisting biological reactions we have are expressed socially.

>Anita Sarkeesian
>pseudo social science peddler

Any drivel that Anita the Fraudster says belong at

No, of course not she's an idiot, but she is an example of a prominent feminist that competes in a similar manor.
She makes a lot of money doing what I described.
I don't think she's an "alpha-feminist", but she is a very good example of what I believe to be a feminist that has ulterior motives, she isn't even aware of.

>the most privileged class in the world is not treated like a human being
>a human being doesn't have babies

In my experience there are 3 types of feminists, each with different motives for supporting feminism, and with slightly different yet overlapping goals.

The first type is when a women was abused by a man/men as a child, and as a result began hating men. When you see an otherwise attractive girl turn into a feminist, it's likely because of this. They have no real aims other than a general anti-male (and usually, but not necessarily, anti-white and anti-western society) agenda.

The second type is the ugly girls. Studies have shown that the more ugly a girl considers herself to be, the less likely she is to look for a guy and the more likely she is to focus on her career. Essentially, unattractive women weed themselves out of the dating pool. This accounts for the majority of feminist academics and journalists. These are the ones who focus on things like the wage gap and not enough women in STEM fields, because their lives are focused on their careers.

The third type is girls with hormonal issues that cause them to elevated levels of male hormones; as a result they have a sex drive typical of a male. That's why they're so focused on sex-positivity and eliminating slut shaming, because they want to be able to sleep around without being judged. These are the girls you mentioned in your post, OP, and in general they're the sort of feminists you'd find on tumblr/reddit. These are also the types of feminists who tend to have weird hair colours/tattoos/piercings in unusual places. Another telltale sign is that they have broad shoulders (likely a result of their high levels of androgens). The reason this type is becoming more common is that in modern society there are so many chemicals that disrupt hormones (this is also why men are becoming more feminine).

I forgot to add a few things.

Anita Sarkeesian is an example of the second type. Laci Green is an example of the third type.

And for anyone who disagrees with me, answer me this: when's the last time you saw an attractive, happy girl who called herself a feminist?

It is true that innate behaviors go some way to explaining political differences between genders but your analysis is a shit. It is very easy to leap to conclusions based on a small amount of evidence and fail to look at a wider range of evidence. For example.

>Women actually have a natural way of doing this in long term relationships, by ejaculating sperm from a male, while not drawing sperm into the womb via the cervix.
Where does this come from? $10 says this is a typical popsci misinterpretation confusing nature and nurture but this is Veeky Forums so I will be open minded. Don't link me to clickbait, link me to a peer reviewed study or something.

To be perfectly honest this is a popsci misinterpretation.

If you look in the first part of "sperm wars," the woman that wrote it did some real research and tried to simplify it for the public in her book.

You might be better off finding that original research.

Human sperm competition was the original book, if you can find it.

>women pushing this degenerate narrative of ruining civilization has been going on for twenty years max
>on the scale of civilization as a whole (five thousand years) and humanity (a lot more than that) where women and men have had a place in society

Something seems wrong. Technology has evolved to provide some equality, but not really. Do radical feminists honestly think that human nature has changed so much and people in the past have been literal retards? I don't really understand where this lack of self-awareness is coming from.

>think that people in the past have been literal retard.
>I don't really understand where this lack of self-awareness is coming from.


It's like they abhor the actual critical study of history.

they just naturally hate everything about it and what it entails.


make of that what you will, but in no way wee our ancestors dumb.

>Let's assume
Let's not

I don't know what caused it, but I know of a solution.

The third assessment doesn't make sense. Research shows that sex drive increases with testosterone in males, however, in females increased estrogen leads to higher sex drives.

>sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130425160214.htm

>Women actually have a natural way of doing this in long term relationships, by ejaculating sperm from a male, while not drawing sperm into the womb via the cervix.
>This isn't conscious, of course.
>a feminist that has ulterior motives, she isn't even aware of.
" the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down"
get out Todd Akin, that isn't science

And even if the model you elaborated upon in your OP fit the phenomena, "if the shoe fits, wear it" is not an argument. Let's say you're actually at a party trying to figure out whose shoe is whose. If you put a show on your friend and it fits, it still can be the wrong shoe, because there might be plenty which fit equally well, and they clearly didn't bring multiple pairs to the party. This "if the shoe fits" reasoning is what leads to things like Freud, where whenever someone critiques him you just whip around and say "yes but that's your oedipal complex driving you to kill the father of your field of study". You can't just bank off of explanatory weight alone.

If you just act nice and cool women love the shit out of you. I've never taken too much advantage of it because I don't like hurting girls but if you're cool with that just be cool and nice and the girls will be all up ons. Also a lot of girls will just want to fuck so if you are legit not attracted to them at all or you actually like them then this will cause drama.

Anyone get excited seeing attractive females in your high level engineering or math classes but actively ignore them?

In my summer engineering course I'm sitting with a table of guys but have an amazing view of the class qt's pretty feet. She always wears flip flops.

You are completely right. To confirm this you only need to look at the story of feminism. Specifically, at pictures of the first feminists.

What did they all have in common? They were all ugly, and they were all middle class. Now, let me explain

>Ugly:
This made their power in society lesser to the power of pretty women. Therefore their goal was for men to stop seeing women as sexual beings so that then pretty girls would not have privilege. This backfired but they got the vote which means that they can now be involved in political manipulation which is the first step to big social change. You can see that now, showing public sexual affection for women can get you banned, kicked out and ostracized by everyone. And all of that was accomplished through political manipulation.

>middle class
This for one made them not have to worry about a thing. Their husband probably hired nannies and servants to clean the house and take care of the children while their wife was out doing whatever bullshit she wanted. But being middle class also has another interesting property: You live or walk through areas full of rich people, while not being rich yourself. These women were jealous of the richer women (who were richer because they married richer men, which was only possible because they were prettier, so this goes back to the being ugly thing).

Anyone knows that since the beginning of time, pretty women have been the supreme class, while everyone else is a second class citizen. Pretty women would marry powerful men who would provide mansions, servants and everything they wanted. And all they had to do was literally just exist. Uglier women are so jealous of this it makes them irrational women.

So these ugly middle class feminists got women political power (the vote and the power to hold office). Through political manipulation they also got social manipulation which now explains why there exist attractive feminists.
cont.

cont:
Attractive feminists are the biggest paradox. They are the one biggest benefactor of the patriarchy, but they oppose it on a surface level. It makes no sense, but it can be explained.

Now that feminism is socially acceptable (and even socially mandatory for women) you have models, athletes and other high profile women being socially manipulated into being feminists. Just google what happens when an actress says that she isn't a feminist. She gets smeared all over the place until she apologizes and announces she is now a feminist.

All of this results in catastrophe. In the past there was a balance in the universe. Men would have political power, and women would have sexual power. This balanced the world. But now there exists an upperclass of people who hold political and sexual power: attractive feminists. Prime example: Emma Watson. She is attractive by normal standards. Just because she is attractive she is a millionaire model and actress that everyone wants to hire. Her success is literally the biggest accomplishment of the patriarchy, and it has served her well. It has filled her pockets.

BUT! She is also a political activist. She can talk down to poorer people who are less privileged than her, simply because she is a feminist. She can talk in the UN, she can change minds, change the world. She can morph her sexual and political power into a weapon of mass destruction and that is a power none of us will ever have.

Hey. I'll just leave this here.

>Pseudo-evo-pych mixed with /r9k/ wanking.
Go away.
Please.

...

feminism is a garbage, toxic ideology that has nothing to do with equality, much less "women being people"

>women
>people

It's not that bizarre. Wealthy societies tend to regress to more forager-like equilibriae when it comes to wealth redistribution (more fairness), politics (less centralized), the dominant gender (de facto female), fashions (more revealing clothes), etc., etc. When societies escape the Malthusian trap, they tend to become forager-like again because it's natural and they can afford to. There may be another Malthusian era in the future due to hard limits on economic growth or some other event ( a disaster perhaps), in which case a lot of the farmer-like conservative norms will return, i.e. religions with strong moralizing gods, more authoritarianism, more hierarchy, male dominance, etc.

>forager-like equilibriae
This is a meme and is not supported by any real evidence or historical consensus. Just the fact that we have 13 female ancestors for every male should be enough to disregard this meme forever

>So the ultimate question is what triggered this in the first place?

There's a number of issues that triggered feminism but what solidify it was war and economics. Particularly the american civil war, both world wars and economic depressions.

The american civil war is where welfare was born because the south had to provide financial assistance to the women who lost their husbands to war.

Both world wars forced many countries to tap into their female population for manual labor due to a shortage of men

Then there's the multiple economic depressions that occurred which affected men the most putting them and their families in vulnerable positions because traditional dependency on one source of income.

All of these situations put more burden (or allowed more responsibility) in the hands of women because tradition failed them.

Unattractive women do not weed themselves out of the dating pool, an ugly girl will still have plenty of ugly men chasing her.