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.
>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.