Update

feminism.md

@@ -35,7 +35,7 @@ Some notable things feminists managed to achieve are:
 
 { [LMAO](lmao.md), **a supposed woman writer who won 1 million euro prize turned out to actually be three men writers**, see Carmen Mola :) Also the recent "historically first all female space walk" during which they managed to lose $100K worth of equipment :D ~drummyfish }
 
-If anything's clear, then that feminism is not at all about gender equality but about hatred towards men. Firstly feminism is not called *gender equality movement* but *feminism*, i.e. for-female, and as we know, [name plays a huge role](name_is_important.md). To a feminist man is what a [jew](jew.md) was to the Nazi; the whole story is repeated again, we have yet again not learned a bit from our history. Indeed, women have historically been oppressed and needed support, but once women reach social equality -- which has basically already happened a long time ago now -- feminist movement will, if only by [social inertia](social_inertia.md), keep pursuing more advantages for women (what else should a movement called *feminism* do?), i.e. at this point the new goal has already become female superiority. In the age of capital no one is going to just dissolve a movement because it has already reached its goal, such a movement present political capital one will simply not throw out of window, so feminists will forever keep saying they're being oppressed and will forever keep inventing new bullshit issues to keep [fighting](fight_culture.md). Note for example that feminists care about things such as wage gap but of course absolutely don't give a damn about opposite direction inequality, such as men dying on average much younger than women etc. -- feminism cares about women, not equality. And of course, when men establish "men rights" movements, suddenly feminists see those as "fascist", "toxic" and "violent" and try to destroy such movements.
+If anything's clear, then that feminism is not at all about gender equality but about hatred towards men and female superiority. Firstly feminism is not called *gender equality movement* but *feminism*, i.e. for-female, and as we know, [name plays a huge role](name_is_important.md). Imagine this: if you asked feminists if they could right now implement matriarchy in society, i.e. female ruling over man, how many of them do you think would answer "no"? There is not even a shadow of a doubt a vast majority would absolutely answer "yes", we may at best argue about if it would be 85% or 99% of them. So the question of feminist goals is absolutely clearly answered, there is no point in trying to deny it. To a feminist man is what a [jew](jew.md) was to the Nazi; the whole story is repeated again, we have yet again not learned a bit from our history. Indeed, women have historically been oppressed and needed support, but once women reach social equality -- which has basically already happened a long time ago now -- feminist movement will, if only by [social inertia](social_inertia.md), keep pursuing more advantages for women (what else should a movement called *feminism* do?), i.e. at this point the new goal has already become female superiority. In the age of capital no one is going to just dissolve a movement because it has already reached its goal, such a movement present political capital one will simply not throw out of window, so feminists will forever keep saying they're being oppressed and will forever keep inventing new bullshit issues to keep [fighting](fight_culture.md). Note for example that feminists care about things such as wage gap but of course absolutely don't give a damn about opposite direction inequality, such as men dying on average much younger than women etc. -- feminism cares about women, not equality. And of course, when men establish "men rights" movements, suddenly feminists see those as "fascist", "toxic" and "violent" and try to destroy such movements.
 
 { I really have no issues with women, I truly love everyone, but I do pay attention to statistics. One of the biggest things feminism achieved for me in this regard is that now it's simply not enough for me to see a woman achieve success in society to be convinced she is skilled or capable, a woman getting PhD to me nowadays automatically just means she got it because she's a woman and we need more quotas of "strong women in SCIENCE". In the past I didn't see it this way, a woman that did something notable back then was mostly convincing to me. Nowadays I just require much better evidence to believe she is good at something, e.g. seeing something truly good she created -- to be honest, I now don't recall any woman in "modern times" to have convinced me, but I am really open to it and just waiting to be proven wrong. ~drummyfish }