Update

feminism.md

@@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ Let us start by prefacing the feminist motto:
 
 A quite nice article on feminism can also be found on the [incel](incel.md) wiki at https://incels.wiki/w/Feminism. { A friend also recommended a text called *Counter-Advice From The Third Sex*, possibly check it out. ~drummyfish }
 
-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, literally "womanism", 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 a man is what a [jew](jew.md) was to the Nazi or what the Christian was to the Romans who famously hunted Christians down and fed them to the lions because they refused to bow to their polytheist ideology (nowadays analogous to e.g. refusing to practice [political correctness](political_correctness.md)). The whole story is repeated again, we have yet again not learned a bit from our [history](history.md). Feminism is exactly the same as [Nazism](nazism.md), just replace "Aryan race" with "woman gender", "jew" with "man" and Nazi uniforms with pink hair. 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, committing significantly more suicides or much more often (over 70%) being homeless etc. -- feminism cares about women, not equality. If the wage gap became reversed, i.e. women earned on average more than men, do you think a Feminist wouldn't be happy? No answer is needed. 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, literally "womanism", 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 a man is what a [jew](jew.md) was to the Nazi or what the Christian was to the Romans who famously hunted Christians down and fed them to the lions because they refused to bow to their polytheist ideology (nowadays analogous to e.g. refusing to practice [political correctness](political_correctness.md)). The whole story is repeated again, we have yet again not learned a bit from our [history](history.md). Feminism is exactly the same as [Nazism](nazism.md), just replace "Aryan race" with "woman gender", "jew" with "man" and Nazi uniforms with pink hair. Indeed, in some areas women might have historically been "oppressed" (even though in other areas they were highly privileged, such as not having to die in wars, not having to work as hard, being saved first, ...) and often 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, committing significantly more suicides or much more often (over 70%) being homeless etc. -- feminism cares about women, not equality. If the wage gap became reversed, i.e. women earned on average more than men, do you think a Feminist wouldn't be happy? No answer is needed. And of course, when men establish "men rights" movements, suddenly feminists see those as "fascist", "toxic" and "violent" and try to destroy such movements. Closing gaps is not how you achieve equality -- on the contrary it's only how you stir up hostility and physically reshape women into men (by closing the height gap, boob size gap, penis length gap, brain size gap and any kind of gap that may potentially have any significance in sports, art or culture at all). [Making gaps not matter](less_retarded_society.md) is how you truly achieve equality. But Feminists won't go that way exactly because they are against equality.
 
-Closing gaps is not how you achieve equality -- on the contrary it's only how you stir up hostility and physically reshape women into men (by closing the height gap, boob size gap, penis length gap, brain size gap and any kind of gap that may potentially have any significance in sports, art or culture at all). [Making gaps not matter](less_retarded_society.md) is how you truly achieve equality. But Feminists won't go that way exactly because they are against equality.
+Due to feminism it is [nowadays](21st_century.md) completely normal and socially accepted to promote "woman pride"; in bigger companies for example it's common for female employees to end their emails with a signature stating "woman power". But what if a male employee used "male power" in his signature? He'd be fired on the spot, if not sued for "hate speech". Is this supposed to be the equality promised by feminism?
 
-Since feminism became [mainstream](mainstream.md) in about 2010s, it also became the main ideology of populists and opportunists, i.e. all politicians and [corporations](corporation.md), it is now a milking cow movement and a vehicle for pushing all kinds of evil such as censorship laws, creation of bullshit jobs, discrediting opposition and so on.
+Since feminism became [mainstream](mainstream.md) in about 2010s, it also became the main ideology of populists and opportunists, i.e. all politicians and [corporations](corporation.md), it is now a milking cow movement and a vehicle for pushing all kinds of evil such as censorship laws, creation of bullshit jobs, virtue signaling, political attacks and so on.
 
 { 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 }