45
46

THEORYSwallowing the Red Pill Is Not a Lifestyle--It's Choosing Society and Civilization (self.RedPillWomen)

submitted by SouthernAthenaEndorsed Contributor

In a recent conversation as well as in articles I’ve been reading recently, it was pointed out to me that more and more men are “going their own way,” and that it doesn’t seem to bother them. Men are much more suited to being hermits and loners, whereas we women are social creatures who need companionship, especially from a man, to live a happy life.

The imbalance of power inherent in modern marriage and supported by feminism is largely to blame for so many men dropping out. What incentive does a man have to marry if he is not entitled to sex, his wife isn’t expected to cook or clean (or at least not all the time), and he has the ever-present fear of divorce (facilitated by no fault divorce laws) and the ensuing alimony/child support payments, along with limited access to his children?

At first glance you might think that men suffer more from not engaging in long term relationships, but in reality it hurts women more.

These days, it is easy for a lot of men to get sex (despite the 80/20 rule, women are still giving it out like cookies), so it's not that difficult for the MGTOWs to come to terms with their situation. I think I have heard of one WGTOW around these parts...I like to refer to them as crazy cat ladies. It's certainly not a fate I would be happy with. I need someone to balance me out. And while I know that men fare better in good relationships than single men, I think the way modern marriage is set up, they suffer unduly.

I value this community and am glad you are here reading this. While my liberal friends entertain me, they truly don't understand the society-destroying ramifications of it all. They think it's "a difference in opinion lol and there are always going to be different opinions lol." They truly don't get how damaging this is. Society has pretty much fallen apart within my lifetime, but I think it's so new that many don't understand what the future truly holds. And it's not the beautiful, well-dressed mothers with hard-working husbands in tidy little neighborhoods, like the ones who appear in many of the movies and TV shows women my age like to watch. Unfortunately, only some of these shows drop RP truths, and the rest spout anachronistic feminist rhetoric.

I was recently referred to r/datingoverthirty. It reveals a lot of the awakening that many women are going through, realizing they don't have ultimate power forever.

I caught a good man at 20 and I'm sticking to him. Though he's been down lately, he possesses all the good qualities that indicate he will pull through and prosper once again. While I am not RP perfect, I think it's easier for a man to accept a 20 year old's stupidity and feminist brainwashing than it is a 35 year old's.

Edit: when I say "liberal," I'm not talking about politically.


[–]Cardiscappa 18 points19 points  (2 children)

I was recently referred to r/datingoverthirty

"Driver: "Why are you not married?"

Me: sigh "Well, I took time to focus on my career and getting myself into a good place to be a better partner for the right guy.""

~ Nearly 40 year old woman

Ouch.

[–]Rivkariver2 Star 16 points17 points  (1 child)

I really don't like this myth, that you need to perfect yourself before you can find love. Yes, be the best you can at the time. But deny yourself really love opportunities because you haven't worked on yourself enough? That's a sad misconception of our our time. I know people aren't wrong to say you have to love yourself first, but it has set up so many people to fail, because they are afraid they haven't perfected self love yet. When in fact everyone is insecure at times. It's about two humans loving and helping each other. Then people decide it's the other person's job to make them happy, and that's when the disappointment and misunderstanding and /r/relationships posts start. One simple sentence of communication could solve those cases so often.

[–]SouthernAthenaEndorsed Contributor[S] 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Agreed. And people forget how much easier it is to build yourself up with the help of a loving, conscientious SO than it is by yourself.

[–]loneliness-incEndorsed Contributor 15 points16 points  (13 children)

These days, it is easy for a lot of men to get sex (despite the 80/20 rule, women are still giving it out like cookies), so it's not that difficult for the MGTOWs to come to terms with their situation.

There are many degrees of MGTOW. Some still pump and dump women, others want nothing at all to do with women as they've been completely turned off. You'll find more of the former on r/theredpill and more of the latter on r/mgtow

A point that's missing in your post is sex-bots. They're already being produced, but the technology is still in its infancy. Soon enough, they'll become widespread and many men will use them as a sexual outlet or their only sexual outlet. This will drastically change the dating dynamics even further. It will further diminish the sexual value of women as a whole.

If anyone doubts this (as I'm sure many will laugh at my above suggestion), just look at how many men already use porn as their only sexual outlet. Look how many men turn to porn because having sex with their wives is just too risky and complicated. How many men turn to porn to the point that they don't bother with their wives anymore...

You may want to scream at me in rage, but I'm just stating a fact here. Reality is that pornography is a major part of male sexuality today. Introduce robots and this will only grow exponentially.

1997 was when I first saw a digital camera. It cost $750 and only took 150 grainy pictures. Since then, the price dropped and the quality went up. I think that sex-bots today are where digital cameras were in 1997.

[–]RubyWooToo3 Stars 7 points8 points  (3 children)

Have you every read "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" (the book that the film Blade Runner was based on)?

In that dystopia, the abundance of androids-- both as animal pets and also prostitutes-- didn't diminish the demand for real animals and sex with women; in fact, it elevated both to a highly desirable symbols of wealth and status, as both became increasingly rare.

[–]loneliness-incEndorsed Contributor 1 point2 points  (2 children)

I haven't read that book and I don't think anything can be proven from a book that tells a made up story. We'd have to wait and see what will actually happen. In the meantime, all we can do is speculate.

[–]RubyWooToo3 Stars 2 points3 points  (1 child)

We're both speculating.

I brought up the book because I think it touches on something interesting about human nature... having something fake is almost a reminder of the real thing we're missing.

Sort of like how knock-off purses don't decrease demand for Gucci or Prada.

[–]girlwithabikeEndorsed Contributor 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Right, I don't think you were suggesting that sex bots would not exist or even perhaps be ubiquitous. .. just that it could potentially drive up the value of sex with a real woman who is worth having sex with

To use your metaphor - a lot of people would prefer a knock off gucci bag (sex bot) over a bag from walmart (low value partner)....but a real gucci bag (high value partner) will still be the gold standard.

[–]durtykneesEndorsed Contributor 5 points6 points  (5 children)

I agree with what you said except this part:

It will further diminish the sexual value of women as a whole.

If you're saying most women's sexual value could be threatened by sex-bots, then most women already have no sexual value to begin with, which fully justifies men opting out.

There's no conflict nor competition, other than knee-jerk fear and indignation from human beings who already don't provide sexual value in a relationship.

I'll fear sex-bots when they somehow go full Terminator.

[–]LateralThinker133 Stars 12 points13 points  (0 children)

If you're saying most women's sexual value could be threatened by sex-bots, then most women already have no sexual value to begin with, which fully justifies men opting out.

Actually, upon reflection I'm gonna have to agree on this one. Sexbots create a kind of minimum wage for SMV. Currently low-status men will accept abusive, minimally-rewarding women because of the possibility of occasional sex, and because this sex is better than solo porn.

But with the bots, it's getting closer and closer to actual sex. So they're outcompeting these low-status women for SMV.

Bots will force women to treat men better because a low-cost, if low value, replacement is waiting in the wings.

[–]girlwithabikeEndorsed Contributor 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Second this. I have no concern or fear of sex bots. I don't see them having an impact on my relationship. I have sympathy for men that would want to go that route because it's the best option for them. And I suspect that for some men it will be the best option. Sad.

I do worry about the societal implications...but I feel the same about MGTOW too, it's not the sex bots themselves that are the issue.

[–]Luckylancer96 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Porn trick man's eyes and ear, hand tricks penis.

Sex bot tricks every part sex stimulates. Sex bots are already terminators compared to sex.

Also i should say researchs show sex increase testesterone but masturbating dont. So even the tricked man brain can distinguis it but when it comes to sexbots, i dont think it is distinguisable. Sexbot+fabricated wombs=a man wont need a women's sexual traits any longer.

[–]loneliness-incEndorsed Contributor 1 point2 points  (1 child)

If you're saying most women's sexual value could be threatened by sex-bots, then most women already have no sexual value to begin with, which fully justifies men opting out.

This makes no sense/is incorrect for several reasons.

1) your sexual value as a woman has nothing to do with what you or any other woman thinks (unless you're a lesbian) and everything to do with what men think. If there are more men in the sexual marketplace, the value of each individual woman rises. If there are less men in the sexual marketplace, the value of each woman falls. Same is true in the reverse for men. It's simple supply and demand economics.

2) whether MGTOW are justified or not is completely beside the point. My comment was about the effect that sex-bots will have on the sexual marketplace. Shaming MGTOW doesn't cause them to not exist. They're still part of the male population and if they exit the sexual marketplace, there are less available men. This causes the sexual value of each man who's still in the marketplace to rise and the value of each woman to fall.

3) we're speaking here about sexual value, not about your value as a human being.

4) "then most women already have no sexual value to begin with" implies that you are conflating SMV with RMV and/or have a hard time accepting that your value as a woman is merely as a sex object. Please refer back to point number 3.

There's no conflict nor competition, other than knee-jerk fear and indignation from human beings who already don't provide sexual value in a relationship.

Here's the thing - if having a relationship entails being nagged and criticized all the time, it may not be worth it to have said relationship from a purely cost/benefit analysis. This is why many men are staying away from relationships. Once again, my comment had to do with sexual value.

I'll fear sex-bots when they somehow go full Terminator.

I keep hearing this from so many people. It's the most ridiculous thing. Computers can only do what they're programmed to do. They don't have minds of their own!

[–]durtykneesEndorsed Contributor 2 points3 points  (0 children)

have a hard time accepting that your value as a woman is merely as a sex object.

Even as a sex object, if I can't provide better sex than a robot made within my lifetime, then I'm already a failure.

They don't have minds of their own!

Not yet, not within our lifetime, perhaps. But there's already AI that can "learn" through experience.

But that wasn't my point. If Terminators ever get made, it would be made intentionally by human beings. An easy way to assassinate a man would be when his pants are off, don't you agree?

[–]SouthernAthenaEndorsed Contributor[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

A point that's missing from your post is sex bots

Yeah, I was thinking about those as I wrote this. Good input.

[–]stunoneohh 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I totally agree with you about the bots.

[–]sunlituplands 3 points4 points  (0 children)

We have no idea where we're heading.

[–]wathebread 10 points11 points  (1 child)

Well said.

I caught a good man at 20 and I'm sticking to him. Though he's been down lately, he possesses all the good qualities that indicate he will pull through and prosper once again.

My husband just interviewed and didn’t get the dream job he wanted, but another in the area we wanted so we’re still moving

He came home completely crushed and I laid on top of him on the bed while he recovered

There is no casual fling that can do that, and know what to say and understand him like I can after years of dedication

[–]SouthernAthenaEndorsed Contributor[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I laid on top of him on the bed while he recovered

So sweet!

And you're right. Nothing can match the depth of time and commitment.

[–]MarquisDePaid 2 points3 points  (1 child)

I'm of the opinion most of these subs are heavily manipulated. I've had genuinely helpful advice be rejected and suppressed by moderators (even without any of my "controversial" political views)

And when I say "most of these subs" I mean a spectrum of both man-hating women (gendercritical, wgtow, etc), as well as women-hating men (incel, mgtow, etc)

One such helpful post I had was in the "wgtow" subreddit, and I have several other such examples.

It's really fucked up

[–]SouthernAthenaEndorsed Contributor[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I can't say I've spent much time on any of those subs. TBH they don't at all support the spirit of harmony and cooperation I'd like to see in men and women again. I want to rebuild the foundation, not move to a trailer park.

[–]CleburnCO 1 point2 points  (1 child)

While it's not popular, as it forces people to take a hard look in the mirror...TRP is a whole of person reality. You can use the tricks to get laid...but that's BS pickup artist childish nonsense. When someone swallows the pill, they end up having phases where reality is going to slap them in the face starting with their dating/relationship...moving into their job/career...and likely ending up with a person having to confront their political ideology, triggered by their friends spouting some party ideology nonsense that TRP shows to be false.

It's a journey...a painful one...that is what separates the civilized from those who simply exist in civilized worlds.

[–]SouthernAthenaEndorsed Contributor[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yep, it's a whole life process, way more than "neg girls to get laid" and "stay skinny to make him happy." I've had to confront literally everything I believed in, but it's made my life a lot better and my vision of what I want clearer.

[–]Kate_A_D 5 points6 points  (7 children)

Hollywood likes to depict men as tough loner hermit warriors, but their social needs are as high on average as ours. Social needs diverge a lot more from individual to individual, but we are all deeply social creatures who suffer psychological consequences if we are deprived from it.

I don't see why sex or cooking would be an incentive for a man to marry for life. You even mention in the following paragraph that they can get sex elsewhere no? The initial reason marriage was created was to form strategic alliance between powerful families. It was an arrangement for the wealthy. Marrying cousins to keep the blood ties strong was also popular. I'm glad this part is less of a thing nowadays... Divorce isn't a bad thing. It absolutely sucks to have to go through, but if you take it away from people then you are trapping some women (and men) into horribly abusive relations that are beyond redemption. You should def work on your marriage when things get rocky, and being married can be quite a challenge at times, but there are limits to what a person can be expected to endure.

''Entitled to sex''? I'm not sure what you mean by that but it worries me a little. Do you mean as in a wife should never refuse her husband's sexual advances? Or that wives should make an effort to keep things spiced up and not give up on sex entirely? Sex IS an important part of any relationship (unless both are asexual of course) and a huge lasting drop can cause a rift between the two, but its a tango, not a solo.

Hey! Crazy cat lady used to be my set ambition! Well, I'll admit that I am happier with bf after all. :)

I understand your fears though. Society is struggling seemingly now more than ever. I don't think its as simple as ''feminism ruined it all'' though. There has always been DEEPLY rooted problems regardless of the times and social structures set. The problems have merely been in constant change, though the changes used to be progressive. Now it feels like the pace at which the world is changing is so fast and confusing that its like we can't keep up anymore doesn't it?

Since feminism and the social changes it brought along, there has been many many changes. Some good, some bad... whole chains of events. Technology is doing the blunt work of change though I believe. It used to be you had to marry someone who lived in relatively close distance (no cars or planes!), who your family approved of (you lived home until marriage so it was hard not to get them mingled in your personal life) and within your own social class. You did not know other options or ways of life, and had little choice but to comply with what your family asked of you. Now an Indian girl can be having a secret emotional affair with someone in Pakistan and get influenced by all the current trends and media on internet. I'm not saying its a bad thing either, just that we are in an increasingly complex world that is confusing to navigate.

Also to blame I believe? Emotional intelligence is waaaaaay underrated in our society. You know, that necessary skill we need to improve in order to connect with one another, understand each other, form solid long lasting bonds with one another? We are not taught to better our emotional intelligence. Society wants consumers who are emotionally crippled and will replace relationships with cars and jewelry. The adds on tv LITERALLY TELL US that we can buy happiness! Who needs fulfilling and meaningful relationships when you can look awesome in a brand new sports car? Schools don't teach you emotional intelligence. Society tells women they are TOO emotional, and men that they should shun them. Parents are often trapped in their own problematic lack of knowledge on how to communicate healthily, and so don't properly pass it on. No wonder people have such a hard time forming meaningful relationships anymore! We don't know how to communicate properly, have a hard time fully understanding our loved ones, and when a fight occurs we scream at each other like children because we don't have the inner insight of WHY we feel so hurt... and have no idea how to voice it.

If you found a good man you love at 20, and are still happily with him, then good for you! You don't need to be RP perfect, you just need to be a decently good you, and live life in a way that feels right and comfortable to you. It sounds like you deeply value your relation and that you are fulfilled by it, and that is a wonderful thing to have achieved! I'm also very happy in my relation with my bf. We have taken a less traditional/conventional path, but that is what we feel is right for us. There is no absolute right or wrong answer. Just different people trying to navigate this world as best they can, while being as happy as they can be.

EDIT: Ouf! Sorry for the suuuuper long reply! I can get quite chatty at times... If anyone responds to me I will respond back, though it might take a day since I have a veeeery long double work day tomorrow!

[–]SouthernAthenaEndorsed Contributor[S] 5 points6 points  (4 children)

Trapping some women (and men) into horribly abusive relationships

This is why I linked the "no fault" divorce laws page. Divorce was possible before these laws in cases of abuse, infertility, or breech or marriage contract (i.e. husband drinking instead of going to work). It's a common misconception that there was no divorce before no-fault divorce.

Ouf! Sorry for the suuuuper long reply

Haha no big deal. I'm glad it provoked so many thoughts.

[–]Kate_A_D 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Ah I see! At least there was SOME form of protection available! That's a bit reassuring but still, would that not mean that it has to be proven in some way in order for divorce to be valid in the no fault divorce laws page? I'm thinking specifically of the case of lets say a narcissistic husband who could mistreat his wife horribly while keeping a perfect saintly facade in front of society. If the wife can't just divorce at will without proving there is abuse then that can really backfire. Narcissists are masters at abusing their families, while the rest of the world looks at them and think ''he/she is SUCH a wonderful person!''. Its actually part of what makes these people so destructive. They will lie to and manipulate your friends and family and convince them that there is something wrong with YOU, and they do it so well that most people will fully believe them over you! So if testimony is needed, lets say, for proof of abuse in order to get divorce, many victims would find themselves hitting a wall as their surroundings might take the abuser's side. Victims of narcissists are often left with no other choice than to flee to a new town/country... and cut contact with even several friends or family members.

[–]SouthernAthenaEndorsed Contributor[S] 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Yes, you are right in that there does have to be proof, and a narcissist would be a tricky case. However, I'd wager that this was less of an issue in the past when it was more common for people to stay in communities their whole lives and had to prove their character over decades rather than just swooping in and charming the pants off a bunch of strangers. In the past being charming wasn't necessarily a virtue (there are some interesting points on this in Susan Cain's book "Quiet") I'm not saying it never happened, but I think it's a lot easier in the modern day when it's common for people to change their social circles every few years.

[–]Kate_A_D 0 points1 point  (1 child)

You also bring interesting valid points! Today's social circles do tend to be less stable than they used to. I have to admit that I can't complain of that though, with my borderline mother in law who would ask nothing more than to be part of our lives on a daily basis... while bf and I cringe at her increasing attempts to visit! :P

[–]SouthernAthenaEndorsed Contributor[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ah, yes...borderlines are such a treat. Yeah, sometimes being right next to family isn't always best.

[–]girlwithabikeEndorsed Contributor 3 points4 points  (1 child)

''Entitled to sex''? I'm not sure what you mean by that but it worries me a little. Do you mean as in a wife should never refuse her husband's sexual advances? Or that wives should make an effort to keep things spiced up and not give up on sex entirely?

Responsibility for sex gets put on the women (in this sub particularly) because we generally believe that "women are the gatekeepers of sex and men are the gatekeepers of commitment". If men give us the commitment that we crave (marriage) then as a rule we should uphold our end of the bargain and give them the sex that they crave.

Quick illustration: A BP guy that I know was lamenting that his wife's illness (with no foreseeable end) was causing a completely deadbedroom. He felt terrible for even suggesting that this was a problem in the marriage. And don't jump down his throat on this one. I was there, she means the world to him and he felt awful that he even had these feelings. But at the same time, it was causing him to use the D word (which shocked me from this guy). She on the other hand was blissfully unaware that this was even an issue. She got from him all the things she wanted (security, comfort, affection) and he was in pain.

We aren't required to accept our men's sexual advances every time. Just like they aren't required to accept ours. But we're being willfully ignorant if we don't acknowledge the innate need for sex that men have (especially within a relationship). I don't think it's wrong to say that one of the expectations that men have of marriage is that there will be regular sex (however that is defined). I also don't think it's wrong to say that the current zeitgeist tells women that men's sex drives are extreme (too much, too dirty, too animalistic, too too too) and can and should be put on hold if the woman doesn't want it.

[–]Kate_A_D 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ah okay I see how this works now! Yeah it makes some sens! Not getting enough sex will certainly suck for a man (even a woman) but I think the real problem lies less in the actual sexual urges not being met than in the implications surrounding this lack of intimacy. A man who get constantly rejected for sex, or whose partner never ever initiate, end up feeling insecure and unwanted, (as we would too in fact) and feel less closely bonded with his partner. He can still take care of his urges on his own, but if its pretty much all he's been doing in a long time when he's in a marriage (or romantic partnership), that has to be seriously depressing. Sex is an act that would normally be utterly disgusting with mostly anyone else, but its enjoyable with that special person you want to share it with. Because in that moment you are accepting that person in ways most other people would not, parts of them that they normally have to hide from the rest of society because they are seen as shameful and disgusting. Its hard to feel desired and loved truly and fully when your partner refuses these parts of you, or is clearly reluctant or enthusiastic in accepting them. In accepting the whole of you. In the cases when one of the person has no idea that it even IS an issue... then that kinda justifies these feelings! It means there is a disconnect created by a lack of communication, which will doom the relation to further fall apart over time. If the wife decides to finally give her husband more sex (and the same goes if you inverse the genders), but is clearly not interested/bored/hating it, then that man is not going to feel like his needs are met, regardless if he is technically getting his physical urges filled. A further chasm will be created and the relation will keep slowly eroding apart.

I guess this train of thought would fit with what you said about society considering men's sex drives as dirty or animalistic being a problem. It certainly can create the false impression in the minds of some women that sex with their husband is purely physical where he's concerned, and to view it as something undesirable. And if that man has not learned to voice his need for intimacy and closeness this will further each other's lack of understanding towards each other's needs. Though I think, once more, the deeper problem lies less in the sexual urges themselves not being satisfied by another person, than the implication that they are being rejected and made to feel undesired. Especially by that one person that was supposed to do just that! If your wife won't accept the whole of you the way you are, then who the hell will? And in that case you must be asking yourself how ''acceptable'' you truly are.

There were a few times in our relation when we saw big drops in sex (usually because of ill-timed series of circumstances). My bf is, thankfully, very articulate about his feelings, and his first reaction was always to ask me, not for more sex, but ''why I was no longer attracted to him''.

[–]HB3234 3 points4 points  (1 child)

I have to be honest, I feel like people who equate the role of the home maker to "cooking and cleaning" are the same ones who think motherhood is "take the kids to school and soccer practice". To reduce a woman to food, sex, and shelter means you're only operating at the lowest levels of Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

Partnerships can yield so, so much more.

[–]SouthernAthenaEndorsed Contributor[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I don't intend to reduce a woman to that. What I am saying is that those things have been taken off the table in terms of expectations. Now the function of a marriage is mostly for companionship, whereas in the past there were many more practical incentives for both parties (getting those basic needs met). Now, men are generally still expected to hold down a job and work on the house, but a lot of the typical wifely duties are seen as optional/to be shared with the partner. I understand things have changed a bit since women started working more commonly, but that seems to have simply reduced the quality of life for everyone, the husband getting the short end of the stick in terms of risk and reward.

[–]ElfFey 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Yep, this is why I don't follow black pill and why I think a lot of TRP is not actually red pilled at all. If you follow red pill truths to their logical conclusion you realize the importance of the nuclear family to our whole society. If you pump-and-dump women (turning them in to bitter WGTOW equivalents because you got cheated on in the past) you're basically a traitor to your race in my opinion; I don't know how else to put it, if you've seen the reality of things and still choose to not do anything to correct it in your personal life you are actively harming your own species and you know it.

At the same time I can't get on with the liberals' "a difference in opinion lol" mindset. I don't think children thinking they are a different gender is a sign we're an evolved society--it's quite the opposite. That's just one example. My liberal friends follow plenty of crazy trends that don't reflect positive on society. Then are confused when things don't work out for them.

I am not a squeaky clean sinless example but I do see what you are talking about. The frustrating thing to me is that you can't have conversations about this with people because they are actively afraid of some of these ideas.

[–]CleburnCO 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Currently, there is a very high birth rate in Africa and in Muslim countries, the average total fertility rate is 4 in Africa and 3,1 in Muslim countries. Africa is projected to have 4 billion people, and MENA 1 billion people. Nigeria alone is projected to have 400 million people in 2050. In most Latino countries, there is a positive birth rate, with the exception of Brasil. Birth rate is positive in India as well. On the other hand, white female TFR in the US is 1.75, in Europe 1.5, in Canada 1.5. The replacement rate is 2.1, and in the event of race mixing, you will need more than 2.1 in order to simply sustain the white population at one level. Even in western countries with relatively high birth rates, the people who are having kids are usually non-white women, as more than 50 percent of US newborn and more than 38 percent of French newborn are already non-white. White female TFR is negative in all western countries. Therefore white people will disappear if they do not change their behavior.

In all feminist countries, you have negative birth rates that could lead to the disappearance of the native population if birth rates are not raised. Whites in the US are projected to disappear in 300 years. In all feminist societies you have massive third-worldization, lowering of IQ, race mixing with blacks, conversions to Islam, etc. The most feminist country in the world – Sweden, is dying right now due to third world/Muslim immigration. Muslims are outbreeding Europeans in almost all European countries. Barbarism, to paraphrase Lenin, is the last stage of feminism. Sparta, where women became very influential, died due to low birth rate. In decadent Rome, they were ultimately forced to tax single people in order to get them to marry and have kids. Remember what happened to the late Roman Empire - low birth rates, people did not want to get married, men thought that women became unmarriable, infanticide, depopulation, extreme promiscuity, easy divorce, repeal of anti-luxury laws, etc.. Those masses of low IQ people swarming the Europeans are merely the symptom, not the cause. They are just like the opportunistic infection that takes advantage of an already weakened organism. The real cause though, is the weak immune system of the organism. Luxury corrupts. Feminism is decadent behavior that can only occur in rich and powerful countries, who feel that they are not threatened by anything, and can therefore engage in various types of decadent behaviors that are actually weakening them. J. D. Unwin found that after a nation becomes prosperous, it becomes increasingly liberal with regard to sexual morality and as a result loses it cohesion, its impetus and its purpose. The effect, he says, could be irrevocable.

The British historian Sir John Glubb noticed that proto-feminism emerged in the later stages of various civilizations, before they collapsed. These are the stages of civilizations: The age of outburst (or pioneers). The age of conquests. The age of commerce. The age of affluence. The age of intellect. The age of decadence. (We are here. Decline could also be observed, as the western share of the world's economy and population is constantly declining, while at the same time the West has become the most indebted region of the world). The age of Decadence is marked by: Defensiveness (for example by building border walls), pessimism, materialism, frivolity, an influx of foreigners, feminisation, the welfare state, a weakening of religion. Decadence is due to: too long a period of wealth and power. Selfishness, love of money, the loss of a sense of duty. The age of decline and collapse.

This is how feminism destroys itself: It destroys itself due to its low, negative birth rates, leading to population decline of the feminised group. (You could clearly observe this in Europe, where there is Islamization going on and European cultures and peoples are dying). In the US, liberal white women are the group with the lowest birth rate and republican states have higher birth rate than liberal states. Coincidentally or not, the white women with the highest birth rate are from countries that banned abortion (Argentine and Ireland). One of the reasons why German women do not want to vote for their anti-immigration party (who wants to increase the german birth rate), is because they don't want to be mothers or to have more than one kid. It destroys itself because it is dysgenic (dumb women have more kids, while smart and career women are often childless). For example 40 percent of German college educated women are childless. This leads to IQ drop. Right now the IQ of western populations is dropping, and east Asian students are now outperforming western students according to PISA surveys, with some eastern european countries now outperforming western countries as well.

It destroys itself because according to various studies, women are less xenophobic, and more foreigner friendly, compared to men. They will welcome everyone. In other words, hello refugee crisis. Sweden, the most feminised country on the planet, willingly took more refugees per capita (who are mostly young single black and Islamic males) than anyone else in Europe. And many people are calling Germany crazy for taking lots of Muslim refugees. Well, Sweden is even crazier than Germany. 75 percent of western converts to Islam are women, as well as the vast majority of whites who mix with blacks. In Sweden, the more feminist the political party, the more it wants to open the borders. Feminist groups allied themselves with muslims to protest against Donald Trump. Feminist groups such as FEMEN and Pussy Riot are also known to support open borders. Recently, it was found that British women travel to Calais to help refugees and to have sex with them in the "Jungle" migrant camp. This is happening in other european countries as well. Do you think that women in Europe do not know that it is mostly young migrant males coming in?

When low IQ people move to more feminised countries, they find an already existing parasitic environment (created by women) that is particularly well suited for people like them. Women there already complain that they are victims, that they are oppressed, that men are privileged, that they deserve special quotas and affirmative action, that they should be given stuff via the welfare system, via special (without competitive bidding) government contracts and loans, via special grants and scholarships for women and minorities, or via alimony and divorce. Obviously that environment will be great for low IQ "Give me, Give me, I'm Victim" people as well and they too will join the party and start behaving that way (until there are too many takers and the whole redistribution system collapses). In contrast, low IQ migrants won't find a parasitic environment like that in Turkey, Israel or Japan. No one there feels guilty, could be made to feel guilty, or is going to give them anything. Men evolved to protect the perimeter against males from other (mainly patriarchal) tribes (chimps do the same). Having women involved in decisions about the perimeter (think of Merkel or Swedish feminists) results in what we see – open borders, multiculture, diversity, “tolerance”, border chaos.

In nature, when you weaken the local males, then other males move in and replace them. You can observe this among lions, among primates, or among europeans. After feminist women (with the encouragement of jews) weakened their own men, then other men (muslims) started moving in. Males are the immune system of society. The nationalism that they create is the wall. Without them, there is no nationalism or resistance to foreigners. Weaken them, and then other foreigners, often males, start moving in. Thus, we can expect any ethnic group with large female influence and female leadership to self destroy, as the female leadership will not care about preserving their own ethnicity or group cohesion, leading to the feminised group opening their borders, trying to help anyone in need, accepting anyone in, and eventually becoming a minority in their own country. Women, for the most part, care about resources and smoothing conflict over. They evolved to fill that role. Women are less likely to support military action even against ISIS, a group known for enslaving women and using them as sex slaves, and are less likely to support ban on muslim immigration. Stockholm Syndrome is more pronounced in females . Women were frequently taken captive by (or in some cases traded to) other groups, and so they evolved to smooth things over with distant groups (whereas their male kinfolk were simply killed). The survival of their genes, unless they were exceptionally ugly, was more or less guaranteed – whichever tribe they end up being with. That is why they are more accepting of foreigners and foreign rule. Men form tribes. Women join tribes. So, women tend to vote for resource redistribution (from men) and being nice to everybody (including those who aren’t in their group), and for helping anyone in need, regardless of their group.

Theory is that if you want to destroy an ethnic group, simply increase female influence in that group. Increase it a lot. And voila. Since females don’t care about ethnicity that much, and are less xenophobic, the country will open it’s borders, will try to help anyone in need, and will welcome everyone. As a bonus, you will also get a negative birth rate for the feminized host group. All kinds of other ethnic, religious and racial groups will move in, and will start vying for dominance; as for the feminized host group, its fate is to become a minority in its own country, to mix with the foreigners, and then to ultimately disappear.

[–]SouthernAthenaEndorsed Contributor[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

basically a traitor to your race

Agreed. Despite how desperate it may seem, I still feel it's my duty to strive for better.

I've found a lot of my liberal friends are more open to talking about this stuff with me than expected. However, it has to be in person (ideally 1 on 1 or in a small group) or in direct message. Even though I've been talked down to plenty, I have gotten far more reasonable responses than I expected when posting about this stuff openly like I have been the past few weeks. If your friends respect you, there's a chance you might be able to at least bring another view to the table.