This post has been a long time coming, partly because I wasn’t sure exactly how to do it justice. Feminism asserts that,if not for social conditioning, men and women would behave exactly the same. In short, they believe that there are no inherent differences between the sexes. As members of the MRM and the Game community know, this is complete bullshit. There are many differences in the psychology,constitution, and group behaviors of men and women that simply cannot be explained by social conditioning, but that doesn’t stop the fembots from trying.
In a recent study I read, they determined that several week old baby boys paid more attention to mobiles and things with moving parts,while baby girls paid more attention to people’s faces. What was the conclusion that the study came to? That these differences are innate to the sexes? No, they postulated that perhaps social conditioning just works very quickly. Somehow, baby girls just drank in all those “oppressive gender roles” through facial expressions and gestures that somehow indicated to their newly formed brains that they were supposed to be more interested in social interaction than the mechanics of nature.
But there is one fundamental difference I would like to discuss,because it is important to those interested in Men’s rights. That is the tendency among females to support the beliefs,choices, or actions of other females in order to legitimize their own beliefs,tendencies,or choices. The herding instinct. The reason I believe this is important is because it is a roadblock to our achievements. You saw it in play when the female MP’s stonewalled anonymity for men accused of rape. One woman suggests, “rape victims won’t be believed” and then EVERY woman jumps on the issue like a fat kid on a cupcake. Why? Most of these women will never have to file a police report for rape, will never know someone who has been raped, or be raped themselves. So why did they do it?
The herding instinct.
They supported the women who falsely claim rape so that they themselves could falsely claim rape later, if need be.When a woman looks at another woman, she sees not an individual who she does not know, but a mirror. She doesn’t see a stranger, but an image of herself. Where men cluster around common interests or goals, women cluster around common genitalia. The reason for this is simple: Most women have more in common with each other than most men. Anyone who has spent much time in this sphere, reading the available materials, quickly learns that women all group towards a median IQ range, where you will find 99% of all women. There are extreme examples at either end of the scale, of mental retardation and genius respectively,but those are exceptions. Men are mostly grouped into the genius or retard camps, with less men being in the middle.
Similarly, when facets of female personality are tested,such as sexual orientation, you will find most women in the middle, as bisexuals. Men however, were almost exclusively either straight or gay. This information explains a whole host of things. Why women are more sensitive to social ostracization and peer pressure, for instance. If a woman displays a unique personality, she is deemed abnormal by other women, as there is essentially only one model of woman.
Men treat each other as individuals because we ARE. Women treat each other as a group because THEY are. Think of the behavior exhibited by twins,they are so similar physically and mentally that when one of them gets hurt, the other one cries. It’s feasible that the crying twin reacts mentally as if itself was the one who suffered the injury. This is how we explain the behavior of women in cases like this,bold mine.
But having three women on the court may not change the outcome of any cases. The justices, after all, regularly divide 5-4 along ideological lines in high-profile cases. Sotomayor’s votes in her first year were very similar to Justice David Souter’s, the man she replaced. Kagan is expected to vote much like Justice John Paul Stevens, who retired in June.
“Having this seat occupied by a woman does not in and of itself change the way this justice votes,” said Vanderbilt University law professor Tracey George.
Academic studies have so far found just one area, sex discrimination lawsuits, in which the presence of a woman on a panel of federal appeals court judges appears to make a difference. A three-judge panel that includes a woman “is significantly more likely to rule in favor of” a person claiming sex discrimination, Christina Boyd, Lee Epstein and Andrew Martin concluded in a 2008 paper.
Adding another woman might not change the outcome of cases, but it could have an effect on how the court goes about its business, George said. She cited social science research that suggests the presence of a woman in a decision-making group influences the behavior of others in the group.
Ginsburg put a similar thought plainly. “We do bring to the table the experience of growing up as girls and women,” she said.
No man would make it a point to explain about his “experience of growing up as a boy and a man”,as men consider those details irrelevant. What has one’s experience as a MAN got to do with his knowledge of law or principles of justice? Nor would a man speak in quite the terms used by Ginsburg, that word “we”. A man might say “I” bring “my” experience of [example] to the table, but unless he was part of a sports team, rock band,or committee of some kind, he does not say “we”.
So this illustrates our problem, we are fighting a group that has a natural herding instinct, sees itself as a homogenous collective and actively attempts to give to every member the power to legally enslave us,independently of the group itself. It experiences failure both collectively and individually, and has evolved to manipulate others socially. On the surface, it would appear an impossible task then, to challenge this enemy without taking every woman down, removing every woman’s rights so that they neither individually nor collectively possess the strength to abuse the powers men have granted them. But this is not necessarily the case, and I will explain why.
Sometimes, women themselves slip up and let out a little too much information about their own psyches and when this information is overheard by an intelligent man, someone with the ability to reason through from said admission to every possible logical conclusion that can be drawn from it, that information can be dangerous to the goals of anti-male women. Women themselves are aware of this fact, and if you look for it, you will see women attempting to hide this information and admitting the reasons for their doing so,in their own way.
Here is one example of such a “slip”.
If having a couple of partners before marriage is okay, when exactly does one cross the line into sluthood? And who gets to decide? These questions are exactly why I support my more sexually adventurous female friends. Their freedom to sleep around without social ostracism protects me and other women from arbitrary social disapproval.
This is valuable information to a man with the knowledge to interpret it,and the will to use it to his advantage.Just like the dog’s natural instinct to hunt and chase prey was used by man to hunt for food, or to herd livestock, so the natural female instinct to group together can be used by man in a multitude of ways. For instance, in the classic method of “death by a thousand cuts”, one could strike back at feminists without targeting them directly through a kind of spooky social voodoo. By excluding any one woman from legally oppressing any individual man, you are striking back directly at “the sisterhood”. Think back to the example of the twins I gave.
This is Men’s Rights Activism that YOU can personally accomplish. All by your lonesome,if you wish.
Does this mean that I advocate punishing innocent women for the sins of the guilty? No. Does THAT mean that we can’t use these principles in a non-violent way on women who are not affiliated with NOW,but nevertheless support their goals? Most emphatically no.
Another way of applying these principles practically to achieve our goals is by using the implicit social message that a woman who does not “follow the herd” is abnormal to teach that a woman who supports feminism is abnormal.
When our grandmothers were growing up, women actively shamed other women for such routine activities as wearing pants instead of dresses, or going to work instead of keeping a home, the exact opposite of what they shame women for today. In less than 100 years, what was abnormal became normal, and what was normal, is now seen as abnormal among women. This changeability, this social fluidity,of women is a great tool in our arsenal. If we were able to achieve a critical mass of women supporting our goals, the implicit desire to be seen as a “normal woman” would kick in among the herd and save us years of aggressive agitation.
Perhaps instead of focusing our efforts solely on getting men to work together, we should be exploiting women’s natural desire to work together.