[ TRANSCRIPTION ]
Autistic women vs autistic men's areas of special interest
vintage fashion
radical feminism
classical literature
web art
psychology
jigsaw puzzles
cottagecore
mental health awareness
-
school shootings
hentai
4chan
the alt-right
incel killers
Chris Chan
autogynephilia
Technically, trooning out is often a result of self reflection. The part that's missing is drawing a logical conclusion from it, which can't happen because of the reproductive niche a male evolved to occupy. If a male completes the process of self reflection, he will not engage in male-typical sexual behavior. That makes the trait self-eliminating.
You may have noticed this already. A male grows up watching his mother get abused by his father, perhaps getting abused himself. He feels bad for the mother, pities himself and acknowledges that his father was wrong, yet eventually becomes an abuser. A male is a pillar of the community, kind and charitable to everyone including children. He is also a pedophile. A male would kill any male hitting on his 13 year old daughter, yet his hard drive is full of jailbait. A male understands that pregnancy is painful and destructive to the woman, and feels bad for his wife. He still wants heirs.
A male's observation that he needs to hurt others to fulfill his reproductive program, logically, should result in him ceasing the program. And perhaps it did in the distant past, but that trait by definition mostly died off. This predicts an existence of some kind of a neurological "switch" in the mind of a male that prevents him from internalizing his own awareness of male harm. Studies showing previously rape-condeming males increasingly justifying sexual violence and rape myths as their own arousal increases are consistent with this hypothesis, as well as the established male tendency to externalize.
Sure, a number of TIMs most definitely troon out as a premeditated means to min-max their current place in society. But some can be expected to troon out as part of the mechanism described above, especially given their higher exposure to observations of male harm via news and social media, as well as some extent of public condemnation of it. The sheer number of born-again coomers, deadbeat husbands and pedos who troon out at the most opportune moment can reflect either scenario. Male harm is increasingly more difficult to compartmentalize or launder away, but self-elimination from the gene pool via suicide or celibacy is not optimal.
The true horror of moidry is the fact that even if they genuinely want to stop being what they are and doing what they do, they can't. There no other way for them to exist.
Pinkpill here.
Feminism is an inherently western, individualistic, Enlightenment based ideology. I'm going to blow your mind here - technically there can't be any 'nonwhite' feminism because the interests of one's race and tribe are inherently irreconcilable with the interests of women as individuals, because family and all of its surrounding structures innately require female mules. You acknowledge this when you complain about black men/ankhs building black community/identity/self worth on the backs of black women. This isn't a bug, it's a feature. If you want to uplift a nation in any sort of tribal struggle, this is what you have to do. There is no way to support female liberation whilst simultaneously elevating the status of men in your group as compared to men in other groups. In the end you're spending your resources to help advance a man in a male hierarchy. It's unfortunate and I can sympathize with the double bind to an extent, but I have long abandoned the idea that helping women also helps the men (along w with other silly idealistic stuff like 'having it all' and 'teach boys to respecc wamen').
If you're not prepared to be childless/tribeless/identityless and family-less, anything you do will benefit men at your (or other women's) expense.
[...]
Men's issues are not women's issues, but intersectionality aims to obscure that. Being forced to balance the interests of women with the interests of men due to a common group descriptor inevitably results in incidents like not wanting to give up R. Kelly because he's giving more status to the community as a whole. Black men could enslave all white men tomorrow and it would make absolutely 0 difference for black women, except maybe a consolation prize of being sexually valued above white women - a goal that's inherently nonfeminist in the first place.
When a woman's offspring is a male, her genetic interests instantly lie with males, even if she has female offspring. Most conceptions are male, but births are relatively equal due to high rate of malformations in male embryos (they self abort at high rates). Males are more damaging and expensive to gestate. Male babies are more needy, emotional and angry. It's an ultimate sunk cost. Mothers also instinctively understand that in order for her son to win, women must lose - even the most feminist mother in the world will shriek about the epidemic of false rape accusations the moment her semen demon assaults someone at school. Ironically, mothers and grandmothers of boys live shorter lives because they too become worthless and expendable in the eyes of natural selection.
If that didn't sound bad enough, boymom brains are literally colonized with male DNA containing cells. It's uncertain whether the presence of that DNA alters their behavior, but cellular level "warfare" isn't unheard of - the father's fetal DNA "fights" the mother for more resources during pregnancy, for example.
Fun fact: when the male fetus is about to be aborted (spontaneously or surgically), it immediately releases colossal quantities of male DNA into the woman's bloodstream, as a last ditch effort of sorts. Because most of them are aborted spontaneously due to fatal deformity, a question arises about the presence of genetically diseased male DNA in parous women.
(...) the idea that men under "patriarchy" are encouraged to display "positive masculinity" in any way. That is a mystification designed to dupe you into thinking that you're getting something in exchange for feminine deference, which leads many radfems to conclude that "gender abolition" can be made palatable to men and pro-male women if only they offer something like "you stop murdering and raping us, I pick up the check at the restaurant and let you wear my pantyhose". They will never accept your "deal" because men run the show. They're not really "forced" to adhere to any standard in the first place and there is no punishment for deviating from it, it's all a sham. They'll sell you movies portraying "women and children first" as they drown them to save themselves. "Valor" in war isn't a thing, and neither are knights in shining armor. Males habitually use "feminine" emotional manipulation and heartstring pulling to maintain dominance, and always have. You're not offering them anything they don't already have full access to.
This is one of many fallacies of "gender abolition" - the one where self proclaimed "gender abolitionists" actually take "patriarchal" descriptions of gender roles at face value, and (again, not insult) I would probably blame autistic tendencies here. In practice, the only rule of "patriarchy" and "masculinity" is that there are rules for you and no rules for men, which is why I reject these words in the first place - there is only male dominance/parasitism. Trans women are the most glaring example of this. If tomorrow you proclaimed that men no longer have to be GI joes, they'd find a way to have a higher social standing than you by being wailing loser faggots. And it would be entirely at your expense.
The idea that some silly, jaded straight women are delaying this "gender abolition" by expecting some nebulous "effort" on Valentine's day rests upon the assumption that "masculinity" is what it says it is. It's not and it never has been.
