Read on Twitter
Everyone thinks society should be rewritten to make better men, no one thinks it should be rewritten to make better women. Yes, men are made, not born, but women are more imprintable with ideology and changing the content of women is easier than changing the content of men
Last week we spoke of social construction but now I will advance the view that femininity is MORE contingent than masculinity, more social, more fungible, and that the perception that sexuality as fluid is ITSELF a facet of the feminine https://twitter.com/0x49fa98/status/1031895692925534209
Proof: A man can exist as a man outside of society. An archetypal form of masculinity is the savage outsider, a man raised by NATURE ALONE, who is more beast than man, in some ways such a man is the most masculine of all; to the degree he is socially constructed, he is feminized
Fertility and physical weakness are the biological fundament of femininity but beauty and sexuality are almost entirely artifice, which is why artificiality is also a feminine essence
When women tell us that homosexuality exists on a scale and that gender and sex are relatively fluid, they are speaking honestly about their own experience of these things, but there is no reason, no reason at all, to think that their experience is true of men
Men who covet but cannot obtain feminine beauty through the usual channels show us exactly what portion of femininity is socially constructed when they appropriate the artifice of feminine beauty for themselves; that which they cannot appropriate is biologically determined
A porn star is a female drag queen. Women who perform this kind of culturally constructed sexual femininity are doing it to win intrasexual competitions. They are right when they say it's not to please men. It's work, it's against other women, and they resent it
Competition between sellers benefits buyers, to the detriment of sellers. If one woman wears makeup to get better mates than her sisters, then all women have to start wearing makeup, no woman is better off, and all women now have to pay a makeup cost. https://twitter.com/0x49fa98/status/1047115237478912000
Almost everything women do is a kind of sexual display, every piece of clothing, every mannerism, the way they style their hair &c., and most of it is unconscious. Once an artifact becomes typified as feminine it becomes sexual in the male mind https://twitter.com/0x49fa98/status/1126904943540035584
Women win intrasexual competitions when they successfully dissolve their individuality and become, for the man they desire, not ONE woman but ALL women. A singular woman becomes a proxy for all women, and a man develops a fetish for her specifically https://twitter.com/0x49fa98/status/1029365639050190848
Contrast the character of Don Juan, who is and always has been a fantasy of hysterical women, a man who has his women ONE at a time. Man sexualizes woman by de-individating her, woman sexualizes man by HYPER-individuating him, and she desires to be loved by him in her same way
You can see that femininity is more socially constructed than masculinity because femininity has changed MUCH FASTER than masculinity since the explosion of feminist ideology
It's been easy for educators and opinion makers to invert every proper attitude a woman should hold, but in the same time, masculinity stubbornly refuses to change. There are more cowards and weak men now than before, but we don't see them as masculine, only as unhatched eggs
No man looks at nu-males and desires to be them, but the average woman very much sees the archetype of the ball-busting woman CEO (along with other exotic fictional females) as the ideal manifestation of womanhood
What's more striking about this is that the new womanhood is still defined adversarially in terms of an older femininity that no longer exists in the west, wherein women do domestic chores and aspire to motherhood. The new womanhood relies on this archetype for its formula
Why aren't people having children? It's not because they're expensive, it's because the millennial women honest to god don't want them, (at least not strongly enough) because having children is the core of the old womanhood, and new womanhood necessarily opposes it
"Having a baby is a huge commmitment and you shouldn't have one if you aren't ready." That's true, but right now our social machine only constructs women who never feel ready. Recognizing your unreadiness isn't salutary unless you perceive it as a defect to be overcome
Some women claim to be pro-natal in the context of "women's rights," but their "rights" are a structurally anti-natal social construction; they are like bureaucrats expressing a desire for less paperwork as they gleefully stamp everything in triplicate
It is not possible to reconcile the modality of woman as a capitalist laborer with the modality of woman as mother, because the demands of labor and the demands of motherhood are diametrically opposed. Labor's incentives are a fertility shredder and everyone knows it
The new womanhood is a child of its father, capital and its mother, feminism. Companies that embraced the new womanhood were able to lower their labor costs and allocate their resources to other facets of competition. It made everyone worse off. https://twitter.com/0x49fa98/status/1129539526366384128
Arguably, companies that embrace wokeness are trying the same trick: anything that dissolves extra-corporate obligations is a short-term win for corporations. The idea that we can chain this demon with regulation or centrally planned economies is naive @wokecapital
Women's "liberation" is not liberation from men, it's liberation from biology, it's liberation from the parts of womanhood that are not socially constructed. Women thus liberated are sterile, and it's a sterility they impose upon the whole of the humanity
Women's liberation is a suicide meme, because until very recently in history women didn't have a choice over whether to get pregnant. Evolution didn't equip them to have this choice, and as soon as they got it, they collectively decided to end their lineage
All human rights are a spook, but women's rights are literally a form of slow civilational suicide. Why? Because evolution can't optimize for procreation, it can only optimize for PROXIES of success. Alexa, what does Goodhart's law say again? https://twitter.com/0x49fa98/status/1047844190741135360
Again, evolution did not EQUIP women to carry the burden of the "right to choose"--they never had any say in the matter at all, and it should not suprise anyone that they are radically unprepared to choose responsibly.
Women, do you not get it? You are collectively killing us, each one of you defecting against god and humanity with your selfish fucking choices. This is a dark and satanic power which shit-slinging monkeys were never meant to wield
You have an evolutionary lifevest, which means your genes got propagated against or in spite of your desires, UNTIL NOW, and it turns out your desires are hideous, hideous, hideous
I wish to god that feminist lies about patriarchy were true, because then we could force every last one of you to bear children, doesn't that sound hot? There's nothing women like more (in the heat of the moment) than having their agency violently taken away
The only people who are immune to the autogenocide of women's liberation are the ones who lack the conscientiousness to effectively exploit birth control for their own hedonism
People who teach antinatalism and don't kill themselves lack the courage of their convictions, equivocating over the difference between personal and civilizational suicide, as if wishing to pass painlessly is somehow more noble, but dead is dead, no matter how pretty the coffin
