Mankind vs Modern Feminism

The ultimate goal of Modern Feminism is to demonize every heteronormative man who pursues sex, children, marriage, and family as an oppressor or rapist while infantilizing and deifying every woman, and using children as social meat shields to distract from the lies and violence.

@DavidHarhar @SarahSurviving Liar liar fucking liar. I have a daughter. I want a world that deserves her. A world that you cant create. I can.

@MankindVsModFem @SarahSurviving Mate. That's a lot to say you couldn't give a flying fuck about women.

I went to Trans Pride yesterday and it was a surreal experience. I’m not sure if Trans Pride was ever really a celebration of transgender people but yesterday was a full on, unapologetic display of anti-woman hatred (1/2)

Why would any man take a position on an issue that's guaranteed to upset a minimum of 30% of women? Every single man, if given the power to effect change, will be clear about what he would do - and SCOTUS has proved that assertion. But if women insist on making this decision - and they DO insist on making this decision - don't expect men to get involved unless you ask MEN to make the decision and you agree to do what you're told. Then, as is the case with SCOTUS, stfu and get it done.

@MankindVsModFem @SarahSurviving Even if that were true, which is not, what about all the single men?

This is "that" - PERPP 👆.Wife provokes husband, puts the marriage at risk, for coercive control / social status / resource negotiation. In this case, the husband fails to draw a productive boundary, and she secures more control - but not happiness. x.com/JedediahBila/s…

Going to say something REALLY important, but you'll have to read and understand the ethology. Once seen, this can NEVER be unseen. It's worth the read. The bones of it - women need strong boundaries to be content. x.com/MankindVsModFe… If PERPP is ethologically correct - the ancient evolved proclivity of women to emotionally, sexually, and physically provoke men to exhaust their resources and test for emotional regulation - then the ethological male CUE for "resource exhaustion" in response to PERPP is not "talking", but non-injurious emotional and physical violence towards the "provoker" to project exhaustion. Men, pushed too far, respond with anger. Absent that "cue", women believe we have more to give and push us to give it to them individually and collectively. The more restrained we are, the more we're "projecting" surplus. If this is correct, it explains significant portions of the female proclivity towards masochism (particularly sexual masochism), hybristophilia, and most other forms of attraction to "bad boys". THIS EXPLAINS WHY NICE GUYS FINISH LAST. Being "nice" projects male access to resources that aren't yet "in play". It means the male has access to emotional, physical, and/or caloric resources that he HAS NOT YET PROVIDED to the female. It means his own existence is NOT YET THREATENED by his provision for his sexual partner. And when men have surplus resources, they "spend" them on... other women, which threatens the primary relationship. It is in a female's best ethological interests to provoke her sexual partner to the very brink of resource exhaustion, to provide for herself, for her biological children, and to ensure her partner does not have the resources to invest in another woman. She is not ultimately (ethologically) concerned for HIS survival, but HER OWN survival. The "cue" for this exhaustion is non-injurious emotional and physical violence. He becomes non-injuriously "bad", WHILE MAINTAINING SUPPLY of emotional and caloric resources. I assert that this is a highly probable "max min" embedded behavioral algorithm in MANY women - to provoke until he responds with a behavioral "warning" that he has reached his limits. And until she hits that behavioral "warning", she is convinced he has more, in reserve, to give. In practical terms, this means that the more you give a woman, absent a behavioral "warning" that you have reached your limits and will begin to escalate your response, the more she'll want. I'll say it again. THE MORE YOU GIVE A WOMAN, ABSENT A BEHAVIORAL "WARNING" THAT YOU HAVE REACHED YOUR LIMITS AND WILL BEGIN TO ESCALATE, THE MORE SHE WILL WANT. The challenge for me, of course, is women framing any behavioral escalation towards women's entitlement and provocation as "toxic masculinity" and even interpersonal violence... when an arguable portion of this male response of is, in fact, an appropriate behavioral response to PERPP. This framing is an ADDITIONAL provocation to secure resources and social status. If this is ethologically correct, it ENTIRELY explains why women in Western Democracy are the LEAST CONTENT women in the world. This explains why women with the most power, the most calories, and the BEST BEHAVED MEN IN THE WORLD are the least content. Their entire civilization has been structured to affirm them and provision them with NO REPONSIVE BEHAVIORAL ESCALATION that projects resource exhaustion. Our "no limits" support for women has created a condition in which they are convinced there are more resources in play, are convinced those resources are being withheld, and are convinced men are spending those resources on betrayal - BECAUSE WE EVOLVED IN A CONDITION OF SCARCITY, and they evolved to "believe it" on a FOUNDATIONAL, implicit, DNA coded level. This hypothesis is almost entirely consistent with @DrDaniS and her theory of Female Reproductive Suppression, and my own work in SUrplus-based Female Reproductive Suppression (SUFRS), Female Evolved Emotional Dysregulation (FEED), PErformative Provocative Parisitism (PERPP), and the Synergistic Womb Infant Female Triage model (SWIFT). The more calories and control you give women, given our ethological programming, the more they are convinced there is something in reserve they must secure before they commit to children. It is only in a context of either scarcity or male (latent or active) projection of resource exhaustion that they they will be "content" enough to have children in numbers. If true - and it's mathematically ethologically sound - this explains the female fantasy (and real life emotional "need") of male dominance and stoic "simmer" in men. It is ONLY in this context that women can "believe" he is fully committed to them, and their offspring, and is exhausting his resources in their interests. If true, this means that until we establish clear, unequivocal, and escalating boundaries for female provocation (the primary cue they want more resources and social status), the entitlement will continue to rise, and our society will continue with its "Borderline Personality Disorder" vector, functionally "crashing" all heteronormative relationships (including family) and destroying civilization. Men did this. By being "nice". It's time to push back against these maladaptive social norms, within the constraints of law. We need to do this so women can be satisfied we're giving them our all. So they can be content instead of miserable. We need to push back, so women can be happy.

@grok, please parse the OG post above, and explain how it's consistent with Greater Male Variability in the distribution of the apex of male provisioning and protection, and the nadir of male villainy, in a net benefit to humanity (including women and children).

Feminists demand sunshine, without understanding that the sun comes with wind, rain, thunderstorms, tornadoes, and even hurricanes - AND THAT THE NET OUTCOME IS FUNDAMENTALLY GOOD AND NECESSARY. Such is their relationship with men. They demand the sun, and demonize the rain.

This is "that" - PERPP 👆. "What's the point of having a boyfriend if he's not going to do things for you". "You're a man who has to be self sufficient AND provide." She's admitting it openly. He draws a rational boundary to stop it. x.com/josh_uglyasf/s…

Just your yearly reminder that Cardi B admitted to drugging and robbing men and no one cares.

This is "that" 👆. x.com/CNviolations/s…

This is what happens to women who let power get to their head and can't take accountability. Dragged out of her car by police. youtu.be/g7F5EGZL93w?is…

The best mathematical and rational protection for women from the oppression of nature and bad men is the protection and provision of an imperfect but good man. We own dogs to defend us from wolves. Women can understand this, but not "that". Because they don't want to understand.

This isn't about money. I don't know what you don't understand about this. This is about social influence. Social influence drives the money because social influence drives politics. The Progressive block of voters that drove this conduct is predominantly female, votes as a tight collective, and up until recently has terrified almost every politician who opposed the ideology. It is only now that it is "safe" for a political leader to oppose the ideology on purely scientific grounds after years of clinical research. The ideology was viral and caught fire with progressives, mainly women, largely through layered evolved proclivities (female reproductive suppression, strategic pro-social behavior, compounded by evolved 400% higher female in group bias). It was a viral and maladaptive memetic infection. In short, once high social status women opposed to natalism and any form of gender essentialism endorse gender ideology, lower social status women change their beliefs to align themselves to their social "queens" through the emotional equivalent of parallel evolved structures like Queen Mandibular Pheremone in bees. It's an evolved form of collectivism. When this issue hit the Supreme Court of the United States of America, every man on the court voted against "gender", and for "sex", as a foundational identifier - while 75% of the women on the court voted against sex, and in favor of gender. How does this inform you? This isn't about money. This is about social status driving politics. And the social influence in this case is coming from women. Thank goodness it's almost over. It's been a society-wide pathology.

Women never had the money to pull this off. Being woke vs the ACLU woke is two totally different things. The ACLU is the legal agent of the gender industry and changed laws. These are men and women working for the ACLU that changed laws. They were paid by the oligarchy to do it. Your woke aunt with blue hair wasn't paid. She probably worked her whole life to pay taxes just so the rich oligarchy men could steal the money so they could hoist gender on the public. It is absurd to believe women did this. Women do not have enough money collectively to pull off a psyop of this size.

@DavidHarhar @SarahSurviving Because a man taking any strong position on the issue is a guaranteed loss if he disagrees with his wife. Most men will quietly assume the wife's position on the matter, or keep his mouth shut. His sexual access entirely depends on it.

@MankindVsModFem @SarahSurviving Why do so many men, who are apparently opposed to the trans movement, do so little about it?

Burqa? Not my position. Nice strawman. I don't need to chase you down rabbit holes. It's not my position that women should be compelled to be with a man in public. It's my position that it's in their own best interest to do it, and they should choose it on their own. If they don't choose to be with a man, and they can't defend themselves, no one should be under a positive compulsion to do it for them. They can call the police, and wait for the police to arrive. The best mathematical an entirely logical defense for a woman against the oppression of nature, and the oppression of bad men, is the protection and provision of a good man.

"These women should be with boyfriends and husbands in public." Would that be with or without a burqa? I *was* going to ask why, when Paglia was/is a lesbian. she would argue that heterosexuality is the "correct defence", but she's a bit all over the place as a provocateur, so you could be right. 🙄 Being an abrasive devil's advocate seems to matter more than consistency.

Genuinely sick to death of seeing men just standing around on trains and watching women get assaulted by other men. Stop being fucking pussies you fucking faggots.

Uriah Ridge is a Georgia mother sentenced to life in prison in October 2024 for the freezing death of her 3-year-old daughter, Alina. In January 2024, Ridge took her 3-year-old daughter and 7-year-old son into a freezing, rainy wooded area near Douglasville, Georgia, for nearly 12 hours. Temperatures dropped -3°C, and the children were soaked and underdressed; the toddler wore only a onesie. The mother ignored her children's pleas of being cold. The 7-year-old boy desperately tried to save his baby sister by covering her with leaves before she passed away. Ridge had a fully charged phone but failed to call emergency services until the following afternoon. Despite a prior history of child abuse from 2022, Ridge had custody of the two children.

Megan Huntsman is a woman currently serving six life sentences in prison for the horrific murders of six of her newborn babies between 1996 and 2006. In April 2014, Huntsman's estranged husband, Darren West, made a gruesome discovery while cleaning out the garage of their former home in Pleasant Grove. Inside separate cardboard boxes and plastic containers, he found the remains of seven full-term infants. Medical examinations and DNA testing later confirmed that West was the biological father of all seven children. MeganHuntsman had managed to secretly give birth to each child at home, immediately strangling or suffocating six of them to death, while a seventh was determined to have been stillborn. But fathers are demonised for being the second class parent over a mother.

31-yr-old woman, who gave birth to 13-yr-old boy's baby, avoids jail in US

Another expose on Belle Gibson - Australia's sociopathic "wellness warrior" who made millions with her lies, and who spent NOT A DAY in prison. Why? Ask the prosecutor who refused to file charges. You know why. She's a woman. youtu.be/fahOX8VBXCc?si… via @YouTube

Belle Gibson's beauty hid her sociopathy. She claimed she had cancer, had three heart attacks, and harvested millions with her beauty. It was all lies. Every word. She was fined 400k. Refused to pay. Never jailed. Why? Because she's a woman. Link 👇

WOMEN ABUSE THEIR AUTHORITY AND COMMIT PROFESSIONAL MALFEASANCE. PERIOD. 🧵 There is a quiet belief in Western Democracy that through some unspoken code, women are more noble than men. Perhaps we assume that "maternal instincts" make women better leaders. It's simply not true. There is no evidence that these maternal instincts - if they are indeed instincts and not learned behaviors - extend to how women use their professional power. Women regularly commit malfeasance when they're given the opportunity. There is no research that suggests or proves that women are less willing to defraud the public, lie, cheat, steal, or abuse their authority, than men. What we do have is LACK of evidence - men have historically held more positions in authority than women, and in consequence we have an accumulation of evidence against men, but not against women. This lack of evidence - compounded by the implicit bias women have against men that the American Psychological Association has learned is greatest bias in society (even greater than racism) is used to quietly justify elevating women professionally - and as more women assume leadership roles, that bias is amplified and compounded in their own hiring decisions. This is a key part of the ongoing and escalating "Men and Boy Crisis" - prejudicial hiring decisions. Modern Feminists leverage this unjustified belief and implicit bias by frequently hammering men in the workplace on the topics of power, oppression, and sexual misconduct with savage nadir fallacy and confirmation bias that demonizes men and entirely ignores common and equivalent female sexual and professional misconduct. The implicit bias blinds us to the reality that men and women both abuse their power equally. It's an abhorrent but common (and successful) tactic. Women in business and other positions of power commit malfeasance just as often as men. This thread will host stories and case studies related to malfeasance and other abuses of power in business, law, and education. The thread is locked - replies are limited to followers to keep the thread contained and civil - but feel free to bookmark this master thread, and quote tweet it to your own timeline (or anyone's timeline) to generate a conversation. Onward.