Who should die today?One of the fundamental problems with feminism is its incoherent notion of equality. There is no consistent definition of feminism[1] that agrees on who or what must be equal vs unequal, nor whether equality must be of opportunity or outcome. This is shown plainly in the women’s suffrage movement.
Women have had the right to vote ever since the passage of the 19th amendment to the United States Constitution in 1920. Voting is not about the individual, but about the group: the group with the most votes carries the day. If the opinions of men and women as a group were equally valid, then there would be no need for women to vote. Suffrage implies that there must be at least some issues upon which women’s opinions are unequal and (implied to be) superior to men’s. Let’s see what their notion of equality looks like.
Lewis Petrinovich and his team performed psychological research on hypothetical moral dilemmas. Trolley problems are not new, but this research took a twist by asking men and women to decide whether to save their own dog or a person. The results show a stunning gender disparity.
The research shows that women are dramatically more likely to let a person die than to let their dog die. Moreover, they show strong intuition that this is the morally right choice. Your sister is approximately 5 times more likely to let you die than you would let her die. If your best friend is a woman, she’s 4 times more likely than you to let you die than let her precious dog die. A woman is approximately 2 times more likely than you are to let an extended family member die.
Other research on gender differences in morality has led to additional interesting conclusions. When justice is carried out against wrongdoers, the brains of men are stimulated in the pleasure centers. For women the pain centers are stimulated. Women do not like when justice is served. Women are sensitive to context, while men are sensitive to principles. This helps explain why women are so frequently given a pass for their misbehavior.
The research shows that women are more empathetic than men, but they develop empathy over time in response to child development. This suggests that women who do not marry and raise a family fail to develop proper empathy to compensate for their lack of principles.[2] Feminism produces hordes of voting women who shun families for career. Those who lack principles and empathy make natural incoherent feminist soldiers. They are the women who would leave you to die.
Those of us who are not feminists recognize that giving women the right to vote meant giving those with non-principled, context-based moral centers the right to shape our laws. The research shows that women are much more likely to value an animal over human life. For proof, look no farther than the abortion laws and statistics.
As you prepare your 100 year anniversary women’s suffrage celebrations for August 18, 2020, remember that those women voting are significantly more likely to let you die. Men, the next time you have to chose between saving your woman or your dog, remember the feminist mantra of equality and save the dog.[3]
[1] The best definition most consistent across all flavors of feminism is the promotion of gender inequality favoring women, that is, female supremacy.
[2] A women’s empathy is more context-based, not principled. Recipients of that empathy will depend on the target and situation. It need not be rational or consistent. For example, women may support empathetic legislation that actively harms people. Or she’ll save the dog and the kids and leave you to die. Don’t expect her to die with you.
[3] While I’m not serious, this is an excellent example of Dalrock’s Law of Feminism.
Which is hilarious that when they finally get it…they start lamenting about where have all the good men gone, why are they not happy, and why are they now wageslaves until death?
Goes to show even if women are emotionally invested in something that leads to their demise they can’t change how God made them.
Whether it be Christianity, various pagan ancient societies, or evolutionary naturalism, they are all unanimous that men and women are sexually dimorphic with specific reproductive roles. It is basic reality.
The more I research these topics, the more I learn how actively harmful is sexual ‘liberation’. Abandoning marriage and family leads to all manner of dysfunction: the increased breast cancer risk, the decrease in empathy, the increase in depression and other mental illnesses, the increased risk of poverty, etc.
When you look at society’s progress.universal prosperity and the near elimination of deep poverty, history’s best health care, and historically low crime and mortality rates.we should be living in a golden age. Perhaps in some ways we are, but the destruction of the family has made all of those gains seem worthless in comparison.
In my study of woman voting and psychology, it was easy to see how women and men complement one another. The naturally principled and cold views of men are tempered by their empathetic wives. It is the more scientifically correct way to put the old notion that women civilize men. By giving women the right to vote independently of men, it became a fight between principle and empathy. I’m sure that when Neil deGrasse Tyson forms #Rationalia, only married men and women will be permitted to vote, with one vote per family and it only counts if both husband and wife agree.
‘The more I research these topics, the more I learn how actively harmful is sexual .liberation.. Abandoning marriage and family leads to all manner of dysfunction: the increased breast cancer risk, the decrease in empathy, the increase in depression and other mental illnesses, the increased risk of poverty, etc.’
Well it was bubbling under the surface with women’s suffrage and Lenin trying it in the USSR…but when oral contraception (divorcing sex from procreation) and no fault (divorcing sex from marriage) came into the landscape that was the juice the sexual revolution needed.
” we should be living in a golden age. Perhaps in some ways we are, but the destruction of the family has made all of those gains seem worthless in comparison ”
Pr 17:1 is the template here. Better a poor society with flourishing families, than indentured morals with materialism on tap.