Happier Abroad Forum Community

-----

It will eventually spread world wide but will it last indefinitely?

Only time will tell.

Something like feminism eventually will collapse on itself because it's built on the wrong foundations.

Africa is much more developed than you give it credit for. Many cities in Africa are about as well developed as western cities. All of Africa isn't starvation, AIDS, crime and poverty.

Some of the countries of Africa are some of the safest places to live in the world.

But it could eventually spread to Africa, I mean aren't African American women polluted with feminism?

Ghost wrote:...completely conquered by the sinister forces of feminism? (And all of its attendant -isms and other dystopian ideologies.) Is it possible that feminism will ever lose ground (on the global scale) to patriarchy and the rights of men?

Men like to think "feminism" is some treatable infection, rather than a behavioral trait.
It is within the economic power of men to collectively shut the whole thing down in less than two years.
Is this possible? Yes. Will men make it happen? Not intentionally.
They are not wired to act as a collective. Ego + Horniness == most leaky cartel ever.

If men in Group A ignore women in Group A, men from Group B will swoop in: "Score! More women for me", happily believing Group A men "ain't got no swag".
Group A women will play along, get paid, and the decline continues.

.

Feminism is nothing new. It is standard in decaying cultures in history. And it has been beaten many times, always by religion. As an example, the Anglo-Saxons rose to power in the 600s and were strongly patriarchal. But by the 1000s, the Anglo-Saxons suffered from feminism and went into decline. But by the 1500s, the Church enforced strict patriarchy in England and feminism was defeated. This allowed England to rise and become a great power.

One cannot expect a society to resist feminism without religion. All non-religious wealthy societies become feminist. And all feminist societies eventually become poor which mitigates feminism. The Philippines is an example of a corrupt society with no real ideology. If you want to see feminism defeated by something other than poverty, visit Jerusalem and go to the Orthodox neighborhoods.

The next culture will arise from some small group with a strong religion. It won't be Russia whose religion is weak. It will either be some religion of some tribe in central Asia, or some sect in the modern world that is strong enough to reject outside influence, as Christianity did in Rome. This last option is exactly what I am advocating.

I disagree, though You've spent far more time in China then I....


In china, I can get women interested I can get dates.

In America if I hold women to any kind of physical or moral standard I can't date anyone, and even if I had a chance I wouldn't get a call back.



So I disagree, though it might not be by a large ratio or perhaps in a different light just as bad as the usa, I'll still pick china every time, because at least in china I don't go 3 years at a time without a date or a girl friend.


And that's coming from a guy who's attractive and exercises and is a gentlemen.

fschmidt wrote:Feminism is nothing new. It is standard in decaying cultures in history. And it has been beaten many times, always by religion. As an example, the Anglo-Saxons rose to power in the 600s and were strongly patriarchal. But by the 1000s, the Anglo-Saxons suffered from feminism and went into decline. But by the 1500s, the Church enforced strict patriarchy in England and feminism was defeated. This allowed England to rise and become a great power.

One cannot expect a society to resist feminism without religion. All non-religious wealthy societies become feminist. And all feminist societies eventually become poor which mitigates feminism. The Philippines is an example of a corrupt society with no real ideology. If you want to see feminism defeated by something other than poverty, visit Jerusalem and go to the Orthodox neighborhoods.

The next culture will arise from some small group with a strong religion. It won't be Russia whose religion is weak. It will either be some religion of some tribe in central Asia, or some sect in the modern world that is strong enough to reject outside influence, as Christianity did in Rome. This last option is exactly what I am advocating.

1) How would this religion, operating under our secular government, protect the husband's house & other assets from the divorce court rulings of (for example) California or Florida, when Cupcake pulls the eject (with a side order of false accusations and paternity fraud)? Courts already ignore pre-nups, etc.

2) What is the appeal of this religion that it would cause the modern "empowered womyn" to trade alfalfa fuxx/beta buxx for it, before she hits the Wall?

Side note: the two-year plan wouldn't require "poverty", exactly, just a bit of ... economic disengagement.

Teal Lantern wrote:1) How would this religion, operating under our secular government, protect the husband's house & other assets from the divorce court rulings of (for example) California or Florida, when Cupcake pulls the eject (with a side order of false accusations and paternity fraud)? Courts already ignore pre-nups, etc.

In a strong religion, the wife's entire social circle would be in the religion. She would have to leave the religion and lose her entire social circle in order to use secular divorce court to screw over her husband. This is very difficult for women to do because women are driven by social concerns. This is why Orthodox Judaism is so effective at discouraging divorce.

2) What is the appeal of this religion that it would cause the modern "empowered womyn" to trade alfalfa fuxx/beta buxx for it, before she hits the Wall?

There is absolutely no connection between what women say and what they do. They may claim to love feminism and liberal men, but the truth is that they are drawn to power wherever the feel it. This is why more women than men convert to Islam in the West. A strong religion would have no problem at all attracting women.

Ghost wrote:I agree that men could shut it down with 2 years if they really wanted to. It seems like even if we can come up with the best way to limit feminism's damage - containment, gaining ground against it, outright defeating it, whatever - it still wouldn't matter because we can't get men to cooperate against it. There's no uniting guys against a common foe that they don't see or believe in.

So I guess the answer to my question is that there is no gaining ground against it. I can't think of any countries that are doing this. Maybe a post-collapse society like Russia. Remember that Putin punished the p***y-riot whores?

Here's one more thing I thought of: the declining populations of western civilization will eventually lead to a feminist die-off. As long as feminism can't indoctrinate more quickly than feminists can die-off, I guess that's something.

Yes, there are group actions and individual actions.
The trouble with relying on the "group" is that (to borrow from another topic) even if YOU don't buy the lap dance or drinks, the NEXT man will.
In that environment, the best you can do is take a course of action that minimizes the personal damage to you.

When you change countries, this only changes your place in line relative to local men.
It's an enjoyable experience to get bumped to the front of the attention line, at some point in your life.
Just understand it's a relative value judgement not an absolute one.
You're the newer, shinier toy. A new toy will be popular next year.

What is currently called feminism has been around for all recorded history in different places, under different names.
I wouldn't count on it dying off, but its unintended consequences ARE becoming a problem for some women, so certain laws are being reconsidered.

WRT puccy riot, note there are 12 or so members but only TWO are in jail.

fschmidt wrote:Feminism is nothing new. It is standard in decaying cultures in history. And it has been beaten many times, always by religion. As an example, the Anglo-Saxons rose to power in the 600s and were strongly patriarchal. But by the 1000s, the Anglo-Saxons suffered from feminism and went into decline. But by the 1500s, the Church enforced strict patriarchy in England and feminism was defeated. This allowed England to rise and become a great power.

One cannot expect a society to resist feminism without religion. All non-religious wealthy societies become feminist. And all feminist societies eventually become poor which mitigates feminism. The Philippines is an example of a corrupt society with no real ideology. If you want to see feminism defeated by something other than poverty, visit Jerusalem and go to the Orthodox neighborhoods.

The next culture will arise from some small group with a strong religion. It won't be Russia whose religion is weak. It will either be some religion of some tribe in central Asia, or some sect in the modern world that is strong enough to reject outside influence, as Christianity did in Rome. This last option is exactly what I am advocating.

True, throughout time churches have been mostly patriarchal and the bible has a constant theme of men dominating women and being the head of the household.

Teal Lantern wrote:1) How would this religion, operating under our secular government, protect the husband's house & other assets from the divorce court rulings of (for example) California or Florida, when Cupcake pulls the eject (with a side order of false accusations and paternity fraud)? Courts already ignore pre-nups, etc.

If a lot of disaffected young men who had nothing to lose were recruited to this religion, they might be able to think of some means of discouraging such activity. Commercial arbitration arrangements could be made if one wanted to put a legal face on things.

2) What is the appeal of this religion that it would cause the modern "empowered womyn" to trade alfalfa fuxx/beta buxx for it, before she hits the Wall?

The female subconscious is fairly perceptive. At some point they will realize that the system is collapsing and their corporate whoredom is not sustainable, whereupon they will have no choice but to come crawling back to the men who can offer any viable alternative.

Ghost wrote:One idea I've had is enforced poverty for women. Feminism and economic development go hand in hand I think, even without misandrist laws. This is what I'm seeing in China. And how to start doing that? Also, poor countries now could become rich in a number of years...

Feminism is to some extent the logical outcome of an efficient centralized rationing system. Females value men as the providers of resources and protection. If the system provides these things essentially as a free good with men only indirectly participating in the process, then the females will cease to care about ordinary men and look up to elite men controlling the system and men who have the highest reproductive potential. The situation will then be exacerbated by the elite in order to turn the females into their own giant communal harem. In order to eliminate feminism, this economic arrangement must be somehow eliminated.

Cornfed wrote:

Ghost wrote:One idea I've had is enforced poverty for women. Feminism and economic development go hand in hand I think, even without misandrist laws. This is what I'm seeing in China. And how to start doing that? Also, poor countries now could become rich in a number of years...

Feminism is to some extent the logical outcome of an efficient centralized rationing system. Females value men as the providers of resources and protection. If the system provides these things essentially as a free good with men only indirectly participating in the process, then the females will cease to care about ordinary men and look up to elite men controlling the system and men who have the highest reproductive potential. The situation will then be exacerbated by the elite in order to turn the females into their own giant communal harem. In order to eliminate feminism, this economic arrangement must be somehow eliminated.

You keep saying this, but I haven't really observed that the plutocrat class -- by and large a bunch of physically repellent, jowly swells, barely healthy enough to have sex -- travels around with harems, or seems to even be interested in monopolizing the attention of young women. Dirtballs, yes. But plutocrats, no.

I think America's day of reckoning may be at hand, sooner than we think. Same with Canada, UK, western Europe.

Our society has sunk so low morally and ethically, there's no way we can get off the hook.

Just in the last 10 years, America has legalized homosexual "marriage", invaded and smashed up foreign countries, encroached on individual liberties... and then you have rampant materialism, chauvinism, greed, feminism, abortion, attacks on Christianity. Yes America is definitely in for some serious divine punishment.

Feminism will plateau and transition into anarchy. The question is where, when and to what degree but not "if". Each country is somewhere on this cyclical spectrum. America being towards the end and China somewhere towards the middle.

In any case you shouldn't rely on any country as a community solution. You need to work at the smallest scale to get results. This means finding solutions in a community of 100 people or less. At this scale it's quite irrelevant where the community is as long as it's isolated. As an example where I live there's an ultra orthodox jewish synagogue about two blocks away from frat row in UC Berkeley. This is perhaps the most liberalized feminist hell hole on the entire west coast, yet this synagogue survives without a hitch.