Posted by ShaunS on
URL: https://coalpha.arkian.net/Do-mobile-phones-contribute-to-feminism-tp7576426p7576432.html

One of the problems here is that the term Feminist is a very false term. It has no accurate definition and therefore no opposite meaning. In the context of the above it appears that the term means:

Feminism = Opportunistic Female

In this sense the word Feminism means: unscrupulous, resourceful, unprincipled, devious, cunning, adaptable and in general what we see is exploitative. The women's rights aspect is just tacked on. To understand the male of the species in this context is to say that the male is none of these things. So the decent man is not, unscrupulous, resourceful, unprincipled, devious, cunning, or adaptable, (if he was then perhaps we would call him a liberal).

The opposite of this is then: Principled (which in this context is a failing strategy)

What I am seeing here is (the unpopular view) that male superiority is not that great, and with the simple addition of some technological fix the female can achieve the appearance of equality or superiority. So what you have is a very fine balance between the male and the female, which can be easily disturbed. The eco system will accept either male or female superiority but what it won't accept is equality. The mobile phone has simply replaced the shaman's drum that allowed the female shaman to establish a Matriarchy, a different form of contacting the spirit world.

If you do anything to undermine the female, to weaken her position such as by alcohol, drugs, hypnotism, general weakening in some way, thus making her more inferior - this is deemed to be illegal. If she herself does anything to augment her position of weakness to make herself stronger, then this is seen as legitimate because it's a change that she is choosing to produce within herself (learn Karate for example). It has been clearly argued that the male of the species needs to change but if that involves treating the female badly or expressing superiority through physical means that impact the female directly, then this is deemed to be illegal. In conclusion the male needs to increase his superiority by augmenting it in some way to make himself even stronger. It's also clear that this needs to be visible.

The view then is for an opposing group of men whose aim is to enhance male superiority and to argue for that superiority but in such a way that is not specifically with respect to females. A kind of elitism bordering on the satanic. Instead of men being described as spooky or creepy they really need to be scary and more horrifying than they are. At the same time there needs to be some kind of functional superiority such as increased efficiency or a brutal materialism.

The way forward appears to be to study how these feminists are using or exploiting technologies to make themselves feel equal or superior and to then enhance these techniques (or use similar techniques) in a way that only men can handle. Visibility is an important issue here. The taller male is superior to the shorter male because increased visibility implies this. So again these technologies would increase the visibility of the male.

I must ask the question, why does a feminist think that she is equal, and then look at all the techniques that she is using to fake this impression. How can the male produce better results (without becoming a liberal)?

But the sad reality here is that if you remain the principled decent traditional man then you will loose. It would be nice to have a name for this opposite to feminism? So I'd like to propose:

Dominism = A Male Puppeteer

This has all the nice connotations that we need. It implies not only domination but the domino effect. This domino effect may be seen in the context of being co-operative with other guys. The puppeteer angle works well in the context of politics. Instead of being opportunistic in grasping what comes along the puppeteer is deliberately setting up the entire sequence of events. The context as well, is a more general context and not just in the sense of the PUA. The puppeteer is a superior individual?