Feminism really is Junk (Park 2)

So how do we properly think about that fact that 95% of UK murder suspects are Male.

Obviously we can't just reverse that and say that Men are dangerous because the vast, vast, vast majority are not dangerous. If you pick a man at random he is basically not dangerous.

But never the less compared to "women" the facts are that "men" are more dangerous.

Perhaps this is still difficult to think about clearly. Consider Horses and very rare Unicorns.

Take Horses. Some Horses are Unicorns (just go with it for this example). If we speak to everyone who has seen a Unicorn they can say that there are 2 types: Long tails and Short tails. For every Short tail Unicorn there are 9 Long tails. Correct then to say that 90% of Unicorns Are Long tails. And suppose that Horses in general are equally either Long tail or Short tail we can correctly say that Long tails are more likely to be Unicorns. But does this really mean that Long tailed horses are more magical than Short tailed horses? Unicorns are so rare that when we speak of Long or Short tailed horses we can pretty much ignore anything about Unicorns.

Now rewrite that with 3 substitutions..

Take People. Some People are Murderers. If we speak to everyone who has seen a Murderer they can say that there are 2 types. Males and Females. For every Female Murderer there 9 Males. Correct then to say that 90% of Murderers Are Males. And suppose that People in general are equally either Male or Female we can correctly say that Males are more likely to be Murderers. But does this really mean that Male People are more harmful than Female People? Murderers are so rare that when we speak of Male or Female People we can pretty much ignore anything about Murderers.

So we need be careful how we use this genderised data. And, when you have Feminists who are completely indoctrinated to see everything through the lens of sex then they are more than likely to twist everything to that prejudice.

It is a complex issue, one that Feminism treats with the subtly of a hammer.

However there are existing prejudices we can still explore. Men are traditionally on average stronger than women. Boys play with soldiers and guns (following US influence and the genocide of Indians!) while girls play with dolls and toy tea sets. Boys are indoctrinated into a role of conflict (especially in Imperial nations where they will be expected to go overseas to support the Empire), while girls are indoctrinated into a role of domesticity to maintain childcare and--as argued elsewhere in the blog--locked away by their husband's family so they do not breed with other men.

Given the above it is no wonder that Males are more likely to murder. They are brought up to be aggressive and to resolve conflict with violence. Their national State actually needs this behaviour to further its own ambitions abroad! Murder rates should be even higher you would think!

Yet it turns out surprisingly that socialisation is not a factor. Armstrong T.A. et al (2022) concludes that "Associations between hormones and criminal behaviour are not moderated by sex." so that hormone levels alone can explain violence (I am reading "criminality" to include and positively correlate with "violence") without any reference to sex. Knockout blow to Feminism in one simple paper. And I did not search the literature until I found something that supported the import of this blog, that is the first paper I saw and looked at. Future meta studies will be needed to corroborate that.

Feminism really is straight from the mediaeval dark ages and yet it influences 21st Century policy in Britain! I absolutely bet under the ignorant influence of Washington. UK really has no choice but to distance itself from the Red-Necks totally and without delay. It is actually quote frightening that our society should be engineered by such pathological idiots. Having Capital-ism and Imperial-ism is bad enough, but now we are having other complete unsupported -isms added like Feminism.

Cultural Marxism?

There is this quite well thought out "Conspiracy Theory" called "Cultural Marxism."

Marxism and Hegel say that social/spiritual progress occurs through conflict between opposing conceptions. It resolves what Kant called Antimonies. A more abstract one is "Freedom vs Determinism" and more practical one is "Workers vs Owners." These are incompatible and cause argument and conflict; ultimately struggle and war in Marxism. And so History progresses to resolve these headaches.

"Cultural Marxism" argues that this has been hijacked to deliberately and pre-emptively introduce conflict into society by creating -isms and competing factions. The battle between Men and Feminists being one such engineered conflict.

This then becomes text book "Divide & Conquer" where the elite maintain control by getting the oppressed to fight amongst themselves and blame all their oppression on each other. Thus Feminists express their discontent through hatred of men, rather than focus on Elite oppression that both they and men share.

Last thing the elite want is the mass closing ranks against them. (More sophisticated analysis would see that even this Elite vs People is just another Antimony, but lets ignore that). SO "Feminism" actually serves a very useful function for the establishment either by accident or design!