Our thanks to Rod for this (video, 1:14:04).
It starts with this standalone clip from Helen Andrews:
“One of the biggest obstacles in having this conversation that I have personally encountered is a confusion between second wave feminism as it was in the 70s or 80s and feminisation as it exists today, because they’re just completely different things…”.
It’s a cynical piece of editing, because in the interview Helen goes on to say something like this:
“… although, obviously, second wave feminism led to it.”
If you’d like email notifications of our new blog pieces, please enter your email address in the box near the top of the right-hand column and click ‘Subscribe’.
We shall shortly be posting this piece on our X channel.
Our YouTube channel is here.
Justice for Men & Boys 
Really liked this podcast! It makes points that are very hard for the general public to grasp. Because, there is some overlap between the behaviour of male and female, so people can always think of contrary examples. Plus, blue pill men endorse feminine behaviour to win female attention. So its hard to explain to people why illogical emotional behaviour is feminine, and why in a world where people influence each other, there is a behavioural ‘tipping point’ when you have feminine representation in any group
LikeLiked by 2 people
Steve Moxon pointed out that men don’t oppress women, we defer to them.
https://stevemoxon.co.uk/the-sexual-divide/
The consequences are that just one woman on a decision-making panel can influence the outcome in female favour. This would be the situation extant in the early days of female political influence. Obviously, with 50/50 M/F representation, men don’t stand a chance. Look at Starmer’s Cabinet, a Pandora’s Box, waiting to unleash chaos while those women stick together, pushing for outcomes of female benefit.
https://rutgerssocialcognitionlab.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/9/7/13979590/rudmangoodwin2004jpsp.pdf
LikeLike
Soon, an ideological battle presaged by J D Unwin will rage, one in which the Anglican Church gave up the fight decades previously. Female cultural supremacy will always have the consequence that marriage vows mean nothing to the female, whose offspring gain genetic advantages through polyandry.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0003347200917056
As a result, western men are walking away from the expectations that were previously imposed upon them, as the risk/reward ratio does not bear sensible scrutiny. If our culture doesn’t reproduce, it will die, and men might decide that it’s not worth fighting for. Only societies based around religions which impose moral codes on women will continue to thrive. The future will probably be insouciant towards notions of ‘happiness’, female ‘happiness’ in particular, and might contain elements of arranged marriage, which was never prevalent in the west, and where eligibility criteria are determined by parents or guardians.
A few years ago, the more perceptive feminists began to realise that fulcrum points could easily change, if young men decide that they’ve simply had enough of the nonsense.
https://www.pressreader.com/ireland/irish-daily-mail/20210831/281736977551588
LikeLike