A brilliant comment by Snark spotted at (the-spearhead) – on ‘Gynocentrism Theory’

Women who are not feminists are not feminists because they do not need to be; i.e. they do not lack the power over men which they covet.

Hence, among the younger women, it is usually neurotic and/or ugly women who tend to be feminists; and women tend to become feminists once they are older, i.e. they have passed their Wile E. Coyote moment; their power in all these cases is threatened because they lack the physical attractiveness required to control men. Hence they seek it in other ways (affirmative action, penal, etc.) and are as motivated by vindictive rage (perhaps stemming from self-hate at the realisation of no longer being ‘worthy’ enough to control men through their own assets) as by self-gain. On older women seeking to disempower younger women’s use of said assets, see http://www.theantifeminist.com/

BUT, back to the women who control men but are NOT nominally feminists. I.e. young, attractive women.

There is a whole different game of misandry being played here. They already hold the power – sexual power – and so have no need to engage in things like feminism. They already have everything feminism could offer them, that is, control over men.

Gynocentrism Theory teaches us that even when those individuals in powerful roles are mostly men, they are doing the bidding of women, not of men en masse; thus the lie is given to Patriarchy Theory, which suggests ridiculously that the few men in power stick up for all the ‘little guys’ out there, against the interests of women.

Gynocentrism Theory then tells us what women – either the non-feminists who sexually control men, or successful feminists – actually do with this power over men. They get men to fight each other. They create conflict between men where there is and should be no conflict. Why? To determine the stronger, of course. It’s the cause of primitivism at the pinnacle of civilisation and it’s why we have so many of the enduring social problems we still struggle with.

Men aren’t naturally violent or aggressive; they simply have the potential to be these things. It is the fact that women reward with sex those who prove themselves to be the most violent and aggressive which makes men act violently and aggressively.

The price of a woman’s titillation is an innocent man getting his head smashed in as he walks home. This, just so that the perpetrator can be sexually selected. Woman’s role in the crime is concealed; she didn’t perform the act, after all; she only manipulated the man’s natural stimulus and response system to get him to perform a violent display for her sexual benefit.

On the other hand, the women with power which is not sexual – i.e., older feminists – motivated by the same basic psychosexual forces but unable to manipulate men any longer using their bodies, having faced years or decades of internal torment from the aforementioned rejection and self-hate, engage in a whole different kind of manipulation. That is, exponentially increasing penalisation for masculinity and maleness itself.

The outcome of all this is that men today are being ground between two millstones: on the one hand, non-feminist women demand that men must act aggressively and violently if they are to be sexually selected; on the other, their feminist sisters demand increasingly brutal punishments for men who act precisely in this way.

Further: today we are subject to the new phenomena ambient porn, that is, the promise of sexual rewards from desirable young women at every turn. Women who decry pornography do so while dolled up to look like porn stars themselves, and don’t you dare criticise them for it. There is no escaping the pink wurlitzer: male sexuality is provoked everywhere you look, whether in images from your TV screen, or in magazines, adverts at bus stops, billboards, and more pervasively and perversely than all of this, in the flesh, walking around absolutely everywhere from your home to the local store to the place you work. Just think about how standards of decency have changed throughout the last hundred years and you’ll realise that we really are living through a previously untested social experiment – we are oversaturated with female flesh to the point that it’s surprising a man can find the time to think straight outside of his ‘cave’. To reiterate, our sexuality is being forever provoked, taunted, prodded at. All to ensure that we react in that ‘real manly’ way that the young non-feminist women demand, so that we can promptly be caught and brutalised by white knights employed by institutions controlled and run by or for the benefit of feminist women.

That, in a nutshell, is the problem, and although I am generally uncomfortable with ideas of historical inevitability, this was all quite possibly set in stone from the moment women were granted the vote. This is, unquestionably, the tyranny of the majority that De Tocqueville and John Stuart Mill warned us of. Men are the 49% minority, and women are the 51% majority, empowered by democracy to abuse us as they will.

Extract from another essential anti-feminist piece by Human-Stupidity :

Get a Lawyer before sex : 27 precautions every man should take

Check ID for Age & Identity :

Human-Stupidity is a rare MRA who understands that feminist generated paedohysteria is as much about middle-aged women stopping men having sex with 20 year olds (for fear that they might turn out to be underage) as it has to do with stopping sex with 15 year olds (and nothing at all about stopping genuine perverts having sex with pre-pubescent children).

Promptly added to my list of essential anti-feminist aticles (see sidebar on the right).  As has been Roissy’s classic 2007 article on sexbots and the future of the sex market.  (I honestly only became aware of Roissy and his brilliant article this year.  Likewise with the brilliant Anti-Feminist Tech, who also writes about the impact that sexbots and other future sex tech will have on the balance of power between the sexes).

There is only one hope for men’s rights, as I have stated here often.  That technology makes the sexual trade union redundant or impotent.  Ironically, the fact that the single invention of the contraceptive pill has had such a blind and uncontrollable effect upon society and the relationship between the sexes (i.e. the free sexual  market and second wave feminism), is our most inspiring piece of evidence that this hope is not futile.

Lionel Tiger Proven Right : Birth Control Pills Alter Structure of Female Brain

….a recent study in the journal Brain Research comparing the brains of women on birth control pills with brains of other women and men. When the study’s authors examined high-resolution images of participants’ brains, they found the women on hormones showed more matter in some areas of the brain, including the prefrontal cortex, which is associated with cognitive activities like decision-making.

The Brain Research study prompted breathless news reports suggesting that the pill makes you smarter. But Kinsley and Meyer point out that the brain works like a “neural beehive,” and disturbing one part of the hive could impact the other. The fact that one brain region becomes larger than the next does not mean a woman on hormones is more intelligent or effective. It is also possible that her brain is going haywire. (Kinsley and Meyer actually use the word “catawampus.”)

It would be good to have a drug that could make women as smart as men.  Or perhaps it would just make them even more devious and cunning in defence of their selfish sexual mating strategies.  Anyway, essential reading is the latest article from Satoshi Kanozawa : Girls are more intelligent than boys, men are more intelligent than women

As other MRAs have noted, girls don’t really mature much past the age of puberty.  Or in the words of Schopenhauer :

Women are suited to being the nurses and teachers of our earliest childhood precisely because they themselves are childish, silly and short-sighted, in a word big children, their whole lives long: a kind of intermediate stage between the child and the man, who is the actual human being, ‘man.’