“I’ve long argued that female intrasexual competition is the pink elephant in the feminist room, and that feminism itself shows zero duty of care towards women—only towards feminists.”
EXACTLY right. It’s a mistake to believe that feminism cares about women. Like all ideologies, its first priority is its own empowerment and growth.
The connection between £2.3bn in annual costs and lateral aggression patterns is pretty striking when you line it up against the empirical outcomes. What's especially interesting is how these competitive dynamics get amplified in high-pressure, female-majority environments where the stakes involve life-or-death outcomes. I've seen similiar dynamics in tech startups where status competition creates suboptimal coordination failures—people protecting territory instead of optimizing for group outcomes. The fact that interventions haven't integrated evo-psych insights makes sense given how those frameworks are still considered somewhat radioactive in institutional policy contexts, but it's kinda wild to watch massive financial and human costs pile up year after year while the relevant research just sits undeployed.
Your welcome, keep up the good work. More women need to speak up and bring the inconsistencies and ideological BS to peoples attention and call it out for themselves. Especially where it concerns natal subject, which after all is a core aspect of female and by extension human nature and existence. No women, no children, no children, no humans. Of course the Chinese are developing artificial wombs, due to demographic collapse caused by the malignant insanity of socialism and the years of antinatal, anti-human policies, all socialists fetishise.
Natural birth used to be natural selection, with the Industrial Revolution preserving lives that would have proved too dysgenic otherwise. Women promoting natural birth as a surreptitious way to kill babies causes me to think that dysgenic women are the chief targets in higher-eugenic women's aim to amass resources for their children.
“I’ve long argued that female intrasexual competition is the pink elephant in the feminist room, and that feminism itself shows zero duty of care towards women—only towards feminists.”
EXACTLY right. It’s a mistake to believe that feminism cares about women. Like all ideologies, its first priority is its own empowerment and growth.
https://jmpolemic.substack.com/p/feminism-as-entitlement-pt-5
Thank you, a very valuable insight
The connection between £2.3bn in annual costs and lateral aggression patterns is pretty striking when you line it up against the empirical outcomes. What's especially interesting is how these competitive dynamics get amplified in high-pressure, female-majority environments where the stakes involve life-or-death outcomes. I've seen similiar dynamics in tech startups where status competition creates suboptimal coordination failures—people protecting territory instead of optimizing for group outcomes. The fact that interventions haven't integrated evo-psych insights makes sense given how those frameworks are still considered somewhat radioactive in institutional policy contexts, but it's kinda wild to watch massive financial and human costs pile up year after year while the relevant research just sits undeployed.
This post is a solid, data-driven piece that needs to see the light of day and be shared everywhere!
Your welcome, keep up the good work. More women need to speak up and bring the inconsistencies and ideological BS to peoples attention and call it out for themselves. Especially where it concerns natal subject, which after all is a core aspect of female and by extension human nature and existence. No women, no children, no children, no humans. Of course the Chinese are developing artificial wombs, due to demographic collapse caused by the malignant insanity of socialism and the years of antinatal, anti-human policies, all socialists fetishise.
Thank you for providing an insightful, informative, well researched and presented article and analysis on a very important subject.
Hopefully, the Overton window is shifting back in the favour of sanity, practically, and reality, not ideological cultists fantasies, and fetishism.
Thank you
Natural birth used to be natural selection, with the Industrial Revolution preserving lives that would have proved too dysgenic otherwise. Women promoting natural birth as a surreptitious way to kill babies causes me to think that dysgenic women are the chief targets in higher-eugenic women's aim to amass resources for their children.
Certainly, women who's mothers or grandmothers needed assisted births will themselves be more likely to need them too