is like choosing between two bowls of shit.











Word.

than we do the safety of men. Obvious fact is obvious.

GirlWritesWhat returns with 28 minutes of kick-assery:



-GirlWritesWhat

Some of my favorite parts from that video:

"Concern with respect to the safety of women also promoted the genetic success with human collectives. Like in a community of 200 people, the loss of 10 men wouldn't really limit the population growth to anywhere near the same degree that a loss of 10 women would."

"So here we have the woman who constantly asks herself 'am I safe?', the man is constantly asking himself 'is my woman safe?' and the community is constantly asking themselves 'are the women safe?'. And in pretty much every case through history that I can even begin to imagine, an overreaction to a perceived threat that turned out to be false would not be as costly to individual women or to communities (with respect to passing on copies of genes within this evolutionary paradigm) than an underreaction to a real threat."

Paints us a picture of why false rape accusations persist in the format that they currently do. - Me

"Phobias are fears that are not based in reality. Lets say you have a phobia of heights that's so severe that even when you realistically know you're safe (like if you're standing on the top floor of a tall building with guard rails and all sorts of safety measures) you feel terrified. And you consciously know that your fear is irrational. The most effective way to treat that phobia is to get the sufferer to confront and desensitize themselves to it. Over time through rational and repeated confrontation with the unrealistic nature of that fear, the fear subsides. New pathways are formed. Old ones atrophy.

The treatment outcome of this type of therapy would probably not be quite so effective or successful if every time you tried to expose yourself to a height, you had someone next to you shouting 'oh my God! What are you doing!? This is so dangerous! Don't you realize you could die if you fell? You should be terrified!' Or if every attempt to conquer the phobia was proceeded by a 2 hour session with your eyelids clamped open in front of a movie screen depicting all the most grotesque and gory falls ever caught on camera, with the words "DEATH" and "DANGER" flashing across the screen every 5 seconds.

Now this is kind of the way that feminist theory and the wider culture team up to reinforce and exacerbate our existing hard-wiring.

Because when I look at the numbers, the data, the statistics... All I see is that women are in much less objective danger in almost any setting than men are. In fact, even now that women are as free in their mobility as men are and as likely to be out and about in the world, they still represent the minority of victims of public sphere violence like muggings, stranger homicides and robberies. There's a really good reason that women are naturally more fearful of violent victimization, but it's not because violent victimization of women is 'normalized' or common. In fact, it's anything but. When even muggers and street thugs would by-and-large rather attack a larger and stronger man than a more physically vulnerable woman who would make an easier target.

Yet somehow feminists have managed to generate an entire industry out of pushing the idea that we live in a culture of normalized violence against women. Even though we know, WE KNOW that the majority of violent crime victims, the majority of war casualties and the majority of the victims of state and police violence are men (*men die 5 years earlier than women - Me*). Feminists theorized that domestic violence and rape were masculine behaviors, supported and encouraged by patriarchal assumptions, and designed to keep women in a state of terror... But they had to ignore a ton of evidence in order to believe that. The evidence pointing to female victimizers of men (*50% of domestic abusers are women - Me*) and tons of historical evidence of vigilante justice, convictions, pistols at dawn, public floggings of wife beaters, lynchings of black men accused of raping women, and pretty much the entire chivalrous body of classical literature.

How could they ignore all that evidence so easily? Ignore hundreds of years of literature wherein women who are harmed are avenged by the socially acceptable male. Where violence against women is a death sentence for the man who perpetrates it. How are they able to ignore that evidence in favor of the belief that society condones violence against women? Dismiss it when it's brought to their attention. Try to re-contextualize it. Deny and suppress it and conclude that none of it is relevant. Well, it's because their emotions tell them it's right to feel that. It feels right to ignore all of that (*and to instead focus on Julia Roberts in 'Sleeping With The Enemy' - Me*). It feels right to say women are in danger (*hell, we've done it all of our existence and it's partly why we're still here - Me*).

Women are naturally more fearful for their physical safety than men are because evolution selected for that. Society at large is more fearful for the overall safety of women because evolution selected for that. And feminists use all of their higher reasoning (that great gift that evolution has given us) to bend and twist and pretzelize their conception of reality to comply with their instinctive fears. They constructed this bullshit story out of what seemed like a logical excuse for women's higher levels of apprehension, and our obsessive need to be aware of the safety of women. If women feel more fearful, then it MUST be because they're in more objective danger than men. This is how they rationalized it."

"As actual violent crime and victimization against women has dropped off, we're manufacturing new dangers that women face in order to soothe our hard-wired desires to protect women as obsessively as we do and always have. And men (feminists and traditionalists alike) go along with it because evolutionary pressures have led men to be a hell of a lot less concerned with their own physical well-being and safety than they are with women. As a collective we opt to overreaction to any perceived threat no matter how absurd, rather than underreaction because the emotional cost to us for an underreaction that goes wrong is going to feel a billion times worse to our limbic systems than the costs of overreacting to a threat that turned out to be false. And that set of value-judgments has been wired into us for millenia."

She nailed it again.

This is why I consider feminism to be "Chivalry 2.0". It's the exact same shit as the traditional stuff, but with higher demands and a disgust for anything that doesn't match those demands (offering to open a door for a woman is now like offering a burger to a princess who expects filet mignon).

It's why Barbarossaaaa says feminism is just the natural conclusion to patriarchy. It's an extension of it, but more subtle.