The clearest concept I got from radical feminism is this-

Men conspire to hoard resources amongst men and block women's access to those resources.

Fundamental resources such as money, food, shelter, safety, medicine, education, legal and familial rights, freedom of movement...

Their aim is to force women to exchange sex to a male for access to fundamental resources. They want to force women into a position where that is our ONLY way to access such resources.

They systematically build a world where a woman can't afford to reject a man. Where a woman can't say "NO" to a man.

They do this in every society, every culture, every country, throughout all recorded history.

All men know this on some level, even if they don't spend much thought on it. All men benefit from it.

And good men have never effectively stopped it. Only women have every really fought it and achieved change.

So I guess I have a burning question just for men- Why?

[–] PGTips4Lyfe 13 points Edited

I have a good reason why but no men will ever tell you.

In any given generation of women, only 10% of us will fail to reproduce on average.

Over 60% of men will fail to reproduce.

Take that in for a minute, and then realize that men are under severe evolutionary competition by comparison to females.

That pressure is what creates male violence against males. So males conspire with eachother in a fantasy of maleness and "earned" hierarchy (That is completely not earned as we all know lol.) to avoid potential violence from other men over access to females. First and foremost on their mind is avoiding pain, suffering, injury and death. Aka: they are cowards.

Yes. Men are cowards.

And even if they are completely deluded that their coal minning slave wage job was ordained by god and their coal mining boss was ordained by god, they might know they are deluded but they feel safe with the status quo from the rampant violence between men. So even violent men then understand some type of "rules" that keep the stitches on a veneer of civilization. (rape her, not other men, beat up the worker, not the foreman, kill the prostitute, not the governors wife...oh and you can exploit others but only economically and behind closed doors (and in legal wars.)

tbh I think it's men conspire with men and against other men, to hoard resources - with violence - and to treat woman as the ultimate resource. 60% of men failing to reproduce would be higher if that were not the case.

Naturally they cannot hoard women from other men without also controlling women's choices by depriving women of resources (except in exchange for sex). And women who are so deprived of resources and choice cannot also demand to be -treated well-, which from the male point of view costs time and energy they could instead be using to hoard more resources.

I don't think you can invoke evolutionary pressures and also get to label men cowards. Avoiding injury and death are pretty important too, in evolutionary terms. (Also, men are victims of male violence in civilian life and in wars alike.) The criticisms should surely come at the level of what men do or fail to do about the evolutionary forces working on them. I am not denying that societies are set up to benefit men rather than women; I am saying that evolution is morally neutral.

Furthermore, in societies in which men hoard fertile females (where they have 2+ wives) men are (also) driven by economics, not evolution. There's nothing in evolution about private property or the kind of inheritance that comes with a tax bill.

You are implying I have a binary view of it when instead animal behavior can still be cowardice. You don't have to put a moral weight to it, however, you can if you want. And why not? With regards to humans we are uniquely able to rise above our base instincts. The worst of it all is how men shoot themselves in their own foot in their chances of offspring or improved circumstances for their families because they are comfortable in a delusion of (for example) a protestant "work ethic" aka just world fallacy.

Yes, you are SO right. You'd really like the book, "The First Political Order: How Sex Shapes Governance and National Security Worldwide."

[–] Moonpriestess 20 points Edited

This reminds me of how people laugh at Nancy Regan for being the 'blow job queen' of Hollywood.

Why is it funny that she was sexually exploited by casting directors? Is it because it's OK to hate her? Or do people think actresses had a choice about being sexually exploited in 1940s Hollywood?

Never knew this about Nancy Reagan and I'm disgusted at that nickname. What happened to #MeToo and calling out rich men exploiting women who just want a career? Or I guess it's okay to laugh when it's a conservative woman?

They hate her for political reasons, and because they see her as an extension of Ronald Reagan. I don't think there's anything wrong with disliking her personality or disagreeing with her politics, but it's always disheartening to see how many liberal feminists and "male allies" let the mask slip when it comes to conservative women. I follow the Youtuber "BeKindRewind" on instagram, and I was disappointed to see her reposting several tweets mocking Nancy Reagan as the "blow job queen." She makes videos specifically about Hollywood actresses and sexism in the film industry, and she couldn't see how hypocritical and misogynistic it was for her to laugh at Nancy Reagan for being a victim of the "casting couch."

Yep. Now could someone please print out 1,000 copies of this and wallpaper the houses of all the male-aligned women I grew up with where I had to hear “bUt wOmEn aRe wOrSe tO woRk wiTh” every day of my fucking life? INCLUDING women who were horribly sexually harassed?

Yes, call them out. This could not happen without men using career advancement as leverage to solicit sex. It's exploitation, full stop.

Thank you! I NEVER understood this accusation and it always drove me nuts. A woman couldn't advance sleeping with her bosses unless bosses willingly sleep with and provide favors to their female employees. It's in the same vein as blaming women for having "daddy issues" without thinking about the "daddy" behind the trauma.

[–] Disappearanceoftheychromosomer ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) 2 points

They don't withhold promotions until they recieve sexual favours. They just promote the women they know they can extorsion or control, and the ones that are going to obey and serve him. They would have no interest in promotion you (even if you sexually submitted to them) if they knew you'll be going to be useless to their male ego. It's even worse this way, but its true.