The biology that feminists ignore

I really think feminism is a form of insanity.  It certainly ignores large slices of reality.  Almost any mother will tell you that her sons were boyish from the beginning and that her daughters were girly from the beginning.  So let me add a few little anecdotes to that effect:

A family I am close to have a 5-year old boy who has been boyish from the beginning.  At age 5 he loves building things.  And there is also a 2 year old girl in the family. I have just received an email from the mother concerned in which she said that her daughter "doesn’t have an ounce of ‘tom boy’ in her. I tried to dress her in a brown top yesterday and she cried until I took it off and replaced it with a pink one!"  LOL

I often have brunch in a coffee shop which is well attended by middle-class young mothers during the day. And I have always been a bit astounded by the almost totally invariant colours that the mothers put on their children.  In whole or in part, it almost always is pink for girls and blue for boys.  I often wondered at such a strong consensus but now I think I understand it.  It is at least in part what the kids themselves demand!  I remember that my son was quite choosy about his clothes when he was aged 2 or thereabouts.

And I know another family in which the mother IS a tomboy. She dresses in a way that feminists would applaud.  But to her great surprise, she found that she has a totally girly girl!  Now aged 5.  The little girl's genetic code completely swamped any example from her mother.  But her mother is a loving soul who buys her daughter plastic tiaras and lots of frilly things so there is no horrible feminism to upset the little girl.  She claims to be a "Princess" and we all just smile indulgently.

A relative bought her from overseas a very girly dress -- all frills and gauze and bows -- the sort of thing you would normally see only in the Philippines these days.  But the little girl loved it and proclaimed it her favourite dress.

And it is relevant that the mother concerned has a fraternal twin sister who was a born Lady, very feminine from her earliest years.  The two girls grew up in the same environment but their genetics separated them starkly.  Being twins, they still get on well, however.

And I have mentioned before that a mother I know had 3 little boys in close succession who tended to play together.  She gave them boy toys -- trucks, trains, guns etc -- but one day was sufficiently influenced by feminist talk to see if her boys might like a doll.  So she gave them one.  In short order they ripped  its eyes out and tore its legs off -- and ignored it thereafter.  Normal boys do NOT like dolls!

I helped bring up a boy who one Christmas was delighted to get a "transformer" toy called Optimus Prime.  It could be changed either into a truck or a warrior.  Being a bit of a tease, I told him that his "warrior" toy was actually a doll. He was quite outraged and vehemently denied it!

And normal mothers don't harass their kids over their choice of toys.  The floods of tears are not worth it. In fact, some mothers are sufficiently impressed by the experience of having a totally boyish boy to become anti-feminists.  They become advocates for their sons in the face of feminist oppression at school and elsewhere.


  1. What I find interesting is the particular nature of feminist insanity. As I see it, it overlaps with leftism, is leftism, but it has biological contributors too that give it its unique qualities.

  2. As a school counsellor the systematic feminising of boys I witnessed was sometimes heart wrenching. Same when I did youth work, men's behaviour change, and forensics. All gov-funded psych programs are feminist designed. Emphasis is on getting men to be less mentally centred and more emotion centred. So called "programs" in psych are just brainwashing courses applied through dumber psychs to vulnerable men in crisis. Sessions have titles like Name and claim your feelings, Honour your feelings, and Me and my feelings. Boys, youth, prisoners, men in anger management and relationship programs are actually told "Don't think, feel". Clinical psychs and counsellors are taught to stop men starting a sentence with "I think..." and tell them to always start such sentences with "I feel...". It is a mass effort at emotionalising men, and it is mostly coming out of psychology. The feminist psychs are quite open in saying that men would be better men if they were more like women. They believe everything bad is masculine, and everything good is feminine. They know that emotionally centred people are easily controlled by mentally centred people, like themselves. Their emotional push is really about gaining power and control over others. They know that making a person more emotional makes them easily manipulable. And such psychs are not emotional themselves; they keep themselves mentally focused. But that is the core group; not all psychs are so dark hearted and cunning. Like all lefty groups, the most numerous outer ring are the emotional group seduced by the feel-good/feel-right feelings of leftism. The less numerous middle ring are more mentally focused who like the image and status associated with leftism. The least numerous group at the core are the conscious ones who manipulate the other two groups. I have observed that leftism generally and all leftist groups are made up of people of those three layers - power and control, image and status, and emotional. And the flow of initiative, ideas and influence flows through them in that order, which also down the IQ gradient because the smartest are the core group, and the smarter influence the dumber more than visa-versa. Over years working in dozens of feminist-leftist psych facilities I have got my eye in and can tell who is in which group and how the direction of initiative, ideas and influence is flowing through the group. I have learnt how to fairly deal with each group, and do what I can to counter their harm, without them knowing I am not one of them. I have plenty of tactics for each group, though the groups run into each other as a gradient. I target mostly the emotional group because they are the most numerous and least committed. In passing I subtly cast doubt on the precepts they are given that there is no truth or right or wrong. I also pose questions to encourage rational thought, saying a client asked it and I am struggling for an answer to get back to him/her. Sometimes I make them think. I always get the clients they think are most difficult so it is quite believable to them that my clients would say such things. For the middle group I do the same plus carefully seed discontent with the image. I tread carefully around those in the core group. I’ve learnt it’s not worth tackling them unless they have no power over me and there is an audience of uncommitted ones. They are highly perceptive, ruthless, always suspicious, and very smart, so I fly under their radar if possible. One cannot hold back the tide though, so I treat the game lightly, a serious game but still a game. It is like working undercover behind enemy lines. Once I got found out as a non-feminist conservative and moved out within a week because I knew they would set me up for a fall. I refined my skills since then and are more cautious now. Ahh, the life of an undercover conservative working amongst feminist-leftists. It does get lonely though, not being able to honestly connect with colleagues.


All comments containing Chinese characters will not be published as I do not understand them