A Scientific Explanation of What Motivates Feminists.

The typical stereotype we in society think of feminists as being misandric, raging, masculine lesbians, is not far from the truth according to a scientific study published last year. Let me emphasize my thoughts here: Feminists seem to be more associated a phenotypic morph.
Feminism is political-ideological weaponization by that phenotypic morph:

"Polymorphism in biology occurs when two or more clearly different phenotypes exist in the same population of a species—in other words, the occurrence of more than one form or morph. In order to be classified as such, morphs must occupy the same habitat at the same time and belong to a panmictic population (one with random mating)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymorphism_(biology)

“Stay or stray? Evidence for alternative mating strategy phenotypes in both men and women”

"In all comparative analyses, humans always fall on the borderline between obligate monogamy and polygamy. Here, we use behavioural indices (sociosexuality) and anatomical indices (prenatal testosterone exposure indexed by 2D : 4D digit ratio) from three human populations to show that this may be because there are two distinct phenotypes in both sexes. While males are more promiscuous and display higher prenatal testosterone exposure than females overall, our analyses also suggest that the within-sex variation of these variables is best described by two underlying mixture models, suggesting the presence of two phenotypes with a monogamous/promiscuous ratio that slightly favours monogamy in females and promiscuity in males. The presence of two phenotypes implies that mating strategy might be under complex frequency-dependent selection."

http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/11/2/20140977

This study shows there are two distinct phenotypes within human populations. Promiscuous people and non-promiscuous people. Promiscuous = low digit ratio=higher testosterone=short-term mating strategy. Now here's a biological and psychological study on the feminist population (minority) compared to women who aren't feminists (majority):

"The feminist movement purports to improve conditions for women, and yet only a minority of women in modern societies self-identify as feminists. This is known as the feminist paradox. It has been suggested that feminists exhibit both physiological and psychological characteristics associated with heightened masculinization, which may predispose women for heightened competitiveness, sex-atypical behaviors, and belief in the interchangeability of sex roles. If feminist activists, i.e., those that manufacture the public image of feminism, are indeed masculinized relative to women in general, this might explain why the views and preferences of these two groups are at variance with each other. We measured the 2D:4D digit ratios (collected from both hands) and a personality trait known as dominance (measured with the Directiveness scale) in a sample of women attending a feminist conference. The sample exhibited significantly more masculine 2D:4D and higher dominance ratings than comparison samples representative of women in general, and these variables were furthermore positively correlated for both hands. The feminist paradox might thus to some extent be explained by biological differences between women in general and the activist women who formulate the feminist agenda."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25250010

This shows that feminists are more likely masculinised in terms of digit ratios=low digit ratios=higher testosterone.

This explains why feminism is about changing society from long-term to short term mating strategies. You can draw such contrasts between male dominated societies in chimpanzees and female dominated ones like in bonobos. You'll clearly see we aren't that far from gendered societal stratifications when one observes the dynamics of our primate relatives.

 It explains why they defend women being promiscuous. Why they defend women cuckolding and using affairs to save marriages to incite jealousy in their husbands. It explains why they defend and suggest for women to pursue careers and achieve self-provisioning sufficiency by abandoning the home. And it explains why they try to change the culture to support these values and necessarily oppose their anti/inverse ones .

Thus, there is no right-wing war on women. There is a right wing war on the short-term mating or feminist or matriarchal morph.

Likewise there is a left-wing war on the long-term mating or anti-feminist, or "patriarchal" morph.


And here’s the catch: most women, (according to PUBMED study) are in the long-term mating , anti-feminist patriarchal morph.

In other words. feminism is anti-(the majority of)-women.

Ps- don't believe me on feminists teaching  women cuckholding is good? Read this garbage:


'Family therapists are perennial optimists, but when it comes to affairs the optimism had to stay muted, at least in public. An individual therapist might sense that a couple could come out stronger after an affair but she wouldn’t necessarily turn that hunch into a theory and write it up in a paper. Why? The profession as a whole wouldn’t embrace that view.

Therapists might be a libertine bunch but as a group they generally defer to the Puritan country—the United States—they live in, where affairs are still taboo no matter how many people actually have them.But recently, a handful of therapists have started to push the idea that affairs can rescue a marriage and to define exactly in what instances that might be true.

"People shriek and cry when they are confronted with an affair,” Brown writes in her essay, “The Affair as a Catalyst for Change,” which appears in the book Infidelity “Almost never do they realize that it might be the best thing that ever happened to them.”'


www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2013/11/cheating_on_your_spouse_might_just_save_your_marriage.html