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

The Benefits Of Fatherhood.

      I cannot stress how much disdain and hatred a movement deserves, for psychologically, emotionally, physically, financially (with the strong arm of our governing branches) destroying men and  women who love them, like the feminist movement deserves. This movement has done extensive damage in approximately 100 years, what decent yet fallible human beings have built over millennia as a healthy family, society and civilization.

I urge you to read this link thoroughly and be ready to be disgusted over the lies you were told all your life in our feminist culture about fatherhood. The  following is just  tip of of iceberg:

"Nearly 30 years ago, leading child psychologist Michael E. Lamb reminded us that fathers are the "forgotten contributors to child development."1 Since then, much work has been done to explore the ways fathers uniquely contribute to the healthy development of their children. Scholars now know that boys and girls who grow up with an involved father, as well as an involved mother, have stronger cognitive and motor skills, enjoy elevated levels of physical and mental health, become better problem-solvers, and are more confident, curious, and empathetic. 

They also show greater moral sensitivity and self-control.

As they grow, well-fathered children are substantially less likely to be sexually involved at an early age, have babies out of wedlock, or be involved in criminal or violent behavior. They are much more likely to stay in school, do well there, and go to college.
Fathers can help Head Start programs become more effective in achieving positive outcomes for children. 

Head Start programs can help to strengthen the parenting partnership, and help fathers to be more effective in their children's lives.
These five Building Blocks for Father Involvement will support Head Start programs in their efforts to promote father involvement. Building Block 1 provides up-to-date research on the essential role that fathers play in the healthy development of their children. 

It is important that Head Start staff and parents understand the importance of the parenting partnership and why fathers are essential to children's well-being. This knowledge will help them to better meet the needs of families and children.
How Father Involvement Improves Child Well-Being. 

There is a substantial body of research literature documenting the positive benefits fathers bring to the lives of their children. A review of studies on father involvement and child well-being published since 1980 found that 82 percent of these studies showed 'significant associations between positive father involvement and offspring well-being…' 

An analysis of over 100 studies on parent-child relationships found that having a loving and nurturing father was as important for a child's happiness, well-being, and social and academic success as having a loving and nurturing mother. Some studies indicated father-love was a stronger contributor to some important positive child well-being outcomes.3 Weinraub, in 'Fatherhood: the Myth of the Second Class Parent,' states that 'There is no doubt that fathers are important contributors to child development. In particular, fathers significantly affect the development of sex roles, cognitive abilities and achievement motivation.'"

The Problem of Fatherlessness 

"Just as it has documented the many benefits of positive father involvement, the research is clear on father absence and its negative consequences for children. 

How Many Fatherless Children Are There in America? The United States is the world's leader in fatherless families. Tonight, some 24 million children (approximately 34 percent of all children) will go to bed in a home where their father does not reside. 

Nearly 40 percent of children in father-absent homes have not seen their father at all during the past year. More than half of all children who do not live with their father have never been in their father's home. Percentage of children living apart from their biological fathers (by race):
African-American children: 66 percent
Hispanic children: 35 percent
White children: 27 percent. 

Single mothers are the primary caregivers in 84 percent of all single-parent families.
Fatherless Family Growth Over the Decades
From 1960 to 1996, the number of children who lived in homes without a father or stepfather rose from 7 million to nearly 20 million. However, since the mid-1990s, the number of children in fatherless homes has leveled off. The number of children raised by single mothers more than tripled between 1960 and 2000—from 5.1 million to 16.2 million.29In 1960, only 4 percent of single mothers had never been married. In 2000, this number was up to 41 percent."

Source: Appreciating How Fathers Give Children a Head Start

"Single-Parent Families Cause Juvenile Crime (From Juvenile Crime: Opposing Viewpoints", P 62-66, 1997, A E Sadler, ed. -- See NCJ-167319)

Most of the Unpaid Child Support Owed is Owed by Poor Fathers

70% of the unpaid child support nationally is owed by fathers who are pretty much poor and it is largely a myth that men of all economic brackets are just deciding to not pay child support at the same rates. So in essence the Child Support Enforcement agencies often serve the creation of debtor's prisons for fathers:

"About 70 percent of the debt is owed by men who earn $10,000 a year or less, or have no recorded wage earnings at all, according to the Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement. Less than 4 percent is owed by men with incomes of more than $40,000.

And the poorer men are getting caught in a vicious circle. Their debts have become obstacles to getting licenses for jobs to help them produce wages to pay down the debts.

Recent research by the Urban Institute, a think tank in Washington, found that aggressive collection of debts played a crucial role in pushing low-income black men ages 25 to 34 out of lawful employment, the opposite effect policy makers might have desired."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/19/nyregion/19support.html?pagewanted=print&position=&_r=0

Married Men Spend More Than Double What Married Women Spend on Valentine's Day But Are Still Called "Less Generous"

Even though married men spend more than two times more than married women on Valentine's Day US NEWS & World Report makes a big issue about how married men spend less than single men. They also fail to mention that single men spend more than double the amount single women spend.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/02/14/charts-the-economics-of-valentines-day 

Men as Human ATM Machines on Valentine's Day

Men spend 75% more on women for Valentine's Day than women spend on them but we still aren't satisfying our partners. Why? Because we buy the wrong gifts! We just can't get anything right can we? Now to be fair the article and survey says that both genders say they don't get what they want for Valentine's Day but mysteriously they don't show which gender is the least satisfied with their gifts on average:

"A new US survey finds that on Valentine's Day, most men plan to shell out an average of $84.39 to romance their significant others. Women will spend an average of $48.13. That said, not many people get what they want when it comes to gifts.

According to a survey of more than 1,100 Americans from credit card comparison site CreditDonkey.com, 65 percent men and women will take their date out to dinner, 38 percent will buy chocolates, and 37 percent will give flowers. Problem is, the gifts don't align with what people want, the survey suggests."

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/valentine-day-men-spend-badly-article-1.1255572

http://www.creditdonkey.com/valentines-day-2013.html

Feminist Keynote Speaker at Iowa University Says "Sure We Hate Men" 1974

University keynote speaker, feminist Robin Morgan says feminists hate men in 1974 and that the movement wasn't about equality but about women attaining power. The next time someone tells you the feminist movement had nothing to do with hating men you show them this.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/203132295/Keynote-Speaker-Feminist-Robin-Morgan-Says-Feminists-Hate-Men-1974

Before someone says she was just some isolated radical who had no influence over the movement please read her biography:

"Her 1970 anthology Sisterhood Is Powerful has been widely credited with helping to start the general women's movement in the US, and was cited by the New York Public Library as "One of the 100 most influential Books of the 20th Century," along with those of Sigmund Freud and Karl Marx.[1] She has written more than 20 books of poetry, fiction, and nonfiction, and is also known as the editor of Ms. Magazine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Morgan

The Man-Hating Club 1904

The Man-hating Club. A society for women-only in 1904 where men were excluded and the female members were forbidden from speaking to men or even acknowledging their existence because according to them all men were evil. Where was the evil patriarchy to break up this club back then?

The Man Hating Club by diligentpurpose