Third-wave Feminist and Their Weak Soy Boy Toys

Home Forums Health And Fitness Third-wave Feminist and Their Weak Soy Boy Toys

Viewing 1 post (of 1 total)
  • Author
  • #2523

    Third-wave Feminist and Their Weak Soy Boy Toys

    Why are diehard third-wave feminist and their soy boys so naturally unattractive and unhealthy? They take pride in their veganism like a religion, and their virtue signaling higher-than-thou mindset regarding their care of nature and health. If this was, in fact, true, why is it not manifesting in reality?

    Let’s make something very clear here. Feminism, Veganism, LGBT pride, Climate Change and Animal Rights social justice warriorism; all that, is NOT inherently unattractive. If that is your heart felt calling, good, you do you, and more power to you, freedom, ‘Murica. BUT, why are unhealthy and naturally unattractive people ALSO these things?

    I’m NOT saying every feminist is like this. If you define “feminist” as someone who is for women’s rights and equality, I’m a feminist. I am all for women’s equal rights. But, I’m not referring to that general feminist. I am being more specific and more narrow in my application of what type of Feminist. I am referring to the hardcore third-wave feminism that doesn’t seek equality, but seeks to dominate and discriminate against men. The diehard SJW, Man-caused Climate Change activist, PETA warrior, veganism religious, LGBT pride shoving, men are evil, Feminist. But, regardless of my definition and application, weak will still get their feelings hurt; which, just proves my point about emotional instability… keep reading.
    The Attitude and Mentality

    Let’s go ahead and get the attitude and mentality out of the way. I’m just going to put this out there, being in-your-face, virtue signaling, higher-than-thou about your Feminism, Veganism, LGBT pride, Climate Change and Animal Rights social justice warriorism is a sign of some sort of emotional or mental instability; and THAT is unattractive, not necessarily your ideal, but HOW you force your ideal on others.

    Every normal person can logically conclude that the dinosaurs did not cause the ice age to end and the earth to warm. Every normal person can logically conclude that the farmers in the middle ages didn’t cause the mini ice age to end and the earth to warm ether. So shoving this man-caused global warming down peoples throats and bragging, however slight, that you are doing your part to save the earth; is just, well, unattractive. It reflects gullibility and ignorance and poor logical reasoning. Sorry, the science isn’t settled about man-caused global warming… but yes, global warming (and cooling) does exist… naturally… anyways, moving on.

    On top of the gullibility, and ignorance, and poor logical reasoning; the hypocrisy is crazy obvious. Screaming about “my body, my choice; and LGBT pride” while simultaneously forcing others to accept this with their body (actions); what about “their body, their choice” to have their own beliefs and act in their own manners? Oh we need to protect the fetus’ of animals, but not the fetus’ of humans?! I can go on and on about the outrageous hypocrisy; and THAT is unattractive. Not beliefs or ideals, but the hypocrisy.

    So before we even get to the physical characteristics, diehard third-wave feminist and their soy boys, spewing their feminism, veganism, LGBT pride, climate change and animal rights social justice warriorism; being in-your-face, virtue signaling, higher-than-thou… start off naturally unattractive and (mentally) unhealthy because they are gullible, ignorant, have poor logical reasoning, and hypocritical. Just more signs of a wealthy spoiled society; were none of these people and their ideas would survive in the wild, uncivilized, harsh-world.

    Also, it may have something to do with third-wave feminism constantly telling men they are less in value and worth. That’s a massive turn off. But, oh god i can hear it now: “You are pushing misogynistic and sexist ideals.” But… i haven’t even mentioned “my” ideas yet, just exposed theirs…
    Women are more attracted to Alpha Males than Beta Soy Boys.

    Women may choose bad boy types (Alpha Male – “assertive, dominant, strong“) in order to acquire their protection from other, more aggressive and hostile men, a theory referred to as the “protection racket.” Some simply suggest that sexism is insidious, and that these dynamics infiltrate our choices without us noticing. Research suggests that women do, in fact, find Alpha-males more attractive. In a recently published research where they conducted multiple experiments, testing women’s attraction to different types of men, and teasing out women’s motivations. Past research has suggested that evolutionary biology explains these dynamics, pointing to findings that women reportedly prefer men with more masculine features and more indicators of “fitness.” The most recent study suggest that female interest in Alpha-males, specifically men who display “benevolent sexism,” (benevolent feminine prioritization) may be seen by women as being more an interest in men investing resources in a woman.

    Even the author of the study was forced to downplay the sexism by calling it “benevolent sexism” lol. And then goes on to describe it as “a form of sexism which is overtly less hostile and misogynistic, and reflects beliefs that I was taught, as a man from the U.S. South. Benevolent sexism includes beliefs that: women should be put on a pedestal; women should be cherished and protected [by men]; Men should be willing to sacrifice to provide fro women; women are more virtuous than men; and women are more refined and pure, compared to men.” So, apparently selflessness for the ultimate good of your spouse or girl friend is “benevolent sexism”, yeah ok. We will call it what it really is: benevolent feminine prioritization. Anyways, the experiment showed that it is women who are attractive to Alpha-Males due to natural reasons [1].

    I love this quote from Psychology Today [2]; “Women who find sexist men attractive are not being traitors to other women, nor are they naïve females who don’t understand their choices. Instead, they are women making rational decisions, and accepting tradeoffs. They recognize that it may be more beneficial to have a partner who is committed to them and willing to sacrifice for them and their family than it is to have a “woke” feminist man who wants them to be independent.”

    How is this explained naturally? “The answer could lie in what evolutionary biologists call “parental investment theory [6]” Whereas men can successfully reproduce by providing a few sex cells, a woman’s reproductive success must be tied to her ability to complete months of gestation and lactation. During much of human history, a woman’s ability to choose a mate who was able and willing to assist in this process – by providing food or protection from aggressors – would have increased her reproductive success. Evolution, therefore, shaped female psychology to attend to – and prefer – mates whose characteristics and behaviors reveal the willingness to invest. A prospective mate’s muscular physique (and, today, his big wallet) certainly indicate that he possesses this ability. But opening a car door or offering his coat are signs that he may have the desired disposition… we [] also found that the women in our studies perceived these men as more attractive [7]. Here is an interesting open letter, to men, from a women [9]
    The Soy Boy Beta Male

    In a comment about soy boys, this author, a women, made several observations about them. They are “too eager to win the favor of women they are interested in with supporting or trying to perpetuate feminism.” and ” trying to be politically correct or accommodating to women’s possible becoming offended“. She made a comment to one of these beta males and essentially called him a “jerk off” but, like irrational, emotionally unstable soy boy fashion, was triggered. He went off in an “argument seemed to be that jerking off only refers to male masturbation and women masturbate too so I was excluding women and implying they can’t or don’t masturbate.” She goes on to say “these guys are all about “you can’t objectify women ever“[3]. But what about feminist who get large boob jobs? I love this quote: “Dating male feminists turned out to be one of the least empowering decisions I’ve ever made.”-Kate Iselin [4].

    Soy Boy, Beta-Male Characteristics:

    Feminine appearance and mannerisms.
    A “yes-man” to women; subservient tools.
    Easily triggered (emotionally unable/weak)

    Transphobic Obsession

    Apparently, it is transphobic not to be attracted to trans-persons [7]. This is the kind of wealthy spoiled societal ideals that only spring up in a wealthy spoiled society. This does not exist in the survival of the fittest. But, this shows that the fact that Alaph Males are not attracted to something that is not natural, shows the underlying natural attraction in nature. Such a small population would even considering, probably the same size of population that wouldn’t exist in a survival state and through natural selection [8]. Holding and pushing this unnatural spoiled idea just makes someone less attractive.

    So, with all this mental and emotional instability, what are the typical physical characteristics of a diehard feminist, spewing their feminism, veganism, LGBT pride, climate change and animal rights social justice warriorism; being in-your-face, virtue signaling, higher-than-thou who are gullible, ignorant, have poor logical reasoning, and hypocritical?
    Typical Characteristics:

    If you google “Third-Wave Feminist” and just scroll through the pictures, you notice common characteristics. To make it more precise, I made a spreadsheet and used actual numbers and data. So I went through all the top third-wave feminist lists I could find on the internet and created a common characteristic data chart. I gave a “yes” or “no” for every predominate third-wave feminist i could find on the internet for each of the 11 characteristics, which were:

    Pudgy face;
    short hair;
    poor smile;
    “old” appearance;
    masculine appearance;
    little-to-no makeup;
    a lot of visible tattoos/piercings;
    conservative clothing-style;
    anorexic appearance; and
    abstract/colorful hair.

    If they DID exhibit the characteristic, I simple gave it a “yes”. If they did not, I gave them a “no” in that category.

    I went through over 100 notable third-wave feminist [1, 2, 3] and had the following findings: Generally, all self-proclaimed third-wave feminist had:

    62% had short hair.
    67% had a “old” appearance.
    65% wore little-to-no makeup.
    78% dressed very modestly and conservative.
    48% had a poor, unattractive smile.
    28% were masculine in appearance.
    27% had a pudgy face.

    Of all the third-wave feminist with short hair, they also had at least 5 of the 11 characteristics (46%).

    If I remove the 3 most minimal characteristics such as abstract/colorful hair, a lot of visible tattoos/piercings, and anorexic appearance; all the third-wave feminist with short hair had 62% of all the other characteristics.

    Therefore, I can conclude that a third-wave feminist has a 62% chance of having short hair, an “old” appearance, wearing little-to-no makeup, dressing very modestly and conservative, and has an unattractive smile. And of that 62% chance, there is a 50% they look masculine, had a pudgy face, and a 33% chance to be overweight.


    What is really odd, seemingly entertaining, is trans-feminism when compared to all those very same third-wave feminist.

    Trans-feminist had 4 consistent characteristics:

    Long hair;
    a lot of makeup;
    revealing/attention seeking clothing style; and
    thin bodies.

    So, I looked up all the predominate famous/celebrity/activist trans-feminist and found the following:

    90% had long hair.
    90% wore a lot of makeup
    95% had thin bodies
    70% wore revealing/attention seeking clothing.
    80% were youthful
    5% were masculine in appearance

    They are the very thing that third-wave feminist are rebelling against lol

    But, transgenderism will be disregarded for the simple fact that there is no way for this lifestyle or ideal to continue on in nature without sanitary medical technologies and advanced medicine. Something that primal nature does not provide. Therefore, this lifestyle and ideal would die out in a all natural setting.

    But what is interesting to note, is that even the transgender persons still strive for a “look” that is inherent in nature that is, in fact, “attractive” according to science. Which is in complete disagreement and contrast to third-wave feminist. Which brings me to my original point. Which makes sense. These born-male trans-persons are dressing up in a way that actually reflects that which a born-male naturally finds attractive… how odd.. I mean, how natural.
    Why are diehard feminist so naturally unattractive and unhealthy?

    In their efforts to be “counter-cultural” they are, in fact, being counter-natural. If the average population obesity rate is around 45%, that means these feminist have a 55-65% of being overweight in general. Why? Because they are rebelling against the misogynistic “thin/athletic body” appeal. LOL But that is a NATURAL desire.

    Long shinny hair is a natural sign of being healthy. Men NATURAL look for cues like that, so, what do third-wave feminist do? They cut their hair off (65-70% have short hair).

    Another natural human attraction is the look of youthfulness along with healthiness. And, like it or not, make up helps with that look. What do third-wave feminist do? They avoid makeup (65%), and 67% had a “old” appearance.

    So what about some of the third-wave feminist who are young, with long hair, and are fairly physically attractive? Most of them spew their feminism, veganism, LGBT pride, climate change and animal rights social justice warriorism; being in-your-face, virtue signaling, higher-than-thou who are gullible, ignorant, have poor logical reasoning, and hypocritical; thus, emotionally and mentally unstable. Which translates into less-attractive still.

    So that’s why they are less attractive; they are counter-natural to natural human instinctive attraction.
    *Let me be clear*

    I am NOT anti-women. I believe they, me, everyone, has every right to do what they and I do and should be afforded an equal opportunity to achieve their and my goals. If you want to strive to look naturally attractive, you do you. If you want to strive to NOT look naturally attractive, you do you. You want to cut of your dick or have a “chick-dick”, you do you. You do what you want with your mind and body and I WILL DO WHAT I WANT WITH MY MIND AND BODY. Equality for all, including me. I’m sticking with science and reliable studies. With all that said, feminist have every equal right to make themselves as unattractive as they want; and men have every right not to be attractive to things that which are naturally unattractive. That is nature’s equality 😉 and some times natural selection and survival of the fittest, is not fair, but it’s 100% natural. I am ALL FOR women to seek to be more healthy and fit!

Viewing 1 post (of 1 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.