Aggression is an innate part of the young males of our species, of course. Ever read Lord of the Flies? — Nobeernolife

I do read fiction, (being a one-time English major) but I haven't found it necessary to read fiction to discover that aggression is more likely in young men than in old men or women. And not all young men are testosterone time bombs, either.

People become aggressive usually as a response to social conditions. One finds reasonable aspirations blocked arbitrarily; one has suffered public humiliation; one is insecure in one's person and feels threatened; one is slightly deranged by being too hungry, angry, lonely, tired, slightly depressed, and so forth.

Sex drive. That is entirely biological.
And do not mix that with ethics. Ethics comes into play when society is involved. — Nobeernolife

No, it isn’t entirely biological at all. Sex drive is the desire to have sex. Most factors that influence sex drive are social, psychological or medical. Testosterone is one of many influences, but you do realise that women have testosterone, too, don’t you?

It is still civilized here; much more than what it will most likely soon be in your corner of the world. — alcontali

I notice you’re justifying the position I’ve described, rather than disputing it. And with deflection, assumptions and more ignorance, no less.

Maybe explain to those guys about "ignorant and primitive concepts of male biology". They are known to thoroughly molest loosely available "prey" on a catch-and-release base, which they usually don't kill but just leave behind for dead. Also, better don't count on the feminized pushovers to lift a finger, if in the meanwhile they still have one. That is the generalized nearby future of the West. — alcontali

Am I supposed to be afraid of these guys? To run for cover? Don’t worry about me - I may be ‘feminine’, but I’m no ‘pushover’. We have our means. Might be a while, mind you, as I’m neither in the Americas nor Europe. Still, if you don’t think that similar levels of corruption, abuse and molestation occurs nearer to you (or me), then you’re deluding yourself. It’s nothing new, really. It’s just structured differently. In many cases, it only appears more ‘civilised’.

You might be surprised how much ‘respect’ these guys would show their own mothers, sisters and wives. They know how to treat both men and women with dignity and can exercise patience, integrity and self-awareness when it suits them. That they often don’t is a question of ethics, NOT biology.

Am I supposed to be afraid of these guys? To run for cover? Don’t worry about me - I may be ‘feminine’, but I’m no ‘pushover’. We have our means. — Possibility

The only means are men who are NOT feminized pushovers. So, yes, keep feminizing the boys and see where you will end up.

The practice of recruiting security personnel from the same male demographic that the cultural Marxists are incessantly seeking to feminize, is why the fortifications on the Rhine river were abandoned in 406 AD, allowing tribes of more virile, Teutonic "rapefugees" to cross in to Roman empire to molest and manhandle on a catch-and-release base whatever prey they could lay their big, breast-fondling hands on.

Rape is also as high if not higher than any other period — christian2017

It's risen since 2013, but is lower than any period between 1990 and 2006.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/191226/reported-forcible-rape-rate-in-the-us-since-1990/

Are you aware of the very high rate of pedaphilia that we live? — christian2017

It's gone down since 2000.

https://childtrends.org/indicators/child-maltreatment

I guess you don't think abortion is a big deal? — christian2017

No, but as you do you might want to know that it's been in decline since 1981, and is the lowest since its legalization in 1973.

https://www.guttmacher.org/news-release/2019/us-abortion-rate-continues-decline-reaching-historic-low-2017

Think of all those aborted female babies that can't grow up and have abortions themselves. — christian2017

What?

And oh yes most Mothers would prefer for some complete stranger to murder their child than for him/her to commit suicide themselves. — christian2017

OK?

If you were correct, then conditions of prisoner relations in female prisons would not be so similar to those in male prisons. — god must be atheist

They are not. Unless you are talking about prisons filled with "trans women".

I think it's worth noting that the term "incel" means a bit more than just being involuntarily celibate. The term "incel" tends to refer to the people who form an online community to talk about their celibacy, and quite often are toxic and complain about women and life and whatnot, — Michael

No, the term "incel" means just what it is composed of: involuntary celibate. Not limited to any particular internet "community". If you don´t like the abbreviation, you can assume I mean the complete term when I use the short version.
And if you complain that incels get bitter and angry, then you are simply confirming my point: A lot of male incels is not good thing for a stable and peaceful society.

People become aggressive usually as a response to social conditions. — Bitter Crank

Yes. And a most important and defining social condition is being incel. And if you think male psychology is the same as female psychology, I can not help you.

And if you complain that incels get bitter and angry, then you are simply confirming my point — Nobeernolife

No, I'm saying that the term "incel" is typically used to refer to the subset of involuntary celibate people who are bitter and angry and post about it on the internet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incel

"Incels, a portmanteau of "involuntary celibates", are members of an online subculture who define themselves as unable to find a romantic or sexual partner despite desiring one, a state they describe as inceldom."

If you don´t like the abbreviation, you can assume I mean the complete term when I use the short version. — Nobeernolife

OK, then I'll continue with what I was saying before; you haven't yet shown a causal connection between being involuntarily celibate and being aggressive or that that the majority of involuntary celibates are aggressive because of their involuntary celibacy.

People become aggressive usually as a response to social conditions. — Bitter Crank

People also become aggressive just because they can.

Especially armed men in conquered territory are notorious for that.
(or just any man during a breakdown of law and order)

It is not that they are angry or anything.

No, it just pays really well to be an arsehole in that situation.

You can get lots of gold and lots of sex just by being a bit more "unfriendly" than usual. So, why on earth would you politely ask for anything if it obviously works much better by slamming that person with your bare fists? Give me what I want, or else !!!

The only means are men who are NOT feminized pushovers. So, yes, keep feminizing the boys and see where you will end up. — alcontali

Oh, please do clarify ‘feminise’ for me - I’m curious what it is exactly that you think we’ve been doing to these boys that is such a travesty.

The practice of recruiting security personnel from the same male demographic that the cultural Marxists are incessantly seeking to feminize, is why the fortifications on the Rhine river were abandoned in 406 AD, allowing tribes of more virile, Teutonic "rapefugees" to cross in to Roman empire to molest and manhandle on a catch-and-release base whatever prey they could lay their big, breast-fondling hands on. — alcontali

It’s telling that you need to reach that far back into history for an argument. What saw the Vandals and Suevi through those fortifications was fear and desperation, not virility. Behind them were the Visigoths, followed by the Huns. Of course, they wouldn’t admit to this as their motivation. Ignorance, posturing and false bravado brought about the demise of the former Roman Empire. Notably, Constantinople escaped the onslaught during this time: defended first by a woman, and then later by some clever negotiations - not, as you might assume, by male virility.

Oh, please do clarify ‘feminise’ for me - I’m curious what it is exactly that you think we’ve been doing to these boys that is such a travesty. — Possibility

Well, The first four search results for search?q=feminization+of+boys+in+school

• How the Schools Shortchange Boys. In the newly feminized classroom, boys tune out.
• Boys are lagging in schools: has feminization gone too far?
• Feminization of Schools. If young boys are being left behind, what targeted teaching strategies can lead them to reach their potential?
• Has Feminized Schooling Contributed To The West’s Male Crisis?

search?q=feminization+fatherless+boys

• The Feminization of Everything Fails Our Boys
• Black boys are too feminised
• Boys Without Fathers: 3 Myths, 3 Miracles

Do a quick search of “boys raised without fathers” and you’ll quickly find yourself buried under an avalanche of horrifying statistics. More likely to drop out of school, more likely to develop drug or alcohol problems, more likely to be incarcerated; the bad news goes on and on. — Boys Without Fathers: 3 Myths, 3 Miracles

In the end it does not matter, because the laws of nature will still regain the upper hand anyway.

In a previous comment, I gave one small example of how nature does that: It is not even possible to keep recruiting security personnel out of that kind of male demographic.

Furthermore, it creates a large male demographic that would even benefit from a breakdown in law and order. So, I do not only expect them to refuse to keep the current societal order afloat -- by dropping out in various ways -- but even to actively disturb it with a view on eliminating it.

Next, there are the external factors too. A society full of feminized pushovers attracts outsiders who would simply enjoy to push them over. Et cetera, et cetera. The current trends are unsustainable. I think that the implosion cannot be far away. Where is the popcorn? ;-)

Yes, older men are failing to offer enough useful examples of what it means to be a man without resorting to ignorance, posturing and false bravado, or violence, anger and oppression - nothing to do with being ‘feminine’ at all.

It’s important to note that that the intention in education has not been to ‘feminise’ boys, but to address the imbalance that has been disadvantaging girls in education for centuries. It’s true that we haven’t got the balance worked out yet, but it’s also true that while single gender education can assist academic progress, it can be harmful to a boy’s (and a girl’s) capacity to interact effectively in the real world. This is particularly relevant to sexual ethics, because much of it has to do with how we conceptualise ‘biology’ and ‘acceptable’ behaviour, both in gender-specific and ‘mixed’ company.

And if you think male psychology is the same as female psychology, I can not help you. — Nobeernolife

Did I suggest that I thought male and female psychologies were the same? Don't think so. No, I don't think men and women have the same psychological makeup. -- both as a result of social shaping and inherent sex-linked differences.

There is of course overlap. I don't think there is much difference in learning, for example. Males and females both learn content from instruction and experience, whether that's the rules of grammar, the multiplication tables, the rules of the road, and so on. Motivation, emotion, group dynamics, and so on do vary by sex.

But men are not from Mars and women are not from Venus, by which I mean they aren't THAT different.

It’s important to note that that the intention in education has not been to ‘feminise’ boys, but to address the imbalance that has been disadvantaging girls in education for centuries. — Possibility

What a Faustian pact: destroying the boys because that makes the girls look better.

it’s also true that while single gender education can assist academic progress, it can be harmful to a boy’s (and a girl’s) capacity to interact effectively in the real world. — Possibility

Well, I guess that is how we ended up with all these beta-orbiting, friend-zoned incels, because hey, they are so good at interacting "effectively in the real world" with the other sex. If you add up their numbers to the men in sexless marriages, or who have gone mgtow/monk, then this "interaction" does not seem to look particularly good.

We always knew that it was a bad idea to put teenage boys and girls together in one classroom. That is why we never did it in the past ... until the cultural Marxists knew better, because hey, they were going to experiment on other people's children ... and if it does not work out, then just drug the kid with Ritalin or other fake ADHD medication.

In the end, I don't care, because it is the parents themselves who happily hand over their offspring for destruction to the public-school indoctrination camps. As long as these parents do not expect to ever see any grandchildren to appear on their doorstep, they should be ok, I guess.

This is particularly relevant to sexual ethics, because much of it has to do with how we conceptualise ‘biology’ and ‘acceptable’ behaviour, both in gender-specific and ‘mixed’ company. — Possibility

The problem will obviously not get solved just by doubling down on some more cultural Marxism.

We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. — Albert Einstein

I am quite confident that it will be the impending chaos that will fix the issue, if only, because a good catharsis is now long overdue.

For most of the statistics you just put up they have risen dramatically since the 1950s. For most of those with the exception of suicide the rate has grown dramatically since the 1950s.

What a Faustian pact: destroying the boys because that makes the girls look better. — alcontali

You haven’t even read any of the articles you referenced, have you? The term ‘feminising’ is employed as click-bait in most cases - any implication that boys learning self-awareness, patience and gentleness is somehow ‘destroying’ their masculinity is ridiculous. The techniques employed to successfully re-engage boys in learning are NEW - not revived from old-school methods - and they should be employed for the benefit of BOTH boys AND girls, because not all girls learn the same way, either.

It’s because our culture continues to celebrate and encourage the ignorance, posturing and false bravado of boys and men that the education of our boys is failing them. The cognitive dissonance between their capacity and potential as taught at school and how our culture demonstrates their role is the prime cause of problems for boys. Another major factor is the lack of diversity allowed for in education - from achievement rates to teaching and learning methods, the ‘one size and shape fits all’ mentality results in students experiencing either humility or stifled potential. It’s the humility that the male social identity appears to struggle with the most.

It’s because our culture continues to celebrate and encourage the ignorance, posturing and false bravado of boys and men that the education of our boys is failing them. — Possibility

That is a typical culturally-Marxist view on masculinity.

The simplest solution to fix the problem is conclude that the ongoing experiment of co-education has failed, to abolish it, and to go back to boys-only and girls-only schools.

It is trivial to achieve this simply by expelling the government out of education. At that point, parents become again customers who choose whatever service they prefer. As a parent, I do not want co-education. Therefore, I choose for my children another solution.

The government has spectacularly mismanaged education, and now they must go, or else, they will be made to go.

Furthermore, I can guarantee to you that we are not going to vote over this. If they want to force other people to swallow their misguided views on education, then they will have to prove that they are willing to risk their lives and die for what they believe in.

You can get lots of gold and lots of sex just by being a bit more "unfriendly" than usual. So, why on earth would you politely ask for anything if it obviously works much better by slamming that person with your bare fists? Give me what I want, or else !!! — alcontali

None of this has to do with the simple observation that a surplus of young, testosterone-filled males is not good for a stable society. (It is good for a warrior society, bend on external expansion, which is one reason for the historical rapid expansion of islam.)

None of this has to do with the simple observation that a surplus of young, testosterone-filled males is not good for a stable society. — Nobeernolife

War and breakdowns in law and order are very similar in terms of how young, testosterone-filled males behave.

So, they may even actively want to cause a breakdown in law and order. That is something I expect them to do in the not so distant future, really. Since in my opinion the existing societal order has lost all legitimacy, I would see that kind of events rather as a solution than as a problem.

The simplest solution to fix the problem is conclude that the ongoing experiment of co-education has failed, to abolish it, and to go back to boys-only and girls-only schools. — alcontali

How do you even come up with this stuff.

How do you even come up with this stuff. — fdrake

It is the standard in Islam.

In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.

All praise and thanks are due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon His Messenger.
...
A Muslim is always asked to keep very remote from any thing that stimulates him or stirs his sexual urge. This includes looks, gestures, or free mixing.
...
Undoubtedly, the free mixing of young boys and girls, close to the period of adolescence, in the relaxed environment of a school is very serious. It is a duty of Muslims to unite their efforts to eliminate this system in their countries and to set up schools, colleges and universities for both genders. Parents should search for separate schools to enroll their children. However, if a Muslim, male or female, is pressed to study at a mixed school, then he should exert his utmost to observe the Islamic standards of morality and keep away from all unlawful things.
...
Therefore, we say that co-education is Islamically unacceptable, because of what it leads to, not because of the process of teaching or of the meeting of the two sexes in a classroom.”
...
In fact, the tremendous loss caused by co-education is moral degeneration.
...
This reality coupled with the fact that they are mostly devoid of the supervision of any true and sincere mentor at school in that their teachers themselves do not present their students with a role model of morality, cause the innocent students to fall prey to the deadly predator of sexual impurity. — Religious advisory on co-education

Islamic law ("al fiqh") does not advocate to separate children based on religion for non-religious subjects.

Therefore, children of different religion can sit in the same classes for mathematics, language tuition, literature, science and so on, but not for religion which is to be organized in separate schools, i.e. the madrasas for children of Islamic faith. Islamic law mandates that Muslim children of different genders close to the period of adolescence must be kept separate from the other gender, regardless of the various religious background in the classes.

For Muslims, Islamic law is not subject to negotiation.

For Muslims, Islamic law is not subject to negotiation. — alcontali

You're not a Muslim.

You're not a Muslim. — frank

According to Islamic law, everybody who declares that he is a Muslim, is effectively a Muslim.

In theory, you may have to declare this before an alim, but as far as I know, that does not lead to issuing a "certificate of Islamitude".

Takfir or takfeer (Arabic: تكفير‎ takfīr) is a controversial concept in Islamist discourse,[1] denoting excommunication, as one Muslim declaring another Muslim, or any individual, as a non-believer (kafir). The act which precipitates takfir is termed mukaffir.

It has to be noted that Shiraz Maher do precise that the major Salafi jihadi theoreticians like Abu Hamza al-Masri, Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi, Omar Abdel-Rahman and Abu Basir al-Tartusi ask to exercise caution while doing takfir, as declaring a Muslim unbeliever wrongly makes the one who accuse to himself get out of the religion.[3]

In general, the official clergy considers that Islam does not sanction excommunication of Muslims who profess their Islamic faith and perform the ritual pillars of Islam.[1] — Wikipedia on Takfir

Other Muslims are very aware of the takfir/mukaffir doctrine and would never say "You are not a Muslim". I never say a thing like that either.

You're a wiki-Muslim.

You're a wiki-Muslim. — frank

What is Wiki-Muslim?

For Muslims, Islamic law is not subject to negotiation. — alcontali

Shame about all those kids sexy dancing to this in schools in Iran. Remember to swipe right on Tindr if you think she looks good in hijab.

You're also shitting on Turkey's national political hero, Atatürk, the reformer, who apparently is not a Muslim by your standards.

You're also shitting on Turkey's national political hero, Atatürk, the reformer, who apparently is not a Muslim by your standards. — fdrake

Did I say anything about Atatürk personally?

Yasar Yakis (a founding member of the AK Party) says that the opinion of Muslims in Turkey is rather the following:

They are against Kemalism and the aggressive secularism which attacked Islam and banished it from public life, not Ataturk per se. — Yasar Yakis on Ataturk

Not only was his performance as a military commander in the Dardanelles quite impressive, but he also managed to put a stop to the Allied occupation of Turkey after WWI. That is why Atatürk is a national hero in Turkey.

Furthermore, the aggressive secularism had already started during the Ottoman empire even to the point that the sharif of the Hejaz designated the Ottoman Young-Turk government as apostates and then spearheaded a successful insurgency in Arabia and the wider Middle East. I am not sure that the Sharif's choice of timing was particularly good, though. It certainly managed to undo Atatürk's achievements in the Dardanelles. The sharif may have successfully solved a problem by creating a much, much bigger one.

True, in practice a woman who is a professional athlete may actually have higher testosterone than an "average" man does.

Likewise, as per medical sources, it also plays a role in many health benefits, not solely "aggression" such as improved mathematical and spatial reasoning skills, as per this peer reviewed article by Graham Rogers, MD:

https://www.healthline.com/health/benefits-testosterone#benefits

(Sadly most popular information on this subject is anti-intellectual and sensationalist, dumbed down to the average 6th grade reading level or, whatever lowest common denominator most mass media is marketed to).

There's no such thing as "involuntary" celebate. (It would likely be harder to be voluntary celebate, than involuntarily celebrate, if the Catholic priest molestation scandals are any indicators)..

Your physical body doesn't even know the difference between a "hand" and a vagina, hence why it comes; the body is a thing of very simple pleasures (just like it doesn't know the difference between a naked woman in .jpg format and a naked woman in the flesh).

By "incel", what they actually mean is John Hinckley Jr. Syndrome, as in a guy who thinks that Taylor Swift or Mariah Carey is entitled to date or marry them while living in their mom's basement just because they're "nice", or something (that is when they aren't fantasizing about their mass shootings).

Plus by the same token, today's society is rampant in free internet porn, so an "incel" who is completely unambitious and unable to find anything more productive or worth living for can spend his life on free porn addiction till his heart's content, and I doubt that the majority of them will be so maladjusted by it that they will become a "threat", the proverbial freaks in question (e.x. Elliot Roger or whoever) likely suffered from severe mental disturbances that went beyond simply not being able to 'get laid'.