Statistics don't "lie", they simply get misinterpreted, used, abused, either by virtue of ignorance or intentional dishonesty.

Such as using "black crime" statistics as an arbitrary form of racial discrimination, even against black lawyers, doctors, scientists, etc who have never committed a crime, while ignoring that white criminals do exist.

Such as using "black crime" statistics as an arbitrary form of racial discrimination, even against black lawyers, doctors, scientists, etc who have never committed a crime, while ignoring that white criminals do exist. — IvoryBlackBishop

Very true.

But once a racist does not have to stay a racist. I used to be extremely prejudiced in my teens, twenties and thirties, then I grew out of it as I matured. To wit, even in my thirties and twenties I thought I was not racist, but I was. Deeply. Why? I don't know. The typical, I guess, because I am very gullible. Extremely analytical, but very gullible. Now it hurts me, not just as a pretence reaction, when someone says something racist.

Sexist? I think I am still a bit sexist. I normally am not, but if you show me to a rabid feminist, then she will brand me as such. And then I see red. The most anti-feminist trait in me right now is a defensive reaction: when I see things like "abused women's circle meets here at 7 pm" or "poets against sexual harrassment" or "stop child abuse in the world" then I take it on me, and want to punch whoever is advocating the movement, because I feel it is directed straight at me: a fat, short, past middle aged male man.

Lately I'm interested in the business side of "movements" or "philantrophic" causes, such as the measurable differences in actual goals, effectivity, strategy, and so and so on beyond merely the simple, exaggerated "mission statement" which is really just a marketing or advertising thing, and has little to no realistic bearing on what's actually being done or accomplished, mathematically, so to speak, as well as on the legal details involved in organizing or participating in such a 'movement'..

Something that differentiates pure mindless "slactivism", which is either incompetent, inept, or downright lying, insincerity, and scammyness from more serious activism by thinking men and women, which is actually a worthwhile cause in theory and in practice, rather than a mere "baby step" or outright comedic relief than preys on naivete and pure appeals to emotion, rather than reason, facts, logic and so on and so forth.

No. You do not need "the entire population to stop having children" for a demographic trend leading to extinction. It is simple math. An average birth rate of 1.3 leads to an increasingly aged population and ultimately to extinction. It is not like I am making up a new topic here. This is very much debated topic for example in Western Europe

Yes, but for how long would that trend occur, and what makes you think that it won't fluctuate?

And as far as nations with the highest birth rates, many of them are sub-Saharan African nations or 3rd world countries (e.x. Niger with an average birth rate of 6-7 per woman); most people in the "West", even those who bring up "low birth" rates wouldn't want to devolve to a 3rd world country in which practices such as polygamy or arranged child marriages are potentially a factor. Monogamy, as an institution is predicated on prioritizing "higher mental wants", or quality and stability of marriages and relationships in civilized nations, despite being negatively correlated with "higher birth rates", yet people take this for granted.

I said nothing about terrorism, PLEASE stop making false claims. I mentioned Kosovo, because it is an example of a very rapid population shift because of birth rates. Kosovo had a purely Serbian population, in fact it was the Serbian heartland. Then, immigration plus the massive difference in birth rates between Serbian and Albanian families changed that to an Albanian population with a shrinking Serbian minority.

Well, compared to Chinese or Indians, all "white" or people of European descent are a "minority" as it is.

So what should be done about that? Should North Americans and Europeans artificially increase their populations by 3-6X just to avoid being a racial "minority" in compared to 3rd world India and China?

Plus, being a 'minority' isn't necessarily a "bad" thing (e.x. billionaires are "minorities", pro-athletes are "minorities", people with extremely high IQs are "minority"), nor is it in mutual exclusivity with being part of a "majority" (e.x. A "Caucasian" American with a very high IQ is part of a "majority" in the sense of being Caucasian, and also part of being in a "minority" due to having an above-average IQ).

Those are all static details that depend on the society. I simply pointed to simply facts: 1) A below-replacement birth rate leads a shrinking population, and shrinking populations eventually reach zero.

That's assuming the population trend continues unabated; in practice, when has any population ever reached "zero" simply due to not having children?

In practice, national averages would still have little bearing on individual families, or other types of communities that exist within the context of said national boundaries.

(e.x. A society as a whole, wouldn't want everyone "equally" having children to begin with, it would rather a fairly mature and stable family have more children, rather than unemployed or homeless people fathering children who they are unable or unwilling to support financially and adding to a "poverty" trap, of sorts).

2) a surplus of males in a human society is not good for the stability of said society.
I said none of the other things that you made up

Please give me more specifics, and define what makes him a "surplus"; if you're talking about "incels" or something, I don't buy into the concept to begin with for reasons I've already mentioned.

Yes, but for how long would that trend occur, and what makes you think that it won't fluctuate? — IvoryBlackBishop

Everything fluctuates, my point is simply that demographics is important.

And as far as nations with the highest birth rates, many of them are sub-Saharan African nations or 3rd world countries (e.x. Niger with an average birth rate of 6-7 per woman); most people in the "West", even those who bring up "low birth" rates wouldn't want to devolve to a 3rd world country in which practices such as polygamy or arranged child marriages are potentially a factor. — IvoryBlackBishop

Nobody said we should. The point is simply that the predicted quadrupling of the population of Africa from the current 1 to 4 billion in 50 years matters. It e.g. makes the entire climate debate moot.

Monogamy, as an institution is predicated on prioritizing "higher mental wants", or quality and stability of marriages and relationships in civilized nations, despite being negatively correlated with "higher birth rates", yet people take this for granted. — IvoryBlackBishop

Nobody said "higher mental wants". I said it is a basis for a stable society. And it is not negatively correlated with higher birth rates. Women can have a limited number of children in their lifetime, regardless if in mono or polygamy. The difference for society are the incels.

Well, compared to Chinese or Indians, all "white" or people of European descent are a "minority" as it is. — IvoryBlackBishop

World-wide, yes. But we don´t live in one world, we live in countries. And the demographics of a country are important.

So what should be done about that? Should North Americans and Europeans artificially increase their populations by 3-6X just to avoid being a racial "minority" in compared to 3rd world India and China? — IvoryBlackBishop

That is not the point. I simply pointed out that if you replace a shrinking population in one area by importing a growing population from another place, the imported population will take over.

Plus, being a 'minority' isn't necessarily a "bad" thing (e.x. billionaires are "minorities", pro-athletes are "minorities", people with extremely high IQs are "minority"), nor is it in mutual exclusivity with being part of a "majority" (e.x. A "Caucasian" American with a very high IQ is part of a "majority" in the sense of being Caucasian, and also part of being in a "minority" due to having an above-average IQ). — IvoryBlackBishop

Tell that to the persecuted Serbs living in enclaves in Kosovo, Or the Tibetans and Uigurs being replaced by Han Chinese in China. Demographics do not matter???

That's assuming the population trend continues unabated; in practice, when has any population ever reached "zero" simply due to not having children? — IvoryBlackBishop

Not having children is not necessary. Having children beneath replacement level is enough.

Please give me more specifics, and define what makes him a "surplus"; if you're talking about "incels" or something, I don't buy into the concept to begin with for reasons I've already mentioned. — IvoryBlackBishop

It is a sociological fact throughout the world and throughout history. If I have to explain to you that male and female psychology are different, I cant help you.

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. — alcontali

Am I supposed to be offended by this extreme-right, neo-Nazi conspiracy-theorist label? I’ve seen enough examples of healthy masculinity to stand by my statement. Men are all decent human beings when they’re not resorting to ignorance, posturing and false bravado to conceal their fears of inadequacy. It’s pretty simple, really.

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. — alcontali

Hmm, sounds you’re plotting something....

My experience with both single-sex and co-ed schooling prompts me to seek the co-ed option for my children, without a doubt. Fear of our own ‘sexual urge’ is like the tail wagging the dog. Yes, puberty complicates the education environment and increases risk, but it also provides countless opportunities to learn and test practical strategies for interaction with diversity that simply cannot be taught in a single-sex environment. What we can teach both girls and boys about integrity, patience and self-awareness, and about their capacity for kindness, gentleness and generosity in sharing a classroom with the opposite sex can be extrapolated to influence their sexual encounters. We shouldn’t be afraid of that, but rather rise to the challenge. Forcing young people to learn this outside of school is a far greater risk.

My experience with both single-sex and co-ed schooling prompts me to seek the co-ed option for my children, without a doubt. Fear of our own ‘sexual urge’ is like the tail wagging the dog. — Possibility

I am also for co-ed schooling, but if you combine that with politically correct manipulation in order to achieve gender equality in outcomes (rather than opportunity), you get a disaster, and that is what is currently happening in many Western countries.

I am also for co-ed schooling, but if you combine that with politically correct manipulation in order to achieve gender equality in outcomes (rather than opportunity), you get a disaster, and that is what is currently happening in many Western countries. — Nobeernolife

I’m not arguing for gender equality, but rather diversity. Any focus on achieving equality in educational outcomes is going to be a disaster.

But the topic here is not educational outcomes - it’s sexual ethics, which is the main reason I support co-ed schooling.

I’m not arguing for gender equality, but rather diversity. Any focus on achieving equality in educational outcomes is going to be a disaster. — Possibility

Agree. But that is what the education system heading towards in many Western countries by feminizing education.

This claim that we’re ‘feminising education’ is scaremongering and click-bait. The realisation is that ‘boys being boys’ are disadvantaged by a school system which models and strives to build their capacity to increase awareness, connection and collaboration, instead of celebrating their anti-educational culture of ignorance, posturing and false bravado. This is not feminising, it’s simply EDUCATION. Boys do not have to limit themselves - they’re choosing to, based on cultural pressure.

What we need to do is challenge our cultural concept of ‘masculine’ to be more open to diverse awareness and educational opportunities, not limit educational opportunities to fit within the cultural concept of ‘masculine’.

This claim that we’re ‘feminising education’ is scaremongering and click-bait. The realisation is that ‘boys being boys’ are disadvantaged by a school system which models and strives to build their capacity to increase awareness, connection and collaboration, instead of celebrating their anti-educational culture of ignorance, posturing and false bravado. This is not feminising, it’s simply EDUCATION. Boys do not have to limit themselves - they’re choosing to, based on cultural pressure. — Possibility

"Clickbait"? On an obscure philosophy forum? And you are making up a strawman. By orientating the education system to girls, boys are being disadvantaged. If you want think deeper about the topic, check out lectures by e.g. Jonathan Haidt and Jordan Peterson, both who have done research about this.

Sexist? I think I am still a bit sexist. I normally am not, but if you show me to a rabid feminist, then she will brand me as such. And then I see red. The most anti-feminist trait in me right now is a defensive reaction: when I see things like "abused women's circle meets here at 7 pm" or "poets against sexual harrassment" or "stop child abuse in the world" then I take it on me, and want to punch whoever is advocating the movement, because I feel it is directed straight at me: a fat, short, past middle aged male man. — god must be atheist

I understand the defensive position. The pendulum swing is a brutal action, and I’m well aware of women who hate. But it seems to me like you’re jumping to conclusions to react so violently to the existence of an “abused women’s circle”, for instance. Women who support each other through an experience of abuse, and even those who strive to minimise occasions of sexual harassment are not necessarily plotting your demise, and don’t specifically mean to exclude you. But if you jump to defend those actions or undermine their ability to be heard and understood, they will visibly turn on you, and with good reason.

I’m going to use stereotypes here, not because I think all men or women are like this, but because it’s a general misunderstanding between us. Women often want their internal affect to be heard and understood. Men seem to automatically translate verbal expression of this internal affect into a potential action - illustrated here by your wanting to punch someone, rather than acknowledging the feeling behind the potential punch. That you recognise your position as defensive is an excellent start. But logic should tell you that you needn’t mount a physical defence in response to emotional words. It won’t physically harm you to hear what they have to say, even though your body will feel as if a threat is immanent. They’re not attacking you - they’re expressing how they feel. There’s a world of difference.

If you can distinguish between the expression of internal affect and the potential action, then there’s hope for you.

Am I supposed to be offended by this extreme-right, neo-Nazi conspiracy-theorist label? — Possibility

I like the term "culturally Marxist" because that is exactly what it is. I don't care who else adopted the term. If the Neo-Nazis adopted the term "yellow beef broth" would I stop using it? ... not really.

My experience with both single-sex and co-ed schooling prompts me to seek the co-ed option for my children, without a doubt. ... Fear of our own ‘sexual urge’ is like the tail wagging the dog. ... Yes, puberty complicates the education environment and increases risk ... — Possibility

If you think that co-education is good for your children, then go for it. What else can I say?

"Clickbait"? On an obscure philosophy forum? And you are making up a strawman. By orientating the education system to girls, boys are being disadvantaged. If you want think deeper about the topic, check out lectures by e.g. Jonathan Haidt and Jordan Peterson, both who have done research about this. — Nobeernolife

The ‘click-bait’ was in reference to the articles from alcontali. But the system is not being orientated towards girls, but towards broader educational opportunities. From a girls’ point of view, there are so many doors open to them which were previously closed simply because they were female. From a boys’ point of view, they don’t want to explore these doors now open to them, because the new opportunities are seen as ‘feminising’. That’s their choice, but don’t complain because girls are willing to work harder in a subject that many boys manage to coast through without effort. It’s also becoming clear that the capacity for emotional intelligence and self-awareness are vital skills in a world where a moment of misplaced aggression could destroy the planet.

The arguments against ‘feminising’ illustrate the narrow point of view that is promoted as ‘masculinity’ - a point of view which celebrates ignorance, posturing and false bravado as worth fighting for. I disagree. But I’m not against masculinity at all. There is nothing wrong with making productive use of one’s physical strength, technical expertise or mathematical and spatial ability, if you have it. But not all boys have these strengths, and yet they all have as many educational and social opportunities available to them as everyone else. They’re just not using them. They’re too busy pretending they don’t want to learn or keeping their heads down, rather than developing their strengths in non-traditional areas.

Our current social concept of ‘masculinity’ doesn’t recognise abilities in self-awareness, social consciousness or critical and creative thinking. But these aren’t ‘feminine’ abilities - they’re human ones. Boys are effectively using these abilities just to keep up the ‘masculine’ facade and avoid learning, when they could be developing them into strengths.

Those boys who excel in traditional ‘masculine’ traits are not struggling at school. It’s those boys who would rather just scrape by at this false concept of ‘masculinity’ than strive to be anything else, and who compensate with posturing and false bravado - they’re the ones who are disadvantaged.

@Possibility:

Jonatha Haidt is convincing on the topic. You are not.

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.
[/quote]
From what I've gleaned, a "monk" in the true sense isn't comparable to a "mgtow/incel":

For example:



In this video, the monk sets himself on fire while meditating. My understanding is that the mindset and worldview behind an actual monk is one of extreme self-discipline, or one of renunciation of worldly desires in the pursuit of some higher calling or purpose. (It's pretty apparent that no "MGTOW/Incel" would be self-controlled enough to do something like this; likely his pale skin would burn off the second he steps out of the basement and experience sunlight for likely the first time in his life. From what I'm aware of, every major world religion has or has had some variant of a monastic or "mystical" school or tradition.

In contrast, the worldview of the "MGTOW/Incel" is the polar opposite, one of pop nihilism, hedonism, materialistic consumerism, and so on - hence why they spend all of their time masturbating to anime, porn, MMORPGs (sarcasm intended), and other addictions, and obsessing in a John Hinckley Jr. like fashion over "women" as a whole despite claiming to not want them in their lives; almost akin or equivalent to "radical feminism" or "lesbian separatism" a la Andrea Dworkin or Valerie Solanas, in which all heterosexual relationships, even legal and consensual ones are "rape" or somehow inherently "exploitive", just with the sexes in .

So no, to me comparing an actual monk and the worldview or philosophy inherent in it to a "MGTW/Incel" cultist would be like comparing devout veganism, to a person who eats leftover big macs out of a McDonald's dumpster because he's too cheap to pay for actual meat.

In contrast, the worldview of the "MGTOW/Incel" is the polar opposite, one of pop nihilism, hedonism, materialistic consumerism, and so on — IvoryBlackBishop

I resolutely refuse to criticize MGTOW men. They do not want to have relationships because of the gynocentric court system and because they believe that society has thoroughly perverted the opposite sex.

First of all, in Islamic terms, if marriage and divorce are not governed by Islamic law, then the man is advised not to enter the arrangement. Secondly, chastity is indeed a very non-optional requirement:

You may marry the chaste women among the believers, as well as the chaste women among the followers of previous scripture, provided you pay them their due dowries. — Quran 5:5

The Quran simply does not want a man to enter a marriage arrangement when there are serious questions or doubts about chastity. Therefore, the religious advisory en provenance from the Quran is that the MGTOW guys are absolutely right on both counts.

Personally, I fundamentally solved the problem by emigrating to a different jurisdiction, in a galaxy far, far away (SE Asia) and by being absolutely paranoia, from a non-negotiable position, concerning the chastity of my spouse. If I had not emigrated, I would also have been staunchly MGTOW today.

In a world of rubbish, rubbish is to be expected.

The view is that we live in a statistical universe and everything happens for a reason.

I don't care about people's sex life, sex is a way reproduction can happen; and reproduction is best suited for working habitats.

If we're destroying the planet, then people can't expect pro-reproduction ethics(hence, statistical universe).

A broken world causes a lot of abnormalities, so, inter alia, gay people, deserve forgiveness. To hate without any remorse a gay person, is a lot stupid.

There needs to be a whole lot of administration to fix our mess.

I resolutely refuse to criticize MGTOW men. They do not want to have relationships because of the gynocentric court system and because they believe that society has thoroughly perverted the opposite sex.

I don't think their mindset is that deep about it, no.

As far as "gynocentric", the court system and legal philosophy is primarily pragmatic, not about satiating childish and dumbed-down notions of "equality" in a way which runs contrary to legal pragmatism.

Given that our legal systems have been around since the 1700-1800s and before, it's possible some aspects of them haven't been updated to suit the times or cultural shifts, however on this, I think rather than mindlessly "railing" against the system as a whole, using sensationalized words like "gynocentric", one should give specific examples of laws which should be changed on a state or federal level, and something akin to an actionable plan for or on how to do it.

---

First of all, in Islamic terms, if the marriage and divorce are not governed by Islamic law, then the man is advised not to enter the arrangement. Secondly, chastity is indeed a very non-optional requirement:

Are you a Muslim? Are you going to move to a strict Sharia law nation?

I've never read the Koran or anything equivalent to a history of Islam, and I don't see why the Koran is relevant to this discussion here. And what other things does your Koran say, other than that one small part in isolation?

I don't think Islam would be too keen on "MGTOW" men deciding to devote their life to porn and anime masturbation either, but for that matter, so would any fairly well-adjusted normal person either, so "Islam" isn't particularily relevant here.

You may marry the chaste women among the believers, as well as the chaste women among the followers of previous scripture, provided you pay them their due dowries.
— Quran 5:5

The Quran simply does not want a man to enter a marriage arrangement when there are serious questions or doubts about chastity. Therefore, the religious advisory en provenance from the Quran is that the MGTOW guys are absolutely right on both counts.

Personally, I fundamentally solved the problem by emigrating to a different jurisdiction, in a galaxy far, far away (SE Asia) and by being absolutely paranoia, from a non-negotiable position, concerning the chastity of my spouse. If I had not emigrated, I would also be staunchly MGTOW today

Anthropologically speaking, in ancient times, concepts such as "birthright" were very culturally fundamental for pragmatic reason which I'd prefer not to get into as of right now.

I believe this is where this fits in to the anthropological scheme of things.

Regardless, young men and women 'hooking up' or 'messing around' during adolescence Is something of a reality, ideally that it's something to mature out of, rather than "sex with as many people as possible" being one's only aim in life.

Much as the overly "romanticized" notions of the past, or that young people "didn't hook" up until some "recent" time period (e.x. whether after the "1950s", after the "Victorian era" of the 1800s, or whatever time period is overly romanticized) is somewhat fictitious as well.

"Romeo and Juliet" by Shakespeare, for example, was basically the equivalent of a "teen romance", like twilight, much as how men and women sleeping with other people's wives or husbands (such as King David in the Bible) is a recorded reality since times ancient.

I suppose that if two people enter a relationship, there is always a "possibility" like that in mind, but regardless, I do not think that an attitude of cynicism, nihilism, or paranoia is healthy, and If anything just fodder "trash TV" shows like Jerry Springer or Steve Wilkos.

I don't think their mindset is that deep about it, no. — IvoryBlackBishop

Rollo Tomassi is quite deep. His website, the rational male, certainly is. There are actually quite a few of these websites. They also have elaborate youtube and bitchute channels. If you want to figure out what they think, you will quickly see that they specifically take issue with exactly the two problems that I mentioned.

I think rather than mindlessly "railing" against the system as a whole, using sensationalized words like "gynocentric", one should give specific examples of laws which should be changed on a state or federal level, and something akin to an actionable plan for or on how to do it. — IvoryBlackBishop

That is pretty much also the position of the MRA (Men's Rights Activists).

The MGTOW crowd rejects that point of view. They do not want to change the system.

MGTOW prefer to completely withdraw, and just let the system collapse, because they consider the system beyond salvation already. I think that they are also right on that matter. There is no point in fixing anything. Just let the laws of nature take over instead. Furthermore, it is enough that men withdraw in droves from the labour force and from relationships to effectively precipitate the inevitable collapse. I did the same. I cannot be bothered about failing systems because I live elsewhere now.

Are you going to move to a strict Sharia law nation? — IvoryBlackBishop

Islamic law is first and foremost a matter of self-discipline. There is some need for a government to do conflict resolution and victim compensation but that is for me personally not a pressing matter on a daily basis. Hence, an Islamic government is merely nice to have. A hands-off government is actually equally good.

I don't think Islam would be too keen on "MGTOW" men deciding to devote their life to porn and anime masturbation either — IvoryBlackBishop

We don't know if a particular person is devoted to porn and anime masturbation. If it is an offence against Islamic law, which is possibly the case, it would still require the quorum of witnesses before it would be actionable.

Furthermore, what conflict would there need to be resolved or what victims would there need to be compensated in the realm of porn and anime masturbation? Hence, all you could ever see about that is a religious advisory decidedly recommending against porn and anime masturbation, prominently affixed to a virtual wall on the internet. Case closed.

I suppose that if two people enter a relationship, there is always a "possibility" like that in mind, but regardless, I do not think that an attitude of cynicism, nihilism, or paranoia is healthy, and If anything just fodder "trash TV" shows like Jerry Springer or Steve Wilkos. — IvoryBlackBishop

Demanding chastity before agreeing to marriage is not "an attitude of cynicism, nihilism, or paranoia". For Muslims, it is a non-optional requirement. Since MGTOW come to exactly the same conclusion as Islam, I cannot possibly criticize MGTOW, and certainly not on their advisories. In fact, the ulema (the Islamic religious scholars) have been issuing exactly the same advisories for decades now.

When I look at MGTOW, each one of their concerns and each one of their solutions comply with Islamic law. Hence, no bad word from me on MGTOW.

For male biology, procreation is a privilege acquired through either violent combat ("mating season") or possibly through civilizing hacks such as marriage, if and when such civilizing hack still possibly functions.

You've made so may posts here, I'm going to make a separate thread to respond to them in, ok?

In contrast, the worldview of the "MGTOW/Incel — IvoryBlackBishop

These two are not the same. To remind you, the "In" in Incel refers to INvoluntary.
You have Incels where there is a surplus of young males, looking for women. By definition, you have them in societies which practise polygamy. Which is one of the reasons that no society with polygamy has ever reached a high cultural level. Essentially, these are warrior societies by definition.

My understanding is that in every society, "warriors" were small percentage of the population; much as how today, the average person, nor even the average person who works for the US military is a special forces veteran or fighter pilot who has seen live combat.

If anything, an "incel" likely would have been one of the "low status men" who the king or emperor had turned into a eunuch and forced to serve in his haram, rather than simply "allowed to exist" as it is.

And no, the problem doesn't seem to be that they're "looking for women", it's not a case of a fat, Minecraft addicted male who sexually identifies as a "Brony" looking for a fat, Mincrafted addicted female who sexually identifies as a "pegasister" to go on a Minecraft date together.

It's more like a case of fat, Mincraft-addicted male trying to 'swoon' Taylor Swift or Beyoncé, claiming she won't talk to him because he's "too nice", and typing out his rough draft of a school shooting plan on his sticky keyboard.

(Or conversely, a fat, Minecraft addicted female trying to get her "senpai" Justin Bieber or "Brad Pitt" to notice her).

I like the term "culturally Marxist" because that is exactly what it is. — alcontali

It really isn't. "Left liberal", "social democrat", "progressive liberal" are much better.

Your run of the mill proponent of gender equality, racial equality, disability rights, secularism, progressive taxation, fiscal transparency and welfare advocacy doesn't take their ideological cues from Marxism or socialism, which are anticapitalist politics relying on a structural analysis of class and place class in a central role in their political opinions, they're normal pro-capitalist pro-democracy pro-human rights people in a vague and usually unarticulated sense. Less Rosa Luxemburg, more Walter Bregman.

Even if this vague sense filled the leftist politics vacuum after socialism and worker's politics died down in the west.

The kind of vocabulary that paints Bernie Sanders as akin to the freakin' Naxalites is intentionally misleading.

The reality is that "uncivilized" behavior is a human behavior, not exclusive to 'males', even if there are differences in male and female aggression and behavior, both men and women, for example can and have been held legally or criminally liable for violent acts such as murder; there are men who have never commit a murder, and women who have, regardless of the role that testosterone may or may not have played in it, with an archaic argument based on reductionism or determinism, akin to use of "scientific racist" arguments which nevertheless negate or deny the reality that there are African people who have not committed aggressive or violent crimes, and "white" people who have.

Thankfully such archaic reductionism and deterministic nonsense, which was more or less considered to be nonsense even during the outdated era in which it was most popular, as far as more serious legal and moral philosophy, which predicates or takes into account notions such as reasoning, intentions, which a differentiation between acting in the "heat of the moment" (e.x. 2nd degree murder) and acting rationally, calculatedly or premeditatedly (e.x. first degree murder). Most of the legal and moral philosophy, is thankfully predicated on notions such as a reason, intentions, and rationality, rather than archaic biological reduction, based solely averages and mythical abstractions approximations which don't actually apply or mean anything in reality, beyond simple estimations in individual circumstances, not to be taken literally when they're clearly nonsense and don't apply - to the point of silliness and nonsensicality even when it clearly isn't applicable to individual men and women, solely to "win an argument" rather than illuminate anything of value.

Conversely a woman who is a seasoned pro athlete or the minority of women who have served in armed combat (e.x. some Russian female snipers In WII) may in practice, have higher testosterone than an "average" male pencil pusher.

You can read "Meditations on Violence" by Rory Miller if you're interested in it.

As peer some peer reviewed articles on testosterone, it contributes positively to mathematical and spatial reasoning ability, and not solely "aggression" (hence why Asperger's syndrome or high-functioning autistic spectrum disorders, are sometimes considered an "extreme" example of the male brain, despite most people with Aspergers being viewed as stereotypically "geeky" rather than "aggressive" and "uncivilized".

As far as science writings on evolutionary psychology goes such as by science writers like Robert Wright; behaviors considered "uncivilized" (e.x. polygamy or polyamorous desires resulting infidelity), are not exclusive to "men" or "women", such as myths about "men's sex drives";

The primary difference is supposedly that men are more likely to cheat for "new partners", while women are more likely to cheat if they can get "different things" from each partner, such as financial stability from one partner, or romance / excitement from another partner.

---

As far as civilization goes, isn't solely "invented", and not as part of a conspiracy theory to "repress males".

It relates to institutions which come from mental abilities such as reasoning which have nothing specifically to do with "men" or "women". (Psychopathology, such as obsessive-compulsive disorders resulting from maladaptedness to elements of civilization have been documented by Freud and others, but an extremist, anarchist view in which all civilization is inherently "evil" is rather absurd to me at this point in my life, especially if all of these discussions are being done on a computer).

Not to mention that even animals, such as ants, show elements of civilization, which indicate that it's to some degree or another, an innate part of who we are.

It really isn't. "Left liberal", "social democrat", "progressive liberal" are much better. — fdrake

According to the conspiracy theory, which emerged in the late 1990s, the Frankfurt School and other Marxist theorists were part of a conspiracy to attack Western society by undermining traditionalist conservatism and Christianity using the 1960s counterculture, multiculturalism, progressive politics and political correctness.[50][51][52] — Wikipedia on cultural Marxism

I use the term "cultural Marxism" as a blanket reference to the vague collection of ideologies that emerges from atheism and that rejects the requirements of traditional religious law. I don't know of a better term to capture the idea.

I do not count multiculturalism under that nomer, because I do not see that as a problem.

For example, the Ottoman empire was staunchly multicultural and multi-religious. The Ottoman millet system worked fine for close to a millenium. There is absolutely no need for everyone to share the same culture or the same religion.

When people reject religious law, they will still organize society according to a particular model. Whether they see themselves as leaning "left" or "right", the result will fundamentally be the same.

It will consist of a Statist land grab in which governments repossess solidarity from extended family, clan, tribe, and religious community through state-run social security, while also bringing education and healthcare under secular, atheist state control. By peeling off layer after layer of the onion of traditional social structure, the Statist land grab will eventually also reach the nuclear family, and rip it apart, making generational reproduction impossible in the process. The individualized and atomized person in such society will ultimately even fail to survive. At that point, cultural Marxism will have destroyed itself.

Both political "left" and "right" are rife with Statism and hellbent on new Statist land grabs. That is the "Marxist" part about it. In the end, it is not about the economy, because their attack on human society is directly aimed at the social structure, i.e. its wider notion of "culture".

I use the term "cultural Marxism" as a blanket reference to the vague collection of ideologies that emerges from atheism and that rejects the requirements of traditional religious law. I don't know of a better term to capture the idea. — alcontali

Secularist. You rail against secularism.

I use the term "cultural Marxism" as a blanket reference to the vague collection of ideologies that emerges from atheism and that rejects the requirements of traditional religious law. I don't know of a better term to capture the idea. — alcontali

That is a confused premise, on several accounts. First, atheism is simply a personal position on one issue, and not a belief system, so there is nothing to rely on. Secondly, there are plenty of religions that do not come with a "religious law" (in fact, I would argue islam is an outlier there in terms of its radical reliance on religious law, making it more political system than a religion). Thirdly, "cultural marxism" is generally defined as the general set of ideas emerging from Marxist "Frankfurt School" of sociology, that wants to use culture rather than traditional class warfare to destroy the West.

So where does a definition based on wrong premises lead you?

The reality is that "uncivilized" behavior is a human behavior, not exclusive to 'males', even if there are differences in male and female aggression and behavior, both men and women, for example can and have been held legally or criminally liable for violent acts such as murder; there are men who have never commit a murder, and women who have, regardless of the role that testosterone may or may not have played in it, with an archaic argument based on reductionism or determinism, — IvoryBlackBishop

With anecdotal evidence, you can "prove" whatever you want. I am talking about society in general. And there are real, very demonstrable and very obvious differences between genders and age groups. In human society. Which really should be obvious to anyone not blinded by ideology.

Secularist. You rail against secularism. — fdrake

And against statism too.

Now, I do not believe at all that atheists should become religious or adopt the self-discipline of religious law. They can obviously do what they want.

It is just that the western-style state is way too intrusive in people's lives. They even try to substitute community charity (zakaat and sadaqah) by financially bankrupt social-security statism.