this whole thought experiment is sick no matter which way you slice it, your thoughts no matter how abstract you make them propogate and have real world consequences, i urge you to be more considerate with what you consider inside thoughts and outside thoughts. this is coming from a place of love
i dont want to live in a reality where we force people to give birth, if i had to choose between civilization and womens rights, i would choose womens rights. but this isnt a zero sum game, we dont have to make that choice, i hope we never will
i think the proposition is flawed in that the thought experiment outsources imagination and survival to “lets just force ppl to give birth” there has to be other options lol
my takeaway from this is that critical thinking seems to have been a dysgenic development, conductive to the degeneration and self destruction of humanity. tolerance for disruptive ideas and behaviors interfere with the collective functioning of a species.
effective, long lived species are essentially fascistic.
I am skeptical of the claim that the reason women are opting out of motherhood more is some win of feminist liberation and smashing the patriarchy. I don’t think the lowest birth rates would be in places like Japan/China, if that were the case. Japan and China are not some ultra feminist societies. In China they were killing baby girls not that long ago.
I think the reason why birth rates drop in developed countries is life expectancy. More old people, and older people living longer means what? Taking care of your parents. It also means living with your parents for longer in a lot of cases because of how long it takes to become educated for the workforces in more developed societies. For somebody who often talks about how a lot of the way we turn out as people is shaped by our family dynamics growing up, I’m surprised you haven’t considered this.
Japan, China and East Asian societies in general, have a strong culture of stressing the responsibility of taking care of your aging parents. In China, the preference for boys during the one child policy days was often decried as this misogynistic practice, but was not understood as the practical choice that it was. Parents preferred boys because boys were expected to be responsible for financially supporting and taking care of their parents, while daughters were expected to marry out and take care of her husband’s parents instead.
All of this, and when you consider that the average age a Japanese person, for example, moves out of their parents’ house is in their late mid to late 20s. How many years do people have where they are living in their own, developing themselves and their relationships, without severely aging parents to worry about yet, and are ready to have children? And people who live with their parents for that long into adulthood already develop a much more attached relationship style. They are people vying for your attention. They’re lonely when you do finally move out. You feel pressured to devote time and energy to them.
In reality, I think women opting out of motherhood has the exact opposite cause of women’s liberation. It’s because they already have dependents relying on them by the time they move out and start living for themselves. Their own parents. I think developed societies and the internet pushing us to stay inside growing up, is amping up this parent child codependency system. It’s not feminism. It’s filial piety.
"I am skeptical of the claim that the reason women are opting out of motherhood more is some win of feminist liberation and smashing the patriarchy."
I didn't make this claim. The article poses a hypothetical question, which you are avoiding.
The question is, what if women, by YOUR standards, don't like having babies? And, what if the only way they will do so is if, by YOUR standards, they are effectively forced to?
You kinda are making that claim here. But admittedly, I was combining this article with your recent hotline discussion of pretty much the same topic where you absolutely do make that claim. But even here you pose the possibility that maybe “happy and free women are not birthing women.” I don’t think women opting out of birthing has anything to do with freedom and happiness. I think they are just being pressured to emotionally caretake and be depended on their parents, and then physically take care of them into their twilight. That’s my theory that I came up with in a day.
I’m definitely not avoiding the question. It’s just not the interesting part for me because I absolutely couldn’t care less about the extinction of humanity. It doesn’t at all contribute to my immense existential dread. So I would never advocate for shaming women into birthing. I would easily choose humanity’s extinction over enforcing women’s servitude. I don’t find any comfort or feeling of immortality in the continuation of humanity. Especially if it requires that we are dragging women kicking and screaming into our glorious Manifest Destiny.
But I don’t have the typical feminist creation myth idea that the historical relationship between men and women is defined by our oppression of them. I think men and women have fundamentally always been cooperative. I don’t think our species would have survived under a domination relationship style. Women have too much power to have ever accepted that deal. So we have different lenses on this entire thing. You seem to think men have pretty much always been dragging women kicking and screaming into keeping our species alive. And now that women are getting more intelligent and freedom and independence, they will essentially choose to end humanity because that is preferable to them. This is the claim that I find very dubious.
About that last paragraph, I think that's likely due to Max's underlying misogyny. Maybe he doesn't think the continuation of the species is the higher goal it's historically been made out to be, but his assumptions about the nature of women in this regard casts them as something they are not. Something that mainstream society technically should want to enslave and control, lest they destroy existence itself. I think his view on this is pretty deranged, though I can see the things that suggest it's possibility. I think he's projecting his feelings onto women at large in this regard. Not to say that no women feel the way he does, but that he thinks it's an inherent quality in the majority of free women. I think ultimately he asks a compelling question, but the conclusion he comes to tells you more about his underlying assumptions about women than their realities.
I definitely don’t think society “should” want to control women even if they are naturally anti-natalist and want to end existence. But I agree with what I think your point is, that women are not actually anti-natalist.
For somebody who talks about how rape is evolutionary selected for behavior to replicate yourself and pass on your genes, simultaneously holding the belief that evolution would select for enough women who do not like the idea of having babies or replicating themselves, to the point where we’d go extinct, unless we shame them and limit their freedoms, doesn’t seem to make a lick of sense.
Which is why I developed my theory that women probably do by and large want to replicate themselves, but are choosing not to because of the constraints and familial construction of modern developed society. And that parents are essentially grooming their kids to take care of them.
I'd like to challenge you to bring your thoughts on this to Stefan Molyneux. (Or just have a conversation with him in general.) He is a pro-natalist and his manner of thinking objectively is similar to yours. I think it would be an extremely interesting conversation and challenging for both parties since you are both very articulate and exact in describing your positions and how you came to them.
I usually feel your writing on a profoundly deep level but I think this article might be a false premise (or "jumping the gun", so to speak)
Having kids is selfish and narcissistic, and the woman always ends up suffering the most and taking the brunt of the work in regards to raising children. All of this is true, and I agree that feminism is likely directly correlated with having less kids. I think you're ignoring something pretty important, though.
America and many other first-world countries are plighted by shitty wages, unaffordable housing, and a general lack of social education. Most couples with or without kids are working full-time. This is something that transcends conservative/progressive. Most people are simply not in a good enough spot to have kids.
And let me be clear, women waking up and realizing that they can be more than wombs and fucktoys who do nothing but raise children all day (and eventually become neurotic) is a good thing. Good for everyone, I think. But a lot of progressive couples still want kids.
Let's fast-forward to my ideal future. Gender norms have been abolished and social equality between the sexes is normalized, every man and woman can afford food and an apartment if they work full-time. Couples who both work make more than enough money to afford a house and anything else to fulfill the white picket fence dream. Uhhh, something something AI...
Do you really think we'd go extinct? Do you really think everyone in this progressive society would just not have kids?
I understand what you're saying (I really do) and maybe even agree, but I'd argue that you're operating without enough information here.
The article is a hypothetical question. The only way "what if women don't like having babies" can be called a false premise is if you think it's so impossible that I can't coherently even ask the question.
I remember you used to use the term anti-human as a retort to other people's arguments or positions they held. Intentional or not, it felt like an emotive term meant to signal to the other person and the audience that their position was bad, like calling someone or something racist. So I'm surprised you're now taking or I guess simply accepting the ultimate anti-human position - extinction of the human species being an acceptable outcome.
As I was listening to you make the argument on the hotline I think my answer was an easy yes, we should force women to have children if it means delaying extinction. After having though about it more I’m not sure. But I think it might be more due to my general apathy and not to spare women. It’s an interesting though experiment. Would I be willing to be enslaved if that would ensure the survival of the species for at least one more generation? Possibly? I guess it would depend on the type of enslavement.
I’m really surprised by your position on this. You made it clear you’d obviously want to delay death as much as possible in one of the previous hotlines. Is it just your own death? Or do you just think the cost in this case is too high? Otherwise why does it matter if you die in your own bed when you’re old, surrounded by friends and family or in a gas chamber (possibly also surrounded by friends and family)?
I'm pretty sure Max mostly referred to shaming people for their natural urges or denying that those urges even existed/were natural as "anti-human" this is wholly different from that.
Ignoring the evopsych drivel as a way to explain the invention of rape...
The original author’s argument is either a semantic game or a case of trademark MrGirl myopia.
Reproduction isn't just a biological imperative; it's an expression of self-love. For a woman to deny oneself this self-love is a sign of a pathology, an economic or logistic strategy, or some emotional hiccup. Also... for women, there's a odious requirement: it requires a male partner. This partnership almost certainly promises a tumultuous, torturous parenthood, adding to the already immense challenges of motherhood. On top of this, women face asphyxiating cultural expectations and are devalued by a patriarchal society that prizes productivity above all else. A workforce composed of mothers is a terribly inefficient one.
This all serves to counter the question the author disregards so hastily: "What if a woman just doesn't want to have children?"
Instead of engaging with this, the author proposes a thought experiment about a future where we must choose between enforcing rape and going extinct. He would rather entertain that fantasy than confront the presently harrowing truth: Western society hates women, resents womanhood, and detests mothers (unless they are paying customers).
It is truly asinine to look at the birth rate graph and see a coincidence that affluent, liberal women are choosing not to have children. As if this dynamic weren't enough to dissuade women, there's also the fact that here is no possible "Mr. Right." Of course, if you've been brainwashed, any man with a pulse, a good job, handsome, a clean criminal record, and basic hygiene will do—until the "Mr. Right" facade inevitably frays and the lizard-brained ape starts to grunt. This blame of this is not exclusively in men, but also how society views the perfect man. There's no place for truly unpalatable, nasty (but benign) character flaws in relationships without souring the relationship in our current narrative of relationships.
A culture of resentment towards women makes them, rightfully and justifiably, resent men. In particularly observant women, it can even make them resent womanhood itself.
The author flirted with something interesting here—the correlation in birth rates between liberal and conservative women—but abandoned it just as quickly. Feminist women are often characterized by their rage and their unwillingness to concede. This isn't a personality flaw; it's a necessary defense against a continuous, multi-faceted barrage of misogyny.
The author misses the forest for the trees. Then, he plants an artificial, futuristic tree to distract from the issue, asking, "What if we have to choose between shaming women into reproducing or going extinct?" Such a future is simply one where women's resentment of men, and even of their own reproductive function, is allowed to fester & progress untendingly.
To ensure that liberated women want to reproduce, we must neutralize the Andrew Tates and Donald Trumps of the world. We must get rid of beauty pageants, disempower the wimpy "I'm-an-ally" male feminists, and sideline the MrGirls of the world, who compulsively create relationship dynamics where their girlfriends must adopt the man's frame lest they are seen as less intelligent (since it is the man who defines, frames, and dispenses intelligence and truth).
Most importantly, we must fundamentally reform manhood and confusingly, put the onus on manhood rather than women (as the author of this substack suggests, then pats himself on the back for choosing extinction).
I know I'm stepping around your problem instead of facing it, but we only need to keep pressuring women until an artificial womb is invented to make up the difference. Feminism should consider if this is a priority. I don't really like this third choice either.
If feminism is not having kids, then if we let the conservatives continue society, we can happily fulfill our feminist relationships, but sadly we don’t get to see a society that is truly empowering of women because society would collapse before that can be achieved.
The point at which women are liberated is the point at which humanity is liberated from the shackles of biology, and is extinct. Life itself is anti-woman.
However, can’t we just use technology to have children without making women carry them? And then we can use AI to raise them. That’s a non-extinct future we can achieve that is feminist.
I can’t imagine living so much of one’s life through the lens of how much it oppresses women to the extent that you and mrgirl do. It’s like being anti-yourself. Which I think both of y’all have admitted to having self-hatred due to being men. I think it’s obviously a good thing to be conscious of women’s struggles and the way they are mistreated. But I think there’s a line where it gets to just be self-indulgent self-flagellation. I also think the old idea that everything is about sex is right more often than it is wrong, so I question how much of this self hatred is just another evolved mating strategy for y’all tbh. I understand that certain threshold of self-awareness and intelligence comes with a self-hatred but the combined exaltation of women’s eternal victimhood is a bit much for me. It’s funny, because I am drawn to people like mrgirl and you because y’all feel things deeply. I am a person who is very numb and guarded emotionally. I think it’s bad that I am this way. I think I am far less intimate with people than y’all get to be, and that’s sad. But damn, at least I don’t hate myself for having a penis.
You're implying that the only way to not hate yourself is to ignore your impact on others. Why does acknowledging that we oppress women mean that we have to hate ourselves? It's not like I designed the damn species or the societal structures we form.
Thank you. I could not have said it better myself.
You're welcome.
It was great to read your work for its craftsmanship, and dedication to research, journalism, and analysis. Excellent work.
Why thank you, I appreciate it.
this whole thought experiment is sick no matter which way you slice it, your thoughts no matter how abstract you make them propogate and have real world consequences, i urge you to be more considerate with what you consider inside thoughts and outside thoughts. this is coming from a place of love
i dont want to live in a reality where we force people to give birth, if i had to choose between civilization and womens rights, i would choose womens rights. but this isnt a zero sum game, we dont have to make that choice, i hope we never will
i think the proposition is flawed in that the thought experiment outsources imagination and survival to “lets just force ppl to give birth” there has to be other options lol
Good read. As a human who will die, I don't care if human's go extinct. Individually, we all go extinct eventually.
Overpopulation has driven down men's value which can only be restored upon managed decline.
Your bad sperm
This isn't about feminism, this is about Judaism.
my takeaway from this is that critical thinking seems to have been a dysgenic development, conductive to the degeneration and self destruction of humanity. tolerance for disruptive ideas and behaviors interfere with the collective functioning of a species.
effective, long lived species are essentially fascistic.
What if it is just another evolutionary mechanism that is yet to be understood? Does a caterpillar fear what lies on the other side of the cocoon?
I am skeptical of the claim that the reason women are opting out of motherhood more is some win of feminist liberation and smashing the patriarchy. I don’t think the lowest birth rates would be in places like Japan/China, if that were the case. Japan and China are not some ultra feminist societies. In China they were killing baby girls not that long ago.
I think the reason why birth rates drop in developed countries is life expectancy. More old people, and older people living longer means what? Taking care of your parents. It also means living with your parents for longer in a lot of cases because of how long it takes to become educated for the workforces in more developed societies. For somebody who often talks about how a lot of the way we turn out as people is shaped by our family dynamics growing up, I’m surprised you haven’t considered this.
Japan, China and East Asian societies in general, have a strong culture of stressing the responsibility of taking care of your aging parents. In China, the preference for boys during the one child policy days was often decried as this misogynistic practice, but was not understood as the practical choice that it was. Parents preferred boys because boys were expected to be responsible for financially supporting and taking care of their parents, while daughters were expected to marry out and take care of her husband’s parents instead.
All of this, and when you consider that the average age a Japanese person, for example, moves out of their parents’ house is in their late mid to late 20s. How many years do people have where they are living in their own, developing themselves and their relationships, without severely aging parents to worry about yet, and are ready to have children? And people who live with their parents for that long into adulthood already develop a much more attached relationship style. They are people vying for your attention. They’re lonely when you do finally move out. You feel pressured to devote time and energy to them.
In reality, I think women opting out of motherhood has the exact opposite cause of women’s liberation. It’s because they already have dependents relying on them by the time they move out and start living for themselves. Their own parents. I think developed societies and the internet pushing us to stay inside growing up, is amping up this parent child codependency system. It’s not feminism. It’s filial piety.
"I am skeptical of the claim that the reason women are opting out of motherhood more is some win of feminist liberation and smashing the patriarchy."
I didn't make this claim. The article poses a hypothetical question, which you are avoiding.
The question is, what if women, by YOUR standards, don't like having babies? And, what if the only way they will do so is if, by YOUR standards, they are effectively forced to?
You kinda are making that claim here. But admittedly, I was combining this article with your recent hotline discussion of pretty much the same topic where you absolutely do make that claim. But even here you pose the possibility that maybe “happy and free women are not birthing women.” I don’t think women opting out of birthing has anything to do with freedom and happiness. I think they are just being pressured to emotionally caretake and be depended on their parents, and then physically take care of them into their twilight. That’s my theory that I came up with in a day.
I’m definitely not avoiding the question. It’s just not the interesting part for me because I absolutely couldn’t care less about the extinction of humanity. It doesn’t at all contribute to my immense existential dread. So I would never advocate for shaming women into birthing. I would easily choose humanity’s extinction over enforcing women’s servitude. I don’t find any comfort or feeling of immortality in the continuation of humanity. Especially if it requires that we are dragging women kicking and screaming into our glorious Manifest Destiny.
But I don’t have the typical feminist creation myth idea that the historical relationship between men and women is defined by our oppression of them. I think men and women have fundamentally always been cooperative. I don’t think our species would have survived under a domination relationship style. Women have too much power to have ever accepted that deal. So we have different lenses on this entire thing. You seem to think men have pretty much always been dragging women kicking and screaming into keeping our species alive. And now that women are getting more intelligent and freedom and independence, they will essentially choose to end humanity because that is preferable to them. This is the claim that I find very dubious.
About that last paragraph, I think that's likely due to Max's underlying misogyny. Maybe he doesn't think the continuation of the species is the higher goal it's historically been made out to be, but his assumptions about the nature of women in this regard casts them as something they are not. Something that mainstream society technically should want to enslave and control, lest they destroy existence itself. I think his view on this is pretty deranged, though I can see the things that suggest it's possibility. I think he's projecting his feelings onto women at large in this regard. Not to say that no women feel the way he does, but that he thinks it's an inherent quality in the majority of free women. I think ultimately he asks a compelling question, but the conclusion he comes to tells you more about his underlying assumptions about women than their realities.
I definitely don’t think society “should” want to control women even if they are naturally anti-natalist and want to end existence. But I agree with what I think your point is, that women are not actually anti-natalist.
For somebody who talks about how rape is evolutionary selected for behavior to replicate yourself and pass on your genes, simultaneously holding the belief that evolution would select for enough women who do not like the idea of having babies or replicating themselves, to the point where we’d go extinct, unless we shame them and limit their freedoms, doesn’t seem to make a lick of sense.
Which is why I developed my theory that women probably do by and large want to replicate themselves, but are choosing not to because of the constraints and familial construction of modern developed society. And that parents are essentially grooming their kids to take care of them.
I'd like to challenge you to bring your thoughts on this to Stefan Molyneux. (Or just have a conversation with him in general.) He is a pro-natalist and his manner of thinking objectively is similar to yours. I think it would be an extremely interesting conversation and challenging for both parties since you are both very articulate and exact in describing your positions and how you came to them.
I usually feel your writing on a profoundly deep level but I think this article might be a false premise (or "jumping the gun", so to speak)
Having kids is selfish and narcissistic, and the woman always ends up suffering the most and taking the brunt of the work in regards to raising children. All of this is true, and I agree that feminism is likely directly correlated with having less kids. I think you're ignoring something pretty important, though.
America and many other first-world countries are plighted by shitty wages, unaffordable housing, and a general lack of social education. Most couples with or without kids are working full-time. This is something that transcends conservative/progressive. Most people are simply not in a good enough spot to have kids.
And let me be clear, women waking up and realizing that they can be more than wombs and fucktoys who do nothing but raise children all day (and eventually become neurotic) is a good thing. Good for everyone, I think. But a lot of progressive couples still want kids.
Let's fast-forward to my ideal future. Gender norms have been abolished and social equality between the sexes is normalized, every man and woman can afford food and an apartment if they work full-time. Couples who both work make more than enough money to afford a house and anything else to fulfill the white picket fence dream. Uhhh, something something AI...
Do you really think we'd go extinct? Do you really think everyone in this progressive society would just not have kids?
I understand what you're saying (I really do) and maybe even agree, but I'd argue that you're operating without enough information here.
The article is a hypothetical question. The only way "what if women don't like having babies" can be called a false premise is if you think it's so impossible that I can't coherently even ask the question.
I literally just misunderstood the point of the article and I apologize, I was pretty sleep deprived when I made that comment.
I remember you used to use the term anti-human as a retort to other people's arguments or positions they held. Intentional or not, it felt like an emotive term meant to signal to the other person and the audience that their position was bad, like calling someone or something racist. So I'm surprised you're now taking or I guess simply accepting the ultimate anti-human position - extinction of the human species being an acceptable outcome.
Humans will go extinct, whether we accept it or not. It's not anti-human to admit that extinction is the necessary endpoint of any species.
The thought experiment is this: what if women just don't like having babies? Would you make them do it for the purpose of delaying extinction?
As I was listening to you make the argument on the hotline I think my answer was an easy yes, we should force women to have children if it means delaying extinction. After having though about it more I’m not sure. But I think it might be more due to my general apathy and not to spare women. It’s an interesting though experiment. Would I be willing to be enslaved if that would ensure the survival of the species for at least one more generation? Possibly? I guess it would depend on the type of enslavement.
I’m really surprised by your position on this. You made it clear you’d obviously want to delay death as much as possible in one of the previous hotlines. Is it just your own death? Or do you just think the cost in this case is too high? Otherwise why does it matter if you die in your own bed when you’re old, surrounded by friends and family or in a gas chamber (possibly also surrounded by friends and family)?
I'm pretty sure Max mostly referred to shaming people for their natural urges or denying that those urges even existed/were natural as "anti-human" this is wholly different from that.
Ignoring the evopsych drivel as a way to explain the invention of rape...
The original author’s argument is either a semantic game or a case of trademark MrGirl myopia.
Reproduction isn't just a biological imperative; it's an expression of self-love. For a woman to deny oneself this self-love is a sign of a pathology, an economic or logistic strategy, or some emotional hiccup. Also... for women, there's a odious requirement: it requires a male partner. This partnership almost certainly promises a tumultuous, torturous parenthood, adding to the already immense challenges of motherhood. On top of this, women face asphyxiating cultural expectations and are devalued by a patriarchal society that prizes productivity above all else. A workforce composed of mothers is a terribly inefficient one.
This all serves to counter the question the author disregards so hastily: "What if a woman just doesn't want to have children?"
Instead of engaging with this, the author proposes a thought experiment about a future where we must choose between enforcing rape and going extinct. He would rather entertain that fantasy than confront the presently harrowing truth: Western society hates women, resents womanhood, and detests mothers (unless they are paying customers).
It is truly asinine to look at the birth rate graph and see a coincidence that affluent, liberal women are choosing not to have children. As if this dynamic weren't enough to dissuade women, there's also the fact that here is no possible "Mr. Right." Of course, if you've been brainwashed, any man with a pulse, a good job, handsome, a clean criminal record, and basic hygiene will do—until the "Mr. Right" facade inevitably frays and the lizard-brained ape starts to grunt. This blame of this is not exclusively in men, but also how society views the perfect man. There's no place for truly unpalatable, nasty (but benign) character flaws in relationships without souring the relationship in our current narrative of relationships.
A culture of resentment towards women makes them, rightfully and justifiably, resent men. In particularly observant women, it can even make them resent womanhood itself.
The author flirted with something interesting here—the correlation in birth rates between liberal and conservative women—but abandoned it just as quickly. Feminist women are often characterized by their rage and their unwillingness to concede. This isn't a personality flaw; it's a necessary defense against a continuous, multi-faceted barrage of misogyny.
The author misses the forest for the trees. Then, he plants an artificial, futuristic tree to distract from the issue, asking, "What if we have to choose between shaming women into reproducing or going extinct?" Such a future is simply one where women's resentment of men, and even of their own reproductive function, is allowed to fester & progress untendingly.
To ensure that liberated women want to reproduce, we must neutralize the Andrew Tates and Donald Trumps of the world. We must get rid of beauty pageants, disempower the wimpy "I'm-an-ally" male feminists, and sideline the MrGirls of the world, who compulsively create relationship dynamics where their girlfriends must adopt the man's frame lest they are seen as less intelligent (since it is the man who defines, frames, and dispenses intelligence and truth).
Most importantly, we must fundamentally reform manhood and confusingly, put the onus on manhood rather than women (as the author of this substack suggests, then pats himself on the back for choosing extinction).
“A workforce composed of mothers is a terribly inefficient one.”
Feminism wanted it so they got it.
I know I'm stepping around your problem instead of facing it, but we only need to keep pressuring women until an artificial womb is invented to make up the difference. Feminism should consider if this is a priority. I don't really like this third choice either.
If feminism is not having kids, then if we let the conservatives continue society, we can happily fulfill our feminist relationships, but sadly we don’t get to see a society that is truly empowering of women because society would collapse before that can be achieved.
The point at which women are liberated is the point at which humanity is liberated from the shackles of biology, and is extinct. Life itself is anti-woman.
However, can’t we just use technology to have children without making women carry them? And then we can use AI to raise them. That’s a non-extinct future we can achieve that is feminist.
"Life itself is anti-woman." If women literally just don't like having babies, then yes, this follows.
so, we have artificial wombs producing children, who are then raised by non-humans?
why would that be a 'non-extinct future'?
at that point we'd be completely obsolete, functionally extinct.
I can’t imagine living so much of one’s life through the lens of how much it oppresses women to the extent that you and mrgirl do. It’s like being anti-yourself. Which I think both of y’all have admitted to having self-hatred due to being men. I think it’s obviously a good thing to be conscious of women’s struggles and the way they are mistreated. But I think there’s a line where it gets to just be self-indulgent self-flagellation. I also think the old idea that everything is about sex is right more often than it is wrong, so I question how much of this self hatred is just another evolved mating strategy for y’all tbh. I understand that certain threshold of self-awareness and intelligence comes with a self-hatred but the combined exaltation of women’s eternal victimhood is a bit much for me. It’s funny, because I am drawn to people like mrgirl and you because y’all feel things deeply. I am a person who is very numb and guarded emotionally. I think it’s bad that I am this way. I think I am far less intimate with people than y’all get to be, and that’s sad. But damn, at least I don’t hate myself for having a penis.
You're implying that the only way to not hate yourself is to ignore your impact on others. Why does acknowledging that we oppress women mean that we have to hate ourselves? It's not like I designed the damn species or the societal structures we form.
Life itself is anti-women? Many other species have females devouring the male after intercourse.
I am a human.