Drop_It_Like_Its_Hoppe

It's incredibly disingenuous of you to conflate my argument of biology with globalist political/economic perspective. You're a butthead, and I hate you.

It isn't a strawman. AdamC clearly considered "species" a collectivist concept worth shaming in that quote.

"Nothing is more narcissistic than to shame people for the sake of self-serving collectivist concepts like society or 'species'." - AdamC This statement is a complete revolt against nature. Our species is our genes, and our genes want to survive - This is biology, this is nature. Of course it is "self-serving" of the entire species, because we are the species of homo sapien, and we would like for ourselves (as homo sapiens) to live on and survive into the future. I say "we" because that is what all of our genes (yes, OUR genes) want - to survive on. According to AdamC, to think this way is just "collectivist" thinking. What a conveniant word that has become, to be used to shame anything and everything that is not exclusively of the 'individual'. So AdamC uses it to shame our nature, our evolution, and our biology. This sort of radical individualism is inane and destructive. Homo Sapiens are a social species, and as such, we want to live on and survive - This means we will have a tendency to be "collective" to some degre, it is natural, and must be accepted for our survival as a species. I am not a radical individual, nor am I a radical collectivist. I am a man.

Oh dear, you really are unhinged, aren't ya'? So now "species" is a "collectivist" concept worth shaming? You Stefbots have truly lost it, haven't you? And shame the family unit for being "collectivist" while we're at it, yeah, brilliant stuff. You clearly have a side here and aren't interested in critiques of it (MGTOW, Radical MRA). This thread is about that, and if you don't like it, then get out and don't bother commenting. Feminism is a tiresome ubject these days, and you all know the evils of it - Thus I brought this up which is new and relevant.

Of course it should be a voluntary arrangement, but it is not shameful to recognize the natural and biological suggestions of both genders, particularly in regards to the family, and the development of children. I would say that it is an obligation to children (and society at large) in finding the most practical ways of protection, nurture, and development; thus the biological nature of men and women cannot be disregarded, as even you recognize this when you bring up the man's "protector instinct", or likewise the woman's "nurturer instinct". However, beyond all that, I am just not a fan of the Conflict Theory that some of these MRM's seem to be going for- I think it will just help further the decline, either by strength or speed. But then again, the decline is inevitable.

I don't see any substantive parallels with feminism since MGTOWs/"Zeta Males" are not advocating as a group (men don't easily see themselves as a part of a group) and are not proposing to use state violence to achieve their ends because to do so would be to risk putting women in harm's way. "Men Going Their Own Way" equates to each individual man going his own way and not to an alleged or feared state-sponsored "gender separatist" movement in the manner of radical feminism. To gain any traction at all, such a male separatist movement would have to first overcome men's biologically hard-wired protector instinct – and that's not going to happen any time soon. Plus most men want secure relationships and happy families. MGTOW = Can't live with feministic women; can't possibly put any woman in harm's way; the only dignified and honorable option is to go my own way. I guess I'm generalizing based on a few loud-mouths in the movement that have made names of themselves on Youtube, such as this Barbarossa character that argued that women should be considered more "disposable" and put in more military positions, and that men should have more state-funding for particular medical problems like testicular cancer. I believe he was also the first to come out with the "Traditionalist Smear" tactics that RockingMrE was talking about. It is true that men are not group-thinkers like women, so I doubt such psychology could take advantage of all men in such a way that feminism has for women. However, I remain cautious as to the intentions of this movement, and its ever-growing popularity, that it will just become another ideology for which the Marxists can take advantage of and promote as a narrative to further push the "State is family" garbage. I do not want a world where the relationship between men and women is cold and detached, while the state handles the children. There's already nascent legislation in Canada which will "protect" parental rights by assigning government committees to monitor divorce children.

Unfortunately, that sounds like a typical "Man up!" shaming tactic: “Men are shirking their God-given responsibility to marry and bear children.” Any man possessing the virtue of responsiblity will recognize when his own virtue is being used against him in the service of another's power over him. MGTOW/Zeta Male seems to be a spectrum of perspectives that range from abstaining from ALL relationships with women (because women are too dangerous/"hypergamous"), to raising the standard of expectations for relationships with women (because women are desirable for relationships and necessary as partners in parenting). It should go without saying that all adult relationships are improved by the mutual recognition that all adult relationships should be voluntary, and that this recognition is a precondition to a healthy family where children can draw additional strength from the earned security of their parents' relationship. Thanks for the links to RockingMrE. He does a good job of warning against the sort of polarization that inevitably arises in any sustained discourse. I never said all MRM's are like that, but it does seem to be a growing trend within the movement that recalls of Feminism's development as an ideology. And I'm not arguing from a religious stant-point, I'm arguing from nature, and biology. Many of these men sound just like feminists in that they are not willing to accept nature for what it is.

On the contrary, it would seem consistent with the MGTOW and "Zeta Masculinty" perspective that they would opt out of toil and sacrifice for the state or any other collective. AVoiceforMen: Men Going Their Own Way: JohnTheOther: "The collective/social-approval definition of male identity is: a man who is of service to, of utility to, or sacrifices on behalf of the collective, of high-status males, and most commonly, of women. Male social identity depends on the collective approval of women. Zeta Masculinity rejects all of that... something we absolutely need is male self identity apart from the disposable service to other people." Many (perhaps a majority) in the MRM recognize the state as a tool of male self-sacrifice that primarily serves the exaggerated vulnerabilities of women and the power lust of apexuals: AVoiceforMen: The Patriarchy at Feminism's Core - Part Deux: TyphonBlue: “I think that feminism really is better termed 'Harem Patriarchy'. And what I mean by that is: when alpha males – through the process of male disposability, the various social powers that enables – they start to centralize power, they start to look at women and start to want to gather them up in a quasi harem that’s circling around them. And in our society, that quasi harem is essentially the woman’s vote. This is what is happening. Our politicians, our male politicians who have achieved their power through male disposability, they have come to the point where they want to have a harem. It’s a psychological harem of female voter approval, but it’s still a harem. A lot of people say the huge thing about sex is getting approval. Well, what is voting but approval?” GirlWritesWhat: “Single women are more likely to vote Democrat, and married women are more likely to vote Republican. And its because single women want to protect their entitlements, and married women want to protect their husband’s ability to provide for them." The Apexual sees all male-bodied-individuals below itself in the hierarchy as pawns to sacrifice in its attempt to rise within the hierarchy. While it identifies with the status of the male-bodied-individuals above it, the male-bodied-individuals inhabiting those positions of greater status are merely objects to be removed. In that sense, the Apexual shares no identity with other male-bodied-individuals, but a desire to see them as tools to its own advancement in the hierarchy. And those male-bodied-individuals who either don't have power in the hierarchy or are useless to assist other male-bodied-individuals within the hierarchy – they are treated as pariahs, as untouchables, by the Apexuals, by the hierarchy, and often by male-bodied-individuals in exactly the same position. Also: GendErratic: MRAs, PUAs, MGTOWs, and How the MRM Is Not a Monolith "Now they're staying single, working fewer hours, and barely paying any taxes!" "The collective/social-approval definition of male identity is: a man who is of service to, of utility to, or sacrifices on behalf of the collective, of high-status males, and most commonly, of women. Male social identity depends on the collective approval of women. Zeta Masculinity rejects all of that... something we absolutely need is male self identity apart from the disposable service to other people." This sounds a lot like someone revolting against nature, desperate to cling to ideology in an attempt to overcome responsibility. Here are a few great videos by a guy on Youtube that deconstructs this subect quite well...

This idea started out as a legitimate cause, as the "Men's Rights Movement" (MRM) to combat against the Feminist "anti-male" culture we see all around us these days, but just recently this movement has been corrupted by the same forces that corrupted the early (and just as legitimate) "Women's Rights Movement", which morphed into radical Feminism. These MRM's have invented a new philosophy of "Men Going Their Own Way" (MGTOW), where they have had it with women, and the traditional family structure. Similar to how Feminists see their roles as mothers (nurturer, and caregiver) as some sort of servitude, men see their roles as fathers (protector, provider) as servitude. They have begun to be taken over by the Marxian theory of an oppressed class, and instead of setting things in the balance, to get men and women to once again work together to better serve their children and society, they would rather "go their own way", and forget about it. Many of the MGTOW's argue for the state (many are Communist/Socialist sympathizers), but just like Feminists, they want the state to fund what they, as men, want and desire, even at the expense of women and children. I see some dark days ahead for civilization, and especially children. If women and men continue to remain divisive by such ideologies, the West (and perhaps all of humanity) is doomed. These ideologies, whether radical feminism or radical MGTOW, is radical individualism, and a revolt against nature.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55ml0ZkqiyE&list=UU78KYdESj2xvU1Qzu fCXK2A&index=1 LMFAO!

BGI Cognitive Genomics Lab: Proposal for Gene-Trait Association Study of g: https://www.cog-genomics.org/static/pdf/bgi_g_proposal.pdf BGI Cognitive Genomics has been researching the Gene-Trait for g (intelligence) for quite some time now, and it will publish its study in a few months!!! For more information, here is their website: https://www.cog-genomics.org/faq/

You know it's true.

I do think a point worth mentioning is that Conservatism (and even popular Libertarianism to some extent) has typically been associated with Christianity/Traditionalism/Fundamentalism by popular culture, therefore the new Atheists may feel obligated to be a counter to those social and political ideas as well, because of that association.

We like to call them "ATHEISTKULT". They are mostly based on the internet, particularly on the forum 'Atheism Plus', and they consider themselves a movement, of social and political means. Their manifesto goes a little like this... “We are… Atheists plus we care about social justice, Atheists plus we care about economic equality, Atheists plus we support women’s rights, Atheists plus we protest racism, Atheists plus we fight homophobia and transphobia, Atheists plus we use critical thinking and skepticism.” It reminds me of what Nietzsche said... "God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. Yet his shadow still looms. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?" —Nietzsche, The Gay Science, Section 125 So skeptical these Atheists are, yet ever so religious, not much different to the Christians they enjoy teasing so much. For them; God may be 'dead', yet his shadow still looms, over them all.

I would like to think that had Neanderthals not gone extinct, we'd be an intergalactic species by now.