@Durek_The_Bald

Thanks for giving me the chance to explain. It will be necessarily schematic, but here goes.

There is evidence from neurobiology that women and men are indeed different. It's qualitative, it's not that men are more of this or that. What it basically comes down to is that women process things differently, and have a real problem discerning thoughts from emotions and themselves from others. Therein comes the "connectedness" of the female collective.

The whole of humanist philosophy supposed an agentic individual, a core self. Women lack that. In that regard, recent feminist literature is quite revealing: they don't talk about a "self" at all, they talk about a "relational being". At the same time, they do away with being altogether, equating "doing" with "being". A performative existence is the highest a woman can do. Of course they don't put it that way, that would put them in disadvantage. No, they posit that everyone is performative. Lacking a core in their psyche themselves they suppose that there is not one there in others. (That's a typical psychopathic trait, btw).

What it comes down to is that women lack the notion of notions itself. You can't put them down. They are ethereal beings living in a cloud, or something. "You can't trust them for anything", as Esther Vilar concluded.

A snapshot of a particular woman or of women in general, can tell otherwise, but that's because it is a snapshot. See them in motion, see them shape-shift.

It's no wonder, then, that they fail to take responsibility. This is another basic tenet of humanism.

So, humanism was based on a male view of humans. It respects the human being, provided it's a full human being - while making concessions for our unlucky fellow-humams born with inferior mental qualities. It just, at some point, made the assumption that women fully participate in its perception of humanity. That's explicitly not what early humanists thought (e.g. Kant, and it can go back to older philosophers).

Now, regarding the discussion about children, custody etc... it's not about traditionalism vs feminism. I believe that men should take full custody by default, as was the case a century ago. But drawing the political implications of my arguments about female nature is not the point: we are as far from puting them in practice as humanity has ever been. Humanity will rather self-destruct than acknowledge each other's humanity.

I propose this line of thinking, which is imo scientifically sound, as a way to navigate today's dynamics: Arguments with your wife, with your female coworkers, women you game, etc. It's a philosophical device in order to survive in today's misandry. And it is protective of the children: it highlights the absolute necessity of a father in their life, and the grave danger they are in, in his absence.

Again, these are probably too many words but not nearly enough, I don't know if this makes any sense to you.

@Manofcave

Brutal reality check, how can i man the fuck up?

Yesterday i was talking to this girl who liked me, we even talked sexual stuff, everything was going pretty well, i was interesting(cool hobbies), agreed and amplified, i sent her my body pic with 12% bodyfat(visible 6 packs) and decent muscles, she found it to be really hot, she's an unemployed skinny fat chick who's never set a foot in the gym(im sure even her dms are full with dudes). Then she asked my height and i told 5'10 (actually 5'8) and it was over, she said she wont sleep with anyone under 6' as her previous bf was 6' skinny dude, brutal slap straight in the face.

i know i wont ever reach the level of success a genetic specimen can reach without putting in any effort, but my effort I've put on for years on end to yield me failures all my life whenever I've tried puts me in depression from time to time, like id go to the gym consistently for 6 months and then it hits and i go into depression for 2 months completely starving myself and loosing all my gains .

I've tried everything guys from cold approaching (40+) to dating apps( got 2 matches in a month) to tried being friends with chicks irl (warm approach), and nothing has ever worked in my entire like till now. a KV no matter of how much i try and improve based on the field approaches i do, don't lead to any tangible results

for context I'm a bald(was Norwood 3 so i shaved it all) 20yo man who needs to man the fuck up but don't know how to do so.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtwiAkUj5Go

Study the book and you'll do better next time around, short stuff. Besides, nothing good ever came of men whose self-confidence was dependent on female validation. Self-confidence is a result of pursuing and overcoming the various challenges of life. During which time, you come to understand what interests, drives, and motivates you. To that end, I suggest that you get yourself two sheets of paper, a pen, and sit down at a table.

On the first sheet write down a list of things that you've been putting off on the back burner due to work, schooling, or just life in general. It doesn't matter how silly, or stupid the task or idea might be, just write it down. When you're done, take the second sheet of paper, and re-write the items from the first list starting with what you believe to be the simplest, easiest task, to the most complicated.

When you're done with the second list, get to work. The challenge once you've got the list done won't be simply accomplishing them, but not allowing yourself to be de-spirited whenever you encounter difficulty, or failure. To not let yourself be defeated. You'll spend the time to troubleshoot and diagnose the problem, then start over. If you need help, ask. There's no shortage of #books we can recommend that may help you achieve your goal.

Best of luck to you.

@Stigma

My conclusion regarding the identity is that Humanism is the way to go.

A lot of the "progressives" were instrumental in forming the humanist tradition. The fact that it has been taken over by the Woke doesn't change its fundamental values.

So, for example, we wouldn't be here is it wasn't for people like Herb Goldberg or Warren Farrell.

We wouldn't be here without some conservatives too, like Rollo.

TRP is supposed to be amoral, and it is, in the sense that we discuss strategy irrespective of its moral repercussions. However, a big part of TRP can be seen as restoring a moral balance, if only because society is tilted so much towards women. This restoration has very tangible results, such as on the upbringing of children and their mental health. It is, of course, irreplaceable as far as men's wellbeing is considered.

The Humanists somewhere lost it and included women in their reasoning, to their demise. We now know, scientifically, why women must be excluded. That way, the humanist ideas still stand and can provide a sense of community and identity for men all over the world.

@Typo-MAGAshiv

OK here's how I see it.

There is a multi-billion dollar industry, plus the hard core of about all the countries in the world, spearheaded by the Anglo-Saxons, that has been pushing a bogus gender theory for the past half a century or more. About 100% of the huge movie industry is single-mindedly focused on pushing that narrative. They have destroyed the lives and mental health of millions of people.

And we're just a bunch of guys, basing ourselves on the research of a handful of spergy evolutionary psychologists and our own experience, that have countered that huge narrative successfully: boys growing up now have an alternative, even if they still need to be lucky to bump onto it.

What we've done is the equivalent of taking over an aircraft carrier with an AK-47.

In the face of all this, why the fuck would I draw identity from and identify with such a huge and variant group as "the whites".

Take a page out of Einstein's book: "Although I am a typical loner in daily life, my consciousness of belonging to the invisible community of those who strive for truth, beauty, and justice has preserved me from feeling isolated"

@Typo-MAGAshiv

White people have ended slavery in all countries under our control. It has been this way for well over a century.

Speaking of crocks of shit, the above represents a carefully crafted and maintained rationalization and cope. The American South had to get dragged kicking and screaming at the point of cannons to end formal slavery within the USA, and the attitude of presumptive superiority and dominion over black people still lives on today in huge numbers of the people there. I know this because they frequently blurt it out publicly from their own mouths.

America didn't END slavery, it only put superficial layers of disconnect and plausible deniability over it by subcontracting it to other nations with large and powerless populations that could get exploited, and the spoils of this still funneling directly to the wallets of a very tiny percentage of Americans. The practice lives on strongly today, take Iran as a current example. Look at how we uncreatively had invested years grooming a member of the Pahlavi family to step in when Iran's government "fell" (note the passive voice) under military assault by the US and our dirty proxy Israel, to restore the brutal control of the Iraqi masses and go back to treating the oil under their sand as OUR property.

I find disgusting the presumption that currently and formerly enslaved people get expected to behave with servile gratitude for our direct and indirect exploitation of them. That we did them some kind of favor, that whatever crumbs remain from what we take from their lands and their labors exist only because of our exploitive presence there.