@adam-l

I generally agree with what you said there. But would you mind expanding on why you think women should be excluded from humanist ideas, and what you believe is the scientific basis for why it is so?

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

See, I tend to think that taking women seriously as autonomous people - rather than some idealised fantasy conjured up in the minds of men - is rather essential when it comes to (ironically enough) the liberation of men from the traditionalist ball and chain.

So when feminist say stuff like: "Feminism also liberates men", I tend to agree with that. Probably not for the same reasons as they think, but outcome-wise, sure.

And just to back that up with an example: The traditionalist, (I would claim) idealised view on women, puts them in the position of main caregiver of children. In contrast, the more feminist view on women largely takes away that assumption, and thus paves the way for men to have more access to their children in the event they decide to divorce their wives.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that a more humanistic view on women (more than just wives and mothers) in many ways relegates them from the ramped up position they used to have in a more traditionalist climate. And so, relatively speaking, that elevates the position of men (as parents, amongst other things).

I know the U.S. is far different in many ways, but in Western Europe this progressive mindset is usually legislated by law when it comes to things like divorce and custody. Only 30 years ago, I would have had a hard time seeing my kids more than every other weekend if I ever decided to divorce my wife. Today it wouldn't be nearly as hard to get 50/50 - which is also partly because women are expected to work (and why shouldn't they be?).

@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.

@adam-l

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".

You absolutely shouldn’t. Which is coincidentally why Lionsmane was getting called out so often. Blaming a disparate collection of “white people” for the wrongs of the world is essentially retarded, and doesn’t deserve a deeper discussion because no one has really been identified within that criticism. It is a progressive generalisation used to propagate mind rot like critical race theory, adopted by self-proclaimed enemies of the west like islamists in order to undermine and serve their own goals.

But there upon we should identify the deeper value lost in our rejection of their generalisation- that of a collective identity. If not “whites”, then what? Europeans? Anglos? Or is it only possible to separate ourselves from the crimes of TPTB why stripping ourselves down to individualism? Are we a collective within that identity? Why are we even moved to reconsider our own identity against the backdrop of being grouped in with maniacs and genociders just because they share the same skin tone as us.

I say we’re free to claim our identity without having to step into the progressive variation and/or generalisation of said identity, lest they continue to dismantle our communities and families to the point we no longer have a shared identity.

@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"