@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.

@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"