@adam-l

I think what we're talking about here, and how it all plays out, is highly dependent on the role of the state/government.

Say you get divorced under a non-welfare state, and your ex wife decides not to work; Then you, the individual male, will be expected to maintain her. And because you've perhaps always maintained her, and she's been home with the kids, family court will seek to maintain status quo, and you get relegated to every-other-weekend dad whilst footing her bills. For you, that's a double-loss, and hence it's not "safe" for a man to allow a woman into his life to that extent.

And so what do men do to try and combat that, and make it more safe? They appeal to social stigma in the form of traditionalism, honor, purity, "holding women accountable etc. in an attempt to keep women in line.

By contrast, under a big government, welfare state sort of society, it's really not your problem what your ex wife decides to do. The tax payer will pay for it. And it's probably never been on you to maintain her even whilst married, because child care is cheap, maternity and paternity leaves are generous, and so she was always expected to be a working mom. So now, you're also more on an even footing with regards to who's been spending the most time with the kids as well.

The same goes for the 'devouring mother' phenomenon, which you mentioned: The state/government plays a huge role here too, when it comes to what's expected of you with regards to taking care of your parents.

As you can probably tell, I'm pro government welfare. And it's exactly for reasons such as these (what's expected of a wife, what's expected of a husband, who takes care of an ex-wife, who takes care of the elderly, who takes care of the kids during working hours etc.). Because, ironically enough, I think a welfare state offers men more freedom not to be saddled with such things on an individual level.

Of course, someone is going to foot the bill for women. That is just the human condition. Even in a welfare state, it's men overall who're going to put value into the system, and women overall who're going to take value out of the system. But even then, this sort of shared responsibility of men strikes me as far safer for the individual man, rather than taking on huge risks on an individual level, and ending up in a "cheaper to keep her" situation.

@Durek_The_Bald I re-read what you wrote. You focus on the issue of the children after divorce, and compare traditionalism with a lenient version of feminism.

How you look at it depends heavily on what social class we are talking about. For a working class man, divorce today is practically a disaster. Steve Moxon was calculating that in the UK a working class man can lose about 70% of his income.

The thing is, it's not certain that the "independent working woman" thing benefits the middle class man either. Instead of divorcing and finding another woman, In the traditionalist... tradition, we would just find another woman. The mistress was an indispensable part of the traditionalist family. And society acknowledged man's greater contribution to the family, discreetly allowing him his... discretion, while frowning and disapproving of the female one.

Sure, you were saddled with a wife forever, and she could and often did turn sour. On the other hand, some wives adapted, and made a virtue out of necessity, accommodating their husbands.

So, up to this point in the analysis, it's not a clear cut between traditionalism and feminism, when it comes to divorce and custody.

Then, you have to factor the devouring mother effect. This is where my point comes in. Women are unable to make sense of the world on their own. Losing their husbands, they will either burden their children with the task, or depend on the other man - lover, second husband. Neither of these are good outcomes as far as the children are concerned.

I cannot stress this point enough, because I think it's not crystal-clear even in TRP. Even if women are financially independent, they still depend on others in order to operate. Women are the expansion set, men are the main game.

@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?).

@MentORPHEUS

The user in question apparently lives in the general region

He lives in Morocco. That's like saying a British guy is living in the general region of Ukraine, and therefore should be granted special privileges with regards to emotional outbursts and victim pukes on TRP.red.

Having said that, I would've voted against removing posts and banning him if it were up for a vote.

In the face of this fuckery and the righteous indignation of the user, I saw people here taunting him with the coping-strategies of supposed "Western superiority"

I wasn't "taunting" him with that. I was merely pointing out the fact that he's not really arguing against the morality of Western treatment of the Islamic world, seeing as he's got no problem with the Islamic world doing the exact thing to Africa.

I can fully understand that he has a problem with the pecking order. I would too if I were him. But it's a matter of intellectual honesty when debating: If you've got a problem with the pecking order, then say you've got a problem with the pecking order.

@Stigma

Are we doing the progressive reddit-think thing where hating white people isn't racist though?

As a person of a rather pasty persuasion myself, there's a part of me that wants to embrace that line of thinking ("no such thing as racism towards white people"). Because, really, it comes from a place of viewing white people as superior.

In the mind of your average Redditor, racism is an act of "punching downwards" in the racial hierarchy. Hence, members of a....(God, how am I going to put this?)..."race of higher order" can't be subjected to racism by members of a..."race of lower order". Because that would be "punching upwards".

I know this all sounds very racist in and of itself, in a white supremacy sort of way. But seriously, this is the thought pattern that the so called anti-racists and wokesies actually subscribe to.

And so, why should I - as a white person - object to someone essentially placing me at the top of the racial hierarchy, without me even having to ask for it, or demand it? I mean, racial superiority seems pretty awesome, doesn't it?

So yeah, I'm actually going to chime along on this one, and say: "It's not the same thing, stupid!"