Final Edit: I have decided to take a break from here for undecided time. I might come back when sure of myself. Limited activity at main instance.
Edit: I am replying, so please refer to them to get an idea of my worldview.
Context: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/650259 and these removed comments of mine, before Forte temp banned me
a screenshot of my comments
Before I start off, I want to tell that it is true that I am a cis het male human that holds monogamist views with the mildest of traditional takes. It is also true that despite never having had a real mother or a girlfriend in my life, I never became an incel. My mindset at the core is unapologetically survivalist, independent and masculine. I have also been chivalrous with women, and have been inclusive of the non binary communities. Some people will try to portray this as me never getting female love in life and all kinds of assumption based crap, which I can counter with years of selfless privacy community work.
I want to know what is so misogynistic about:
- a woman having multiple boyfriends and being a social player, which is very common today in the dating scene
- traditional views like monogamy instead of promiscuity are better
- social code being different for men and women
- women often dating for free food
- Western feminism not being a true representation of feminism, and how much it currently harms mainly men, and creating polarisation between both sexes
- psychology of dominance and submission in relationships factoring into the stability of any long term relationships, including marriage
Is it not deceitful to deny these patterns exist, and to just call someone misogynistic and shut down the conversation? Or have I misunderstood what Lemmygrad means for these kinds of conversations?
When did this place become so lib, that people were straight up told to "change your ways before you end up ruining a poor girl’s life", or how "using 'male' and 'female' to refer to men and women as if they're animals" is a terminology that radical feminists would otherwise get excused for? What are these assumed ideas I have that are so batshit crazy, compared to the kinds of values that hardcore masculinity gurus, Tate fans, incels/femcels hold? And what is the defined threshold expected for this place to accommodate people?
I hope I do not see a "404:site_ban" before I get to engage and get answers on this, and have a decent conversation. I am not threatening. I merely want a dialogue.
how “using ‘male’ and ‘female’ to refer to men and women as if they’re animals” is a terminology that radical feminists would otherwise get excused for?
Most radfems are also against trans people. Does this automatically give you the excuse to start being transphobic too? Despite that neither we use dehumanizing terms like "male" and "female"; nor do we believe in transphobic nonsense, so what's your excuse here?
Of course, you weren't being transphobic back in the thread but I mentioned this because, as you say, "radfems use it so it's okay if I use it too".
What, do you think we treat radfems like comrades or something? Lmfao no. Most of them can go to hell like their libfem counterparts.
When did this place become so lib
It's not "lib" to see women as something more than what you imagine women to be (merely just a pre-programmed set of behaviors without any differences or chances of growth, improvements or changes whatsoever).
Sure, some could have a few traits as mentioned above (only human after all, and some humans are scummy regardless of gender); but to say all women are like that is straight up falling towards Incel/MGTOW territory.
traditional views like monogamy instead of promiscuity are better
Very, very interesting how rather than using polygamy, you used promiscuity though. 🙂
And besides...
a woman having multiple boyfriends and being a social player, which is very common today in the dating scene
So fucking what? You men can get away with bedding lots of women and society barely bats an eye. It's only when women do the same that you guys start seething. What, do you also believe in manospherical nonsenses like how virgin women are "magical" and that a "player" woman is just "used and dried up"?
social code being different for men and women
Are these set in stone, huh? So much for being a fucking leftist if you believe in this regressing shit.
What, did you had like bad experiences with women in the past that made you develop these thoughts? Or is it the fact that you got exposed to misogynist youtubers (as a kid)? I know they are extremely popular on the subcontinent, living there myself.
What, do you think we treat radfems like comrades or something? Lmfao no.
That clarifies one point, thanks.
Sure, some could have a few traits as mentioned above (only human after all, and some humans are scummy regardless of gender); but to say all women are like that is straight up falling towards Incel/MGTOW territory.
I never said all women. I do not engage in liberal/fascist generalisation behaviours like that. However, many women in urban areas do have one or more of these behaviours, thanks to the incredible amount of sexualisation of mass media creating construed images of reality in womens' heads.
traditional views like monogamy instead of promiscuity are better
Very, very interesting how rather than using polygamy, you used promiscuity though.
Yes, I wanted to gauge a reaction on this. Polygamy is harmful for both sexes and for society as a whole. I want to cover this bit in the next part where you made a massive generalisation.
You men can get away with bedding lots of women and society barely bats an eye. It’s only when women do the same that you guys start seething.
Let me tell you a few things. Women are the gatekeepers of relationships, which includes sexual relations. If a woman says no, man will go home. And these "you men" are not all men, but probably the 10% fuckboys that engage with a lot of misled women, again, thanks to oversexualisation of mass media. This happens mostly during post teenage years upto early 30s for both sexes.
Another point I want to make is that a woman is considered purer than men for the single most important reason – she has the womb and she has to be in a healthy state to carry the baby. Woman is the one who will procreate, not the man. I know that the fuckboys/fuckgirls rationalisation is imbalanced, which is precisely why I think sex is a sacred thing, and it is not meant to be abused by anyone. Obsession with sex, drugs et al is bad for a valid reason.
Chivalry is dead. Good men never get rewarded with healthy relationships in society, until an arranged marriage in most cases has to happen. Good women either are corrupted by mass media, or get tired of the incredibly conservative families they live in, and end up marrying people they do not inherently truly love.
social code being different for men and women
Are these set in stone, huh? So much for being a fucking leftist if you believe in this regressing shit.
There are certain social codes for men and women that are simply going to exist, unless bizarre things like artificial wombs come into existence, erasing the codependency of man and woman. Yes, there are things that can be improved on both ends, and it is a very long conversation.
What, did you had like bad experiences with women in the past that made you develop these thoughts? Or is it the fact that you got exposed to misogynist youtubers
No bad experiences made me develop particular thoughts. However, one feminist whose friend I loved back in college, did tell me that my self improvement did not matter to anyone, and tried to rage bait me as well. That solidified my thoughts on liberals and not women.
I never watched Tate or Shapiro or the likes, but I try to watch a healthy mix of content, mostly averaging as moderate on the spectrum. Matthew Hussey, Kevin Samuels, J-Hall and Whatever podcast. I keep a very tight hold on what views are shared there, selectively discarding anything that goes too conservative. These tubers are not incels or MGTOW, but closer to a mix of redpill/blackpill, mostly hovering around centre or centre-right.
I keep a very tight hold on what views are shared there, selectively discarding anything that goes too conservative. These tubers are not incels or MGTOW, but closer to a mix of redpill/blackpill, mostly hovering around centre or centre-right
Even if you try your best to keep yourself from having views which you consider too far right, as the political overton window shifts more to the right, what ideas do you truly consider to be "centrist" or "centre-right" and not just right wing (if not far right) ideas which have recently become acceptable in mainstream/liberal media?
Also, usage of the terms "redpill" and "blackpill" in these contexts was popularized by the MGTOW (and Anti-SJW) movement. (I was once part of those circles back in 2014 even if I was still very young back then. Once you're in there, it's not very easy to get out; You need a lot of self-reflection to truly escape it. In fact, while my old views were largely toned down over the years by a supportive community back when I was in Junior High School, it took an entire pandemic to get me to reflect and escape, and I was still at risk of returning to some more dangerous views before I finally got into Marxism.)
Self-reflection is not an easy thing, and hopefully it shouldn't be too late for you.
but closer to a mix of redpill/blackpill, mostly hovering around centre or centre-right.
This is absolutely repulsive. You realize that the center is about maintaining status quo, yes? The status quo is misogyny.
I do not think the reality is this simple. There is not a speck of doubt that misogyny has existed in society, but men have had their share of inequalities, like being the only demographic group to be conscripted during wars or emergency (includes current Russian SMO), men being the dominant group to be in military or in any dangerous factories or industrial facilities, men never having had an equivalent brotherhood like women have sisterhood throughout the times, men mostly never being given child custody in a broken marriage, and so on.
Moreover, women overwhelmingly prefer traditionalism once they are post 30s, and feminists actively cherrypick traditionalist roles to conform to, despite the general notion being advertised as destroying traditional societal roles. How would you categorise this as, women being okay with misogyny as it benefits them in long term, or women being unfaithful to feminist movement, or feminist movement derailed in some capacity and/or by within itself, or some other explanation?
You really do enjoy making blanket statements about women don't you.
You need some serious deprogramming of your misogynist ideas. Less talking, more reading.
I will process more diverse literature on this subject, but time is going to tell a lot of things. I do not think society is headed down a very bright path, and we are about to see highly turbulent times which will affect both sexes.
I will keep a cool head and consume multiple sources instead of looking it as a way to deprogram, atleast this is what I can conclude. I am in no way righteous, but I think this is a subject where nobody has correct views. Social interaction goes so deep that even the most experienced extroverts get thrown off regularly.
Polygamy / Polyandry is not harmful to society in any way, in fact it was the default for most of human history.
It was only under feudalism that the control over women's bodies began, since sexual control / repression is needed to secure heirs for control of inherited capital. Under collectivist arrangements, unknown fathers are actually beneficial, since then children become those of the entire tribe. Many cultures even had beliefs that children had several fathers, and inherited the best traits of each of them.
Read sex at dawn, and the caliban and the witch for more on this.
Regarding polygamy, there is a study that many people will not like. I do not think it is healthy, and just because something has been done eternally, does not mean it is correct to continue doing. Is that not what breaking down the medieval ideas, that still exist in society as it is, all about?
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/fulfillment-at-any-age/201304/the-long-term-psychological-effects-of-having-multiple-sex
I will try to skim through that literature, thanks for the rec.
Did you not even read that article? First of all, all the participants are from one country, which in itself limits its usefulness. Secondly, there is a huge issue with correlation/causation, is it that people who engage in casual sex might engage in more drinking/drugs?
Most importantly, even if we disregard everything above, it would prove nothing. It just says that people who have lots of sex also drink/use drugs more. It even mentions it in the article itself, the likely reason why women are more affected is due to the societal pressures.
We live in a society that is very hostile to polygamy. Which is probably the reason most people would find negative consequences for engaging in it. This will be the same for any people that are engaging in something considered “weird”.
Why is one country demographic so limiting in this case, when USA's per capita PPP is extremely high? I would instead argue USA's cultural westernisation effect carries over to almost all countries sufficiently for this study to be valuable.
You think alcohol and drug abuse leads to a healthy life? It is a sign of deep internal instability. Why can you not see it comes down to these people hating the concept of committing to a partner, using each other like meat, thus revealing personality issues and internalised horrible ideas of how a society should be?
First of all it is not from the USA but from New Zealand. I am not saying that a study that is done on one country cannot provide some useful insight, but you should be aware of that, especially in studies like this. Societal norms are widely different across the world, so trying to argue for something like this should be done from research across the world.
You think alcohol and drug abuse leads to a healthy life?
No, and I never claimed to. Personally, I really don't like both alcohol and drug use. But I certainly wouldn't make such sweeping statements as.
It is a sign of deep internal instability
Alcohol use in particular is highly culturally dependent. For example, my country is one of the highest alcohol consumers per capita, but we are a fairly happy country (at least as much as possible in this capitalist hellhole).
Btw, I just looked at the original study that that article is based on. It only concerned itself with cannabis and alcohol, and it didn't differentiate between those two. So again, not really a good source. Overall, I wouldn't base your opinion on something on one random article, especially when it just tries to summarize a paper. Try to at least read the original paper.
Why can you not see it comes down to these people hating the concept of committing to a partner, using each other like meat, thus revealing personality issues and internalised horrible ideas of how a society should be?
Source? I could think of many reasons why. People don't know what they like, so they want to explore both romantically and sexually. People evolve and change over time, and sometimes the partner they though are perfect actually wasn't. Or there are people that don't mind that their partners are having sex with other people. There are so many explanations of why someone would want to have sex with multiple partners, I really don't see why you would come to such a conclusion.
This very first point of the article is the exact opposite of everything you're trying to say here.
People having a higher number of sex partners do not have higher rates of anxiety or depression, according to research.
I never said it was necessarily depression. Substance abuse and alcohol abuse clearly is shown there. The concept of pair bonding is true to an extent, depending on how loyal people are. People engaging in casual sex are not loyal or committing people.
I forgot to supplement this with another study, a mistake I will correct now.
https://web.archive.org/web/20220930172620/https://www.huffpost.com/entry/more-sexual-partners-unhappy-marriage_n_5698440
And in the same breath, I would recommend this one as well. https://web.archive.org/web/20220124003810/https://ifstudies.org/blog/counterintuitive-trends-in-the-link-between-premarital-sex-and-marital-stability/
The default assumption of those studies you linked, is that monogamous marriage is good, and multiple partners bad. You're linking studies from patriarchal viewpoints which already share your own status-quo assumptions.
Again, monogamy is not the norm of history, and only arose with class society. You haven't done the reading so you haven't learned this yet.
According to researchers, the 23 percent of participants who only had sex with their spouse prior to getting hitched reported higher quality marriages versus those who had other past sexual partners as well.
Ignorance is bliss.
According to researchers, the 23 percent of participants who only had sex with their spouse prior to getting hitched reported higher quality marriages versus those who had other past sexual partners as well.
I think this has got more to do with sexually frustrated men and women carrying out their dark thoughts, breaking down, healing themselves to become better men and women, ending up becoming more satisfied, since at this point they are over their internal frustration and possibly traumatic issues. Sexual act does serve as a venting outlet.
I am not going to analyze both of these the same way as your first source, but, firstly, the second one is not even a paper, just a bunch of graphs with no methodology etc. Secondly, I would look at where are your sources coming from. Both of these are not scientific institutions and both of these are basically from the same source, which is conservative “think tank”.
If you want someone who explains how these statistics are often misleading, I would look at this video. It basically deals with the exact same arguments from Lauren Southern.
Please don't use random articles as sources for such statements. At least use something that is based on some real research, even though it is often flawed.
I keep a very tight hold on what views are shared there, selectively discarding anything that goes too conservative.
I know you don't want to hear it, as others have approached it and you dismissed them, but brother you are already on the "too conservative" views. You don't realise it any more.
The insidious thing about propaganda is that it doesn't need to be true for someone to start believing it. It just needs to be repeated enough. Being exposed to their "centre-right" bullshit will slowly make you susceptible to it and justify it to yourself. See this story. That's happened to you already, you're repeating these ideas in the same mannerisms all the "redpill" people do and don't even seem to see it.
I do gauge myself on the redpill/blackpill part of the spectrum. And I do need to investigate, but it is not easy. But I think it is worth it.
I will not pretend I just pretended everything I said here, because these are indeed my current beliefs. But I will admit I wanted this engagement in comments, to be able to hear the leftist side of things to learn more, since I have watched enough content from the centrist/conservative entities I mentioned. There is now something more for me to ponder over.
I have a question: why is there no guide or recommendations for these kind of topics, the way I make guides for digital privacy? I do have an answer for it in the form of social engagement being a circus, no matter which camp, but it may not be a sufficient answer. Also, anti-imperialism is a large focus of the communist struggle.
Since you head this instance, I do want to tell it is not that I was salty about the ban, but about being called a misogynist with no dialogue exchange. Although most people will not want to consider other POVs unlike me, or are merely outing themselves by mistake, so I think there needs to be a consideration not just for gauging to ban someone, but to have a dialogue. I created this dialogue, nobody wanted to have it with me. And all of you that are talking to me, are doing so because there is a shared trust considering my year long history here, and because some recognise my tech privacy work. I think gauging people needs a lot more work.
Ping @muad_dibber@lemmygrad.ml and other admins for the last paragraph
It's just marxist feminism. There's tons of different kinds of feminism, there's no one authority on feminism, and we follow marxist feminism here. Lots of books to find and some have been recommended to you. You can read Zetkin, Kollontai, and even Engels' Origins of the Family. Just as much as you can. And talk to women like you've done here and understand what they're saying to you.
The first 5 day ban was given out exactly so you could read up on this and come back with a second chance. I'll talk to the rest of the mod team and we might be inclined to try a third chance, but I can't guarantee anything.
And all of you that are talking to me, are doing so because there is a shared trust considering my year long history here
We are, and that's why you received a temp ban the first time when we could have done a permanent ban. I think most of us are just confused that you, who has been with us for over a year and have otherwise made good contributions, would hold these views. If you can't understand the confusion we're feeling as a community then I'm not sure what can come out of any discussion.
men are not an unified front that plans things behind womens backs, similarly, some random woman you see on the street is not conspiring against you specifically
you should have a social codes for
- people your romantically interested in
- family
- everyone else
thats marginally less weird
monogamy and poligamy are both social contracts all participants must agree on, both are morally neutral
that dominance/submission thing i think its called power play, you can read about it if you want to, but its not a thing a majority of people will agree with you about it being necesary for relationships
I think you have formed a view/impression of dating and women that does not correspond to reality. Either your sample size of personal experiences is very small and skewed or else you have formed your views based on misinformation and myths that are spread in certain online spaces. I think you just need more real world experience and more contact to real people as you have formed a picture of an entire gender that is simply (at least where i live - i admit there could be cultural differences in other countries that i myself have not experienced) not accurate.
Imo you are committing an idealist error. As a Marxist and thus a materialist you must investigate before speaking on a subject. From what you wrote i assume you are still quite young, and i think your views will change once you have had some actual experience (which you admit you lack) with relationships and people of the opposite gender. Until then try not to engage in so much stereotyping, you may not intend it that way but it comes off as quite rude. And listen to people here who have had a bit more life experience with or as women. Be a bit more humble and accept that you still have a lot to learn.
Where did you get your ideas about how dating works? Also, you mentioned that some conservative/centrist dating advice has value. What takeaways did you get from them that you found valuable?
When did this place become so lib, that people were straight up told to “change your ways before you end up ruining a poor girl’s life”, or how “using ‘male’ and ‘female’ to refer to men and women as if they’re animals” is a terminology that radical feminists would otherwise get excused for? What are these assumed ideas I have that are so batshit crazy, compared to the kinds of values that hardcore masculinity gurus, Tate fans, incels/femcels hold? And what is the defined threshold expected for this place to accommodate people?
Some people did take offense and try to shut you down instead of engage in dialogue, but at least half of the people replying to you in that thread were engaging with you in what seemed to be good faith.
Where did you get your ideas about how dating works? Also, you mentioned that some conservative/centrist dating advice has value. What takeaways did you get from them that you found valuable?
Matthew Hussey, Kevin Samuels mainly. For a wider view on society, I like to watch J-Hall and Whatever podcast, not necessarily absorbing everything said on there. There is a point to be made that it mostly covers Western society, but then most of society is heavily influenced by western ideas of socialisation, and since I live in India, I already know what the extreme conservative end looks like.
Whatever podcast has 4-5 hour podcasts that are diverse enough to have a Chinese girl who told mainland is heavily conservative (like India) and has double standards, where if a woman slept with more than one man, she would be called a slut, whereas it would not matter for the man.
Kevin Samuels? Bruh, are you serious? You're taking your ideas from the second coming of Bill Cosby, my guy.
I recommend listening to less podcasts, and doing more reading on feminism and patriarchy. You need it.
Lack of investigating primary literature is perhaps the biggest shortcoming of many leftists, real or proclaimed.
I am welcome to enriching my knowledge on these matters, and exposing myself to diverse sources of information. But I cannot guarantee if I will absorb everything as it is. I will take liberty with shaping my worldview.
going on a date just to get free food under capitalism is wealth redistribution. a woman's gotta eat and we make less money
don't just downvote me, cowards, show yourselves. explain to me why feeding women is a bad thing without devolving into misogyny somehow. because I don't see it.
Commies are supposed to feed people, are we not?
There's no issue with going on a date just to get your food paid for, but your post makes it sound like its praxis, which is pretty silly.
it is silly to be sure, but is it wrong? or more silly than the original poster who expects something in exchange for buying a meal?
besides that, not all praxis has to be big praxis. going on a date is an opportunity to make a genuine connection, and possibly to challenge false consciousness, and educate, agitate, and organize. this is something that potentially has value in itself. going on a date is in any case more praxis than eating a meal alone in front of a screen, which is the activity most of us of dating age would be doing instead.
Fair enough. I thought from your comment you meant going on a date with someone you otherwise find repulsive (like a booj) and using the date just for food and not as a means of agitation.
Let me clarify: Even using the date just for food is not a bad thing IMO. Socialism should not be poverty.
Editing to add: I personally haven't gone on a date just for a meal and I don't know anyone who has. I think it is quite likely that OP has never gone on a date where the other person was just in it for the money. IMO he has quite a bit of "making someone up to be mad at" energy. All I'm saying is that if someone were to do that, it's not something we should be focused on as a problem.
Why is polygamy (or in your words promiscuity) inherently worse than monogamy?
As long as it is acknowledged and agreed upon by everyone involved, there should be no issue. The only problem comes when one person thinks it's monogamy and the other breaks that trust.
The social player thing is not just a woman problem, in fact I'd say it's worse coming from men. As another commenter said, men do that shit all the time and only when women start to engage in similar behaviors does it become a problem. I don't think there's anything wrong with holding certain values for yourself, I myself could never be a social "player" (meaning casually sleeping around, if I'm interpreting that right) and am not interested in anyone who is, but that doesn't give you or me the right to pretend we're morally superior in that regard. I guess the only time I'd feel comfortable shitting on someone is if they're sleeping around while their partner is unaware. But that could just be trauma on my part, someone educate me if I'm wrong lol.
Anyways, I really suggest you take the time to read what some of our comrades here are recommending and digest/think where these thoughts are coming from.
Why is polygamy (or in your words promiscuity) inherently worse than monogamy?
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/fulfillment-at-any-age/201304/the-long-term-psychological-effects-of-having-multiple-sex
The only issues are not limited to verbal acceptance and consent. There is something post that.
The social player thing is not just a woman problem, in fact I’d say it’s worse coming from men. As another commenter said, men do that shit all the time and only when women start to engage in similar behaviors does it become a problem. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with holding certain values for yourself, I myself could never be a social “player” (meaning casually sleeping around, if I’m interpreting that right)
Men can be really aggressive thanks to testosterone, and women are nurturing and the birthgivers of human society. This forms a very large basis behind the social constructs that are binary gender roles we have today, that have remained stagnant since centuries. Biochemistry does not change, our scientific and social understanding grows as humans.
Social player in the way I say means man/woman who plays around with multiple relationship partners, not necessarily having casual sex, but exploiting them for monetary or social validation favours, although in many cases, casual sex is a factor.
I threw myself out here to see the responses I get, so I can read them, and if there are any good recs, which I think is the most important quality of a true leftist – self-critique. I am not sure if I want to stick around because I did not like how I was called a misogynist, silenced for 4 days, and that just made me feel miserable for what are conflicting views and not necessarily Tate-ist ideas.
Testosterone is not what makes men aggressive. Men do need testosterone to feel normal. Male aggression is a part of gender roles but it's not an essential element of masculinity.
It is for this exact reason that I made my previous comments, you don't seem to realize that you are dehumanizing women by breaking them down into their literal chemical components to assume how they will, or should, behave. This is the sort of thing I expect from some insane right wing eugenics nutjob, not a principled leftist.
Men can be really aggressive thanks to testosterone, and women are nurturing and the birthgivers of human society. This forms a very large basis behind the social constructs that are binary gender roles we have today, that have remained stagnant since centuries. Biochemistry does not change, our scientific and social understanding grows as humans.
That's the reason your comments were deleted the first time around and the ban recommended you read up on this stuff. I don't know where you got these ideas but I have a hard time seeing them as anything other than what the manosphere/pick up artist bullshit puts out, because this is exactly the same thing they say down to blaming everything on testosterone (and you recommended "conservative" coaches in the last post).
It's bioessentialist bs; the reason men are more aggressive is because they are brought up to be. The reason women are more nurturing is because they are taught to be. From the earliest age little girls are taught to share and devote themselves to others, whereas for boys it's mostly a suggestion.
Then this system reproduces itself through self-imposed rules. Men grow up to be more aggressive and pass that on to their children, in the workplace, with their friends. They internalise it in their daily life and don't even notice it any more. Part of what makes men more reckless is exactly because they are not brought up like girls are: self-expression is considered weak, risk-taking is considered laudable, and emotional availability is for women.
This is not marxism 101, it's more 201, but it boggles my mind that one could call themselves a communist and not even have considered that interpretation.
that just made me feel miserable for what are conflicting views and not necessarily Tate-ist ideas.
Tate is not the benchmark for sexism. Misogyny is misogyny.
Before I start off, I want to tell that it is true that I am a cis het male human that holds monogamist views with the mildest of traditional takes.
This would mostly be fine if you held them for yourself but it's immediately clear from your writing that you don't hold them only for yourself but you hold those positions as normative and when you communicate you impose that position on the world. I like monogamy for myself. What I don't do is say that monogamy is inherently better, or that it is better for society, or that it ought to be the norm because it leads to better outcomes. This is important for you to understand because it underlies a lot of the criticism you are receiving. You're allowed to believe things about yourself. It's when you apply these beliefs to others that you run into problems.
My mindset at the core is unapologetically survivalist, independent and masculine
Having masculinity at your core is a red flag. I've been a cis man my whole life and I don't feel the need to establish masculinity as part of my core mindset. I don't even think masculinity is a real thing, I think it's a social construct that has a history, that is to say, it's a trope or a meme. Fish don't have a core mindset of fishyness. But for historical reasons men and women have concepts of what it means to manly and womanly. But when you look globally, you can see there are similarities and difference between these cultures on what they consider manly and womanly. And when you look at the similarities, they are usually the similarities that go along with reinforcing structures of oppression and the rest is just accidental historical window dressing.
I have also been chivalrous with women, and have been inclusive of the non binary communities.
This does not make you not misogynistic, just like having a black friend doesn't make you not racist. Also, the idea that being chivalrous is somehow not misogynistic is completely mistaken. Chivalry is literally derived from the word for knight, and we can pretty clearly see how the entire of medieval European society was misogynistic and how the knights, warriors with power, title, and sometimes even land, would be part and parcel of the oppression of women. Being chivalrous is not respecting women but rather having deep-seated oppressive beliefs about women and then respecting your own false beliefs more than actually respecting women.
I want to know what is so misogynistic about traditional views like monogamy instead of promiscuity are better
Monogamy is found throughout the animal world, as is polygamy. Neither is better or worse. The belief that one is generally better or worse is problematic. Believing it for yourself, whether you personally prefer your relationship to be one way or another, is not problematic. Believing everyone in the world is playing in your ethical framework is the problem. Believing monogamy is better than polygamy is generally regarded as misogynistic because isolating women into the private home on pain of losing their livelihood is a form of oppression. It's traditional because traditionally women have been oppressed in society, not being allowed medical treatment without their husband's approval, not being allowed a bank account, not being allowed to own property, not being allowed to socialize without male supervision, not being allowed to vote, not being allowed to live alone, not being allowed to have woman roommates. Etc. Monogamy, traditionally, is misogynistic.
I want to know what is so misogynistic about traditional views like social code being different for men and women
This is factually true and there is nothing misogynistic about this observation. Your problem arises when you see this and say "a ha! here is evidence that men and women are metaphysically different and that their social roles are good and proper". When non-misogynists see these social code differences, they say "it is what is because of history and in the future maybe it will change". When people with liberatory politics see these differences, they say "let us find the causes for these differences and let us change society so that these differences may be erased".
I want to know what is so misogynistic about traditional views like women often dating for free food
This isn't a traditional view. This is a false belief. No one has ever dated me for free food. No one I know has I ever dated anyone for free food. No one I know has ever talked about their friends dating someone for free food. From my experience of media, the only people who ever make this claim are misogynist men and the women who take advantage of them. The number of women who take advantage of them is statistically tiny in the grand scheme of things. Your actions and beliefs should not be influenced by the existence of this tiny portion of women. Further, you should examine the reason that the small number of women who do engage in those behaviors do so. What you'll find is systemic misogynistic oppression.
I want to know what is so misogynistic about traditional views like Western feminism not being a true representation of feminism, and how much it currently harms mainly men, and creating polarisation between both sexes
Also not a traditional view. This is a full on reactionary view. Feminism does not harm men. Feminism does not create polarization between the sexes. The polarization between men and women is quite literally the history of class society for millennia. Just go look at history and find for me a time when men and women did not relate in a polarized power dynamic. Men owned women. Men owned multiple women. Men took the labor from women and sold it. Men **** women and sold their children. These things were protected by law. They were practiced in all class societies. They always subordinated women to men. Feminism seeks to fix this and there is simply no comparison between feminism's effect on men and the historical and contemporary oppression of women. The fact that you don't understand this is itself a representation of social misogyny manifesting through you. You are replicating misogyny even if you don't understand it.
I want to know what is so misogynistic about traditional views psychology of dominance and submission in relationships factoring into the stability of any long term relationships, including marriage
You don't see what's so misogynistic about believing that men must dominate women to establish a long-term relationship? Really? Come on now. Just write it down on paper. You believe that in order for a long-term relationship between a man and a women to be stable, the man must psychologically and physically dominate the woman and the woman must submit to the man. That in and of itself is quite misogynistic, but I bet you can do worse. Try to explain why this is true and you'll see that you believe that the woman will leave the man because the woman is not interested in the long-term relationship but the man is. You can just reconcile that right away and say that the woman must be dominated against her interest to satisfy the interest of the man and leave it there. But I'm sure if you keep going you'll come up with more and more repulsive statements that even you should be able to understand as misogynistic.
What are these assumed ideas I have that are so batshit crazy, compared to the kinds of values that hardcore masculinity gurus, Tate fans, incels/femcels hold? And what is the defined threshold expected for this place to accommodate people?
You are being told what the problem is. The threshold is that you accept the criticism and put in the effort to understand how your beliefs harm people and are part of a larger system of oppression. If you don't put in that effort, you don't belong here.
We should also recommend some reading materials for OP on the historical subjugation of women, and how OP's ideas are shaped by a deeply ingrained misogynist worldview.
I def recommend Gerda Lerner - the creation of the patriarchy, and Silvia Federici - Caliban and the witch, but those are both long. Also sex at dawn, for the feminist norms that took up most of human history.
monogamy
but it’s immediately clear from your writing that you don’t hold them only for yourself but you hold those positions as normative and when you communicate you impose that position on the world.
Explain to me why is polygamy healthier for either of the sexes. In case of women, abusively having sex means personal issues and inability to spiritually bond with future partners, as the "threshold" for satisfaction becomes higher with every partner. In case of men, it simply means an incredible lack of emotion and an internalised hatred towards self and women (extreme conservative views from medieval era play a large role in shaping this idea).
I don’t even think masculinity is a real thing, I think it’s a social construct that has a history, that is to say, it’s a trope or a meme. [...] And when you look at the similarities, they are usually the similarities that go along with reinforcing structures of oppression and the rest is just accidental historical window dressing.
Window dressing has been an incredible problem contributing to the worldview shaping. And by calling masculinity a social construct, that allows for everything to be called a social construct, throwing the basis of society's survival and existence to date out of the window. I do not think this is wise, and in that capacity I disagree. Conservatives act like its still the fucking 18th century, and the other end of the spectrum likes to act that sex is a cheap act and just a venting outlet for other issues, so it is both justified, and in line with the oversexualisation of mass media, so its "normal".
This does not make you not misogynistic, just like having a black friend doesn’t make you not racist. Also, the idea that being chivalrous is somehow not misogynistic is completely mistaken. Chivalry is literally derived from the word for knight, and we can pretty clearly see how the entire of medieval European society was misogynistic
I did not mean to use it as an escape jail card. But I think it is rare enough that I can use that phrasing legitimately. Chivalry can be interpreted as misogynistic, because of binary gender norms playing into the equation, but I do not think being respectful and courteous is the same as that. Good and nice men exist, and most of them become toxic either because of extreme conservatism (what I try to avoid) or fuckboys/fuckgirls rewarding the wrong behaviours in society.
Monogamy is found throughout the animal world, as is polygamy. Neither is better or worse. The belief that one is generally better or worse is problematic.
We are not animals with nothing else to do than chew on grass/meat and breed like rabbits. Humans have more than just intuition and intelligence. Humans have intellect that distinguishes them from animals. This is not pedanticism.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/fulfillment-at-any-age/201304/the-long-term-psychological-effects-of-having-multiple-sex
I want to know what is so misogynistic about traditional views like women often dating for free food
This isn’t a traditional view. This is a false belief. No one has ever dated me for free food. No one I know has I ever dated anyone for free food. No one I know has ever talked about their friends dating someone for free food
I strongly disagree. Freeloading exists significantly. I have no idea what to say if you think this does not exist. Women do it for two reasons – food, and being able to share selfies from lavish hotels on Instagram/Snapchat for social media validation.
I want to know what is so misogynistic about traditional views like Western feminism not being a true representation of feminism, and how much it currently harms mainly men, and creating polarisation between both sexes
Also not a traditional view. This is a full on reactionary view. Feminism does not harm men. Feminism does not create polarization between the sexes. The polarization between men and women is quite literally the history of class society for millennia.
I want you to watch what goes on in this debate on Jubilee. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOUGNGWmN0k (note: no side likes Derrick, the yellow jacket incel, feel free to ignore that idiot)
Feminism, atleast on Western side of the movement, actively seeks to not just harbor, but has also been harming men. Plenty cases of false shaming men in public and in gyms, actively misinterpreting and targeting MRA, and other issues exist.
I saw the boyslockerroom/girlslockerroom case last year in India, on Twitter, during the 3 days that it happened. The girls who faked Snapchat chats on boys allegedly discussing women in a nasty manner, caused one boy to commit suicide one day after feminists started screaming on Twitter, and how women's police commission must take action on the boy. The girl who fabricated it for social views is free, active on social media and doing whatever she wants. Men's lives get destroyed in a snap upon accusations these days.
I want to know what is so misogynistic about traditional views psychology of dominance and submission in relationships factoring into the stability of any long term relationships, including marriage
You don’t see what’s so misogynistic about believing that men must dominate women to establish a long-term relationship? Really?
I know what you are saying, and this is why I mentioned it, knowing an obvious response will come to it, and I have no problems saying that what you are saying is correct. But this has a lot to do with biochemistry. Ever seen women who gym and eat a lot of meat, or take testosterone? Ask them or read their testimonies of how they start thinking and acting aggressively. Testosterone causes anyone to be aggressive, which is why men have fought wars, done the physically stressful jobs and acted dominant in relationships and in society. Women being the nurturing caretaker is not some idea that was born out of "toxic mindset", but rather the simple fact that we are biologically designed in a way that woman is more sensitive, physically vulnerable and due to lack of testosterone, not as aggressive, the way a man is.
I do not think self critique is necessarily part of being a communist, but it is a mark of being a true leftist, which is why I put myself up here for perhaps what might be one of the most controversial posts on here.
I do not think self critique is necessarily part of being a communist, but it is a mark of being a true leftist, which is why I put myself up here for perhaps what might be one of the most controversial posts on here.
Self-criticism also requires that one be open to criticism and willing to change their mind, not validate it by arguing against every point made.
