Another way to see the ill health of all the identity political movements since MLK is to recognize that with their oppressor/victim foundation they were, and are, creating a toxic us-and-them game. The victims are "us" and the oppressors are "them". That's why they talk about allies. If you are one of the oppressors, a white male, you can still be an ally to feminism. What is an ally? It's someone who can help us, but who is NOT US. It's a designation that confirms that you can never really be one of us, an equal part of the movement. You will always be morally compromised, one of "them".
We see that the political polarization in our societies, between left and right, is greater than it has been for hundreds of years, since the civil war. Surely a large part of the reason for that is the constant diet of us-and-them thinking that we have been fed by every identity politics movement for the last sixty years. Rather than leading towards social healing, these movements have fractured and injured us.
This is an excellent essay, David. And I applaud in particular your reference to Martin Luther King Jr., whose moral vision was never more needed than it is now. I have only one suggestion, which might emerge from the wording in one paragraph.
You say that "My purpose here is not moral judgment, but clear description. I use the term "pathological" as a term of ill health rather than moral judgment." Okay, you don't want to accuse feminists of evil, only of ignorance and incompetence. A few lines down, though, you add that feminists have relied on "the seductive story of moral superiority (for designated victims)" and that this has led to "devastation." Their founding doctrine is the innate moral superiority of women. Of course, that's not your own moral argument. You don't argue that this moral claim is ironically immoral. Rather, you argue that it is (a) false and (b) ineffective. This way, you can oppose feminism on the objective grounds of science and avoid being accused of doing so on the subjective grounds of moral philosophy.
I agree wholeheartedly, David, that we should oppose feminism on scientific, or at least empirical, grounds. But I won't oppose moral claims merely because some of them are perverted ones. I'm not ready to abandon the specifically moral vocabulary on which Western civilization (like others) was founded. I think that most people, even now, are still aware at some level of consciousness that hatred (not the transient emotion of anger but the institutionalized and culturally propagated urge to harm others) is evil. (In fact, I think that hatred is probably the one and only thing that is inherently and irreducibly evil.) With this in mind, I'm prepared to argue that feminist ideology, along with closely related woke ideologies, is not only false and ineffective but also evil.
To make that argument, I must refer to cultural traditions that have become institutionalized and deeply embedded in consciousness over many thousands of years as collective wisdom and therefore function at an intuitive level. Consequently, every generation does not have to re-invent the moral wheel so that people can live together. But these cultural traditions are not self-sustaining. They require continual communal reaffirmation. Right now, this seldom happens even (or perhaps especially) among the educated elite (many of whom foolishly believe that psychologists and sociologists can tell us everything that we need to know about human interactions). What earlier generations could take for granted, such as the universal "golden rule," ours cannot. Anyone who watches the news every night can see that millions of people in our own communities confuse justice with revenge, anger with hatred, kindness with brutality or terrorism and so on.
Thanks for this comprehensive and thoughtful comment, Paul. I agree with you that there is a moral (immoral, actually) dimension to these movements, but I find that it takes a lot of explanation of context before such can be brought into an argument without triggering people right and left. In my book, "The Hand That Rocks the World," I made the case that feminism is an evil ideology - but it took me two chapters to construct the argument and set the context so that my readers knew exactly what I meant and what I didn't mean.
It's true that we no longer have a common moral vocabulary, David, which does make it difficult to discuss moral problems in the public square. But I think that we need to try, because I suspect that no society can endure for long without acknowledging and actively fostering one of the most basic, distinctive and universal features of communal life.
Consider the "golden rule," which requires no theological context at all, only an intuition that amounts to either common sense or common decency--or both. Treat others as you'd like them to treat you; don't do so, and see what happens. Even young children realize that much once they reach a developmental stage (empathy) that functions as a window of opportunity. Those who fail to open that window, as it were, become amoral (psychopaths or sociopaths): incpable of making moral choices. And if critics complain that moral philosophy is old fashioned or patriarchal or bourgeois or whatever, then so what? We can answer them. You certainly can. I see this as the last opportunity for a necessary public debate over what it ultimately means to participate in any human community.
In any case, I don't see how to avoid moral discourse. Moral denunciations, most of which rely on outrageous historical analogies and grotesque distortions of logic itself, are already the lingua franca of public life--especially in connection with feminism and other forms of identity politics. It's precisely this lack a moral compass that so many people are willing to be emotionally manipulated by political demagogues instead of thinking for themselves. And who actively resists the tyranny of ideological fashions despite the hardship or suffering that resisting the mob entails? Moral agents do--that is, people who know that they are free to act either morally or immorally and thus to make informed choices.
Paul, can you give me an example of how you would approach this discussion that you want us to have? In the context of my essay about identity politics and feminism, what would you say in moral terms, and how would you say it?
Thanks for bearing with me, David. You’ve understood for many years the importance of moral distinctions, which is why my comments should reinforce your own moral insights.
In the context of your essay, David, I’d (a) delete “My purpose here is not moral judgment …” Instead, I’d allow readers to see the (clear) moral implications of your argument; and (b) delete “not the responsibility of feminism/the women's movement,” which undermines your own argument about the need to face facts. It’s true that the inability of men to form a healthy collective (and personal) identity began long before the rise of feminism, but it’s true also that feminism has greatly exacerbated that problem. The “devastation,” which you mention only a few paragraphs earlier, surely does indicate the moral guilt of those who deliberately promote hatred (motivated by revenge) but also of those who trivialize, excuse or condone it (motivated by personal or political expediency) and the moral responsibility (which is not the same as guilt) of everyone to turn away from identity politics.
Maybe I’d write the essay in three parts. (1) You’ve already written the first part in order to establish historical facts about feminism as an unhealthy movement. (2) Another part would be necessary to establish the specific problems that now prevent boys and men from forming a healthy identity, whether personally or collectively. The sine qua non is what I discuss as the universal need to make at least one contribution to society that is distinctive, necessary and publicly valued). (3). A final part would be necessary to place all of that into a specifically moral context. I’d probably begin with the “golden rule.” No fancy vocabulary required for that, because it’s self-evidently true. Everyone knows that there is a profound difference between good (empathy, compassion) and evil (hatred). This would be an opportunity to draw conclusions not only from Martin Luther King’s healthy movement (and Gandhi’s) but also from a universal moral imperative. This would conclude the essay on a pastoral note. Justice is ultimately about reconciliation and healing, after all, not punishment, enmity or schadenfreude.
I should add here this link to an excellent article that I read only a few minutes ago. It's about education, but I've selected two passages about the specific relation between that and moral discourse in any democratic society.
(1) "More troubling still is the retreat from rigor. In the name of preserving students’ self-esteem, schools are often reluctant to challenge students, hold them accountable, or insist upon high standards of excellence. The result is a dangerous turn to what has been called the therapeutic approach to education. Students are flattered rather than instructed, their self-esteem affirmed regardless of whether they have done anything estimable. The essential work of education—discerning truth from error, cultivating judgment, introducing the young to the intellectual heritage of their civilization—is displaced by therapeutic aims."
(2) "But this is not merely an educational failure. It is a moral one. Literacy is not simply a technical skill—it is a form of ethical and intellectual development. It requires cultivating patience, empathy, and sound judgment. It demands that we sit still and listen attentively to the minds and voices of others. If students cannot do this, then we are not educating them. At best, we are merely credentialing them.
"To be literate, in the fullest sense, is to participate in the great conversation of civilization. It is to gain access to and be initiated into the shared understandings of a community. A liberal education, properly understood, is neither vocational training nor a self-esteem project. It is a moral and intellectual discipline—one that presupposes a conception of the good and an account of the human person as more than a bundle of appetites or a mere consumer. It sees the human being as a moral agent, capable of self-transcendence and of shaping a life toward truth, beauty, and meaning.
"We deceive ourselves if we believe the decline in student literacy is a neutral development. We must resist the fashionable cynicism that shrugs and says, this is simply the way of the world. We are told that in the age of the internet, with its endless screens and omnipresent mobile phones, deep reading is obsolete—no longer an essential skill, but a quaint indulgence from a bygone era.
"Such resignation is not only intellectually lazy but morally perilous. The capacity to read deeply, to write clearly, to follow and test a line of reasoning—these are habits of mind without which neither democracy nor the life of the mind can flourish.
"Education has always been about elevation. It is the deliberate act of lifting students’ minds above distraction, above appetite, above the noise of the present moment. To “meet students where they are” may be a necessary starting point, but it must never be mistaken for the destination. The true aim of education is not to affirm students as they are, but to form them into what they might become. It is to awaken their capacities for reason, imagination, and judgment—and to summon them toward the best versions of themselves."
Damn great quotes! I loved this: "More troubling still is the retreat from rigor. In the name of preserving students’ self-esteem, schools are often reluctant to challenge students, hold them accountable, or insist upon high standards of excellence."
As the feminine ideas of safety have risen to frightening levels, the masculine ideas of excellence and greatness have massively shrunk.
Well said! Clear and accurate as I expect from David. But what can men and women of good will do about the future together? How can we help it along?
Analysis is interesting and I love it but it's not inherently transformational. I've sometimes worked with good effect by having men and women create a clearly bounded space - e.g, equal times back and forth for short periods, zero interruptions, eye contact from the listener - using a prompt. A brave one is "Tell me how you hide in relationship." Quite a few women and men are willing to do this. The post-convo space is friendly and warm, and I think relieved. (Have to get back into this!)
The crucial difference is we're not commenting on the other sex at all. We're sharing our humanness best as we can.
The challenges that we engage in men's groups often include comments about the other. This is necessary, it seems to me, if we are to have genuine engagement with each other - nothing can be off the table in terms of content, only in terms of process. Until we can comment on the other sex, surely we cannot have all of the conversations that are needed.
Jim Wills. Not in all cases. The abandonment of the extended family is unhealthy. The nuclear family, as it is referred to, is actually unable to support a larger structure than maybe two generations of a familial grouping. There are various reasons for this among which are the separations distance wise between family members, the lack of social contact between uncles. aunts, cousins etc and the lack of desire to include family members who are not in the immediate father, mother, grandparents association. Why is there such loneliness in the World today? Why is there such a lack of interest in the affairs of others? It is my contention that far from bringing families and friends closer, the ease and effortlessness of contact via the internet has prevented proper discussion, learning and empathy between the current generations. Let’s get back to a healthier way of semi tribal living. We have become divorced from the bedrock of humanity. A large family of two to three previous generations, uncles, cousins, aunts, children, all in contact with each other and actually learning good behaviours from these relatives helps to foster a sense of responsibility for everyone who is a part of your family. Boys learn how to be men from a number of relatives, girls are not brought up used to good male models and the presence of the older members helps to enforce good behaviours, respect, helpfulness and kindness amongst the family. One of my nephews at a family gathering reminded me that I and one of my nieces had taught him to read as a child, long before he went to school. The family is the first schoolroom and the more diversity within that family, plus the feeling of safety engendered by the close proximity of those who love you as you love them is a profound influence for good. My father and elder brother plus uncles and boy cousins took good care of the female members of our family from the most ancient to the youngest. My mother, aunts, grandmother etc. taught the boys manners and the reason for them, the male members of the family taught them to be protective and hardworking. Today’s influencers should not be the shaping influences for our children. The manners, behaviour and attitudes in society should be taught within the boundaries of a secure, loving and caring extended family.
Well said. The reason that feminism, Black Lives Matter, the LGBTQ+ movement etc. all fail is that none of them is actually about equal rights, equality or actual justice. They are about Just Us...with the self proclaimed morally superior movement's members being the US. Feminist women are by the their actions, in fact, morally INFERIOR to the average man or woman on the street in the same way that any other self promoting bully is.
In the past we've depended upon our children to produce extended families that included the "old people" and to take care of them in their dotages. No more. It's the nursing home for you, old boy. So what to do?
Elon says the Tesla robot, Optimus, will be ready for general consumption in 2 years. It can do ALL household chores, cook, clean, prepare medications, recognize signs of distress, call 911, carry an adult to his self-driving car, which will then cart him to the ER. It can carry on conversation. And you will never have to worry about the second or third wife's plan to put you in a nursing home, kick your children to the curb, and give your assets to her children by a previous marriage. (Ask me how I know.) A machine that is 100% reliable for having YOUR interests at heart.
The Japanese - lovable perverts that they are - exceeded by only the Germans, but smarter - have projected a perfectly functional sex robot within five years.
So, pick up two 'bots and Bob's-your-uncle. What about breeding the next generation? When the Toxic Feminism problem is solved, call me. I'm in The Book.
Jim, I understand the inclination to retreat from the fight. For some people, an AI wife might indeed be the best option. However, I hope that enough will engage constructively with society as the wheels come off, as they must eventually if we continue down this path - otherwise, we are done.
Nobody's retreating from any fight. There is no fight. It may take the weird engineer's mentality (mine) to understand this, but this is a straightforward risk/reward calculation. Half of first marriages fail; 2/3 of second. 3/4 of third. A failed marriage has a very high likelihood of destroying a man's life, setting him back at least ten years financially. (That was my case.) That is not a trivial consideration. Would you jump out of a plane with a parachute that has a 50% chance of failing? What about 66%? 75%? How about work ten years like a cornfield....and have that all taken away from you, including your children? Nah, it's silicon for me.
It's not a fight. It's a game. And the only winning move is not to play.
The answer is an emphatic "NO!" I can readily supply more than sufficient reasons for my statement if requested. It's a "movement" all right, but a different kind of movement! I'll leave it to the other readers to add any additional labels they might want to add! I know what I would add, but I'll abstain for now; I'm notoriously outspoken!
Mallory is a fascinating woman. I should post the Regarding Men interview that Janice, Paul, and I did with Mallory. Her story is so important to hear.
An excellent article, Natalia. Your prescriptions are similar to my own - focus on the future, work on both women's issues and men's issues, collaborative inclusion of all in the creation of the new.
I haven’t read it yet. What I mean is feminist women Are armoured and numb rather than relaxed. Feminine women have no need to resist fight or rally up against. However in this culture it’s hard to find understanding women to women it is a rare thing true sisterhood. It does exist.
Some further thoughts on this topic.
Another way to see the ill health of all the identity political movements since MLK is to recognize that with their oppressor/victim foundation they were, and are, creating a toxic us-and-them game. The victims are "us" and the oppressors are "them". That's why they talk about allies. If you are one of the oppressors, a white male, you can still be an ally to feminism. What is an ally? It's someone who can help us, but who is NOT US. It's a designation that confirms that you can never really be one of us, an equal part of the movement. You will always be morally compromised, one of "them".
We see that the political polarization in our societies, between left and right, is greater than it has been for hundreds of years, since the civil war. Surely a large part of the reason for that is the constant diet of us-and-them thinking that we have been fed by every identity politics movement for the last sixty years. Rather than leading towards social healing, these movements have fractured and injured us.
In 1920/30s Russia they tried anarchy with people's relationships.
Marriage was frowned upon.
Homosexualty encouraged, women encouraged to sleep with as many men as they could.
Perversion was the goal, break up the families.
The result a complete shit show.
Thousands of abandoned babies.
That was when the communist party put family friendly initiatives in place.
They learned the hard way.
Feminism also wants to break up the family unit.
They are just taking longer.
You are right. Breaking up the family unit is at the core of Communism and feminism alike.
This is an excellent essay, David. And I applaud in particular your reference to Martin Luther King Jr., whose moral vision was never more needed than it is now. I have only one suggestion, which might emerge from the wording in one paragraph.
You say that "My purpose here is not moral judgment, but clear description. I use the term "pathological" as a term of ill health rather than moral judgment." Okay, you don't want to accuse feminists of evil, only of ignorance and incompetence. A few lines down, though, you add that feminists have relied on "the seductive story of moral superiority (for designated victims)" and that this has led to "devastation." Their founding doctrine is the innate moral superiority of women. Of course, that's not your own moral argument. You don't argue that this moral claim is ironically immoral. Rather, you argue that it is (a) false and (b) ineffective. This way, you can oppose feminism on the objective grounds of science and avoid being accused of doing so on the subjective grounds of moral philosophy.
I agree wholeheartedly, David, that we should oppose feminism on scientific, or at least empirical, grounds. But I won't oppose moral claims merely because some of them are perverted ones. I'm not ready to abandon the specifically moral vocabulary on which Western civilization (like others) was founded. I think that most people, even now, are still aware at some level of consciousness that hatred (not the transient emotion of anger but the institutionalized and culturally propagated urge to harm others) is evil. (In fact, I think that hatred is probably the one and only thing that is inherently and irreducibly evil.) With this in mind, I'm prepared to argue that feminist ideology, along with closely related woke ideologies, is not only false and ineffective but also evil.
To make that argument, I must refer to cultural traditions that have become institutionalized and deeply embedded in consciousness over many thousands of years as collective wisdom and therefore function at an intuitive level. Consequently, every generation does not have to re-invent the moral wheel so that people can live together. But these cultural traditions are not self-sustaining. They require continual communal reaffirmation. Right now, this seldom happens even (or perhaps especially) among the educated elite (many of whom foolishly believe that psychologists and sociologists can tell us everything that we need to know about human interactions). What earlier generations could take for granted, such as the universal "golden rule," ours cannot. Anyone who watches the news every night can see that millions of people in our own communities confuse justice with revenge, anger with hatred, kindness with brutality or terrorism and so on.
Thanks for this comprehensive and thoughtful comment, Paul. I agree with you that there is a moral (immoral, actually) dimension to these movements, but I find that it takes a lot of explanation of context before such can be brought into an argument without triggering people right and left. In my book, "The Hand That Rocks the World," I made the case that feminism is an evil ideology - but it took me two chapters to construct the argument and set the context so that my readers knew exactly what I meant and what I didn't mean.
It's true that we no longer have a common moral vocabulary, David, which does make it difficult to discuss moral problems in the public square. But I think that we need to try, because I suspect that no society can endure for long without acknowledging and actively fostering one of the most basic, distinctive and universal features of communal life.
Consider the "golden rule," which requires no theological context at all, only an intuition that amounts to either common sense or common decency--or both. Treat others as you'd like them to treat you; don't do so, and see what happens. Even young children realize that much once they reach a developmental stage (empathy) that functions as a window of opportunity. Those who fail to open that window, as it were, become amoral (psychopaths or sociopaths): incpable of making moral choices. And if critics complain that moral philosophy is old fashioned or patriarchal or bourgeois or whatever, then so what? We can answer them. You certainly can. I see this as the last opportunity for a necessary public debate over what it ultimately means to participate in any human community.
In any case, I don't see how to avoid moral discourse. Moral denunciations, most of which rely on outrageous historical analogies and grotesque distortions of logic itself, are already the lingua franca of public life--especially in connection with feminism and other forms of identity politics. It's precisely this lack a moral compass that so many people are willing to be emotionally manipulated by political demagogues instead of thinking for themselves. And who actively resists the tyranny of ideological fashions despite the hardship or suffering that resisting the mob entails? Moral agents do--that is, people who know that they are free to act either morally or immorally and thus to make informed choices.
Paul, can you give me an example of how you would approach this discussion that you want us to have? In the context of my essay about identity politics and feminism, what would you say in moral terms, and how would you say it?
Thanks for bearing with me, David. You’ve understood for many years the importance of moral distinctions, which is why my comments should reinforce your own moral insights.
In the context of your essay, David, I’d (a) delete “My purpose here is not moral judgment …” Instead, I’d allow readers to see the (clear) moral implications of your argument; and (b) delete “not the responsibility of feminism/the women's movement,” which undermines your own argument about the need to face facts. It’s true that the inability of men to form a healthy collective (and personal) identity began long before the rise of feminism, but it’s true also that feminism has greatly exacerbated that problem. The “devastation,” which you mention only a few paragraphs earlier, surely does indicate the moral guilt of those who deliberately promote hatred (motivated by revenge) but also of those who trivialize, excuse or condone it (motivated by personal or political expediency) and the moral responsibility (which is not the same as guilt) of everyone to turn away from identity politics.
Maybe I’d write the essay in three parts. (1) You’ve already written the first part in order to establish historical facts about feminism as an unhealthy movement. (2) Another part would be necessary to establish the specific problems that now prevent boys and men from forming a healthy identity, whether personally or collectively. The sine qua non is what I discuss as the universal need to make at least one contribution to society that is distinctive, necessary and publicly valued). (3). A final part would be necessary to place all of that into a specifically moral context. I’d probably begin with the “golden rule.” No fancy vocabulary required for that, because it’s self-evidently true. Everyone knows that there is a profound difference between good (empathy, compassion) and evil (hatred). This would be an opportunity to draw conclusions not only from Martin Luther King’s healthy movement (and Gandhi’s) but also from a universal moral imperative. This would conclude the essay on a pastoral note. Justice is ultimately about reconciliation and healing, after all, not punishment, enmity or schadenfreude.
Thank you for this comprehensive exposition, Paul. You make an eloquent argument. I will think about what you say.
I should add here this link to an excellent article that I read only a few minutes ago. It's about education, but I've selected two passages about the specific relation between that and moral discourse in any democratic society.
Patrick Keeney, “Credentialled but Illiterate: The Reading Crisis at the Heart of Education,” Epoch Times, 20 April 2025; https://www.theepochtimes.com/opinion/credentialled-but-illiterate-the-reading-crisis-at-the-heart-of-education-5840053?&utm_source=MB_article_paid&utm_campaign=MB_article_2025-04-21-ca&utm_medium=email&est=YjyYbqSVIGzMVFyygg8US1R4MredBof4rw%2FuhbTN1jAarzBbQYGd3toqbeZ3S4Ug%2BIqtdw%3D%3D&utm_content=opinion-news-2
(1) "More troubling still is the retreat from rigor. In the name of preserving students’ self-esteem, schools are often reluctant to challenge students, hold them accountable, or insist upon high standards of excellence. The result is a dangerous turn to what has been called the therapeutic approach to education. Students are flattered rather than instructed, their self-esteem affirmed regardless of whether they have done anything estimable. The essential work of education—discerning truth from error, cultivating judgment, introducing the young to the intellectual heritage of their civilization—is displaced by therapeutic aims."
(2) "But this is not merely an educational failure. It is a moral one. Literacy is not simply a technical skill—it is a form of ethical and intellectual development. It requires cultivating patience, empathy, and sound judgment. It demands that we sit still and listen attentively to the minds and voices of others. If students cannot do this, then we are not educating them. At best, we are merely credentialing them.
"To be literate, in the fullest sense, is to participate in the great conversation of civilization. It is to gain access to and be initiated into the shared understandings of a community. A liberal education, properly understood, is neither vocational training nor a self-esteem project. It is a moral and intellectual discipline—one that presupposes a conception of the good and an account of the human person as more than a bundle of appetites or a mere consumer. It sees the human being as a moral agent, capable of self-transcendence and of shaping a life toward truth, beauty, and meaning.
"We deceive ourselves if we believe the decline in student literacy is a neutral development. We must resist the fashionable cynicism that shrugs and says, this is simply the way of the world. We are told that in the age of the internet, with its endless screens and omnipresent mobile phones, deep reading is obsolete—no longer an essential skill, but a quaint indulgence from a bygone era.
"Such resignation is not only intellectually lazy but morally perilous. The capacity to read deeply, to write clearly, to follow and test a line of reasoning—these are habits of mind without which neither democracy nor the life of the mind can flourish.
"Education has always been about elevation. It is the deliberate act of lifting students’ minds above distraction, above appetite, above the noise of the present moment. To “meet students where they are” may be a necessary starting point, but it must never be mistaken for the destination. The true aim of education is not to affirm students as they are, but to form them into what they might become. It is to awaken their capacities for reason, imagination, and judgment—and to summon them toward the best versions of themselves."
Damn great quotes! I loved this: "More troubling still is the retreat from rigor. In the name of preserving students’ self-esteem, schools are often reluctant to challenge students, hold them accountable, or insist upon high standards of excellence."
As the feminine ideas of safety have risen to frightening levels, the masculine ideas of excellence and greatness have massively shrunk.
Well said! Clear and accurate as I expect from David. But what can men and women of good will do about the future together? How can we help it along?
Analysis is interesting and I love it but it's not inherently transformational. I've sometimes worked with good effect by having men and women create a clearly bounded space - e.g, equal times back and forth for short periods, zero interruptions, eye contact from the listener - using a prompt. A brave one is "Tell me how you hide in relationship." Quite a few women and men are willing to do this. The post-convo space is friendly and warm, and I think relieved. (Have to get back into this!)
The crucial difference is we're not commenting on the other sex at all. We're sharing our humanness best as we can.
The challenges that we engage in men's groups often include comments about the other. This is necessary, it seems to me, if we are to have genuine engagement with each other - nothing can be off the table in terms of content, only in terms of process. Until we can comment on the other sex, surely we cannot have all of the conversations that are needed.
Jim Wills. Not in all cases. The abandonment of the extended family is unhealthy. The nuclear family, as it is referred to, is actually unable to support a larger structure than maybe two generations of a familial grouping. There are various reasons for this among which are the separations distance wise between family members, the lack of social contact between uncles. aunts, cousins etc and the lack of desire to include family members who are not in the immediate father, mother, grandparents association. Why is there such loneliness in the World today? Why is there such a lack of interest in the affairs of others? It is my contention that far from bringing families and friends closer, the ease and effortlessness of contact via the internet has prevented proper discussion, learning and empathy between the current generations. Let’s get back to a healthier way of semi tribal living. We have become divorced from the bedrock of humanity. A large family of two to three previous generations, uncles, cousins, aunts, children, all in contact with each other and actually learning good behaviours from these relatives helps to foster a sense of responsibility for everyone who is a part of your family. Boys learn how to be men from a number of relatives, girls are not brought up used to good male models and the presence of the older members helps to enforce good behaviours, respect, helpfulness and kindness amongst the family. One of my nephews at a family gathering reminded me that I and one of my nieces had taught him to read as a child, long before he went to school. The family is the first schoolroom and the more diversity within that family, plus the feeling of safety engendered by the close proximity of those who love you as you love them is a profound influence for good. My father and elder brother plus uncles and boy cousins took good care of the female members of our family from the most ancient to the youngest. My mother, aunts, grandmother etc. taught the boys manners and the reason for them, the male members of the family taught them to be protective and hardworking. Today’s influencers should not be the shaping influences for our children. The manners, behaviour and attitudes in society should be taught within the boundaries of a secure, loving and caring extended family.
What you say makes much sense, Yvonne, but do you have any sense of how society might be persuaded to move in the direction you describe?
Well said. The reason that feminism, Black Lives Matter, the LGBTQ+ movement etc. all fail is that none of them is actually about equal rights, equality or actual justice. They are about Just Us...with the self proclaimed morally superior movement's members being the US. Feminist women are by the their actions, in fact, morally INFERIOR to the average man or woman on the street in the same way that any other self promoting bully is.
In the past we've depended upon our children to produce extended families that included the "old people" and to take care of them in their dotages. No more. It's the nursing home for you, old boy. So what to do?
Elon says the Tesla robot, Optimus, will be ready for general consumption in 2 years. It can do ALL household chores, cook, clean, prepare medications, recognize signs of distress, call 911, carry an adult to his self-driving car, which will then cart him to the ER. It can carry on conversation. And you will never have to worry about the second or third wife's plan to put you in a nursing home, kick your children to the curb, and give your assets to her children by a previous marriage. (Ask me how I know.) A machine that is 100% reliable for having YOUR interests at heart.
The Japanese - lovable perverts that they are - exceeded by only the Germans, but smarter - have projected a perfectly functional sex robot within five years.
So, pick up two 'bots and Bob's-your-uncle. What about breeding the next generation? When the Toxic Feminism problem is solved, call me. I'm in The Book.
Jim, I understand the inclination to retreat from the fight. For some people, an AI wife might indeed be the best option. However, I hope that enough will engage constructively with society as the wheels come off, as they must eventually if we continue down this path - otherwise, we are done.
Nobody's retreating from any fight. There is no fight. It may take the weird engineer's mentality (mine) to understand this, but this is a straightforward risk/reward calculation. Half of first marriages fail; 2/3 of second. 3/4 of third. A failed marriage has a very high likelihood of destroying a man's life, setting him back at least ten years financially. (That was my case.) That is not a trivial consideration. Would you jump out of a plane with a parachute that has a 50% chance of failing? What about 66%? 75%? How about work ten years like a cornfield....and have that all taken away from you, including your children? Nah, it's silicon for me.
It's not a fight. It's a game. And the only winning move is not to play.
https://youtu.be/uOoXwxqeVzg?si=2kDzLv4aeno9vt30
p.s. really like your writing style
The answer is an emphatic "NO!" I can readily supply more than sufficient reasons for my statement if requested. It's a "movement" all right, but a different kind of movement! I'll leave it to the other readers to add any additional labels they might want to add! I know what I would add, but I'll abstain for now; I'm notoriously outspoken!
This is a good article.
https://mallorymillett.com/?p=37
Mallory is a fascinating woman. I should post the Regarding Men interview that Janice, Paul, and I did with Mallory. Her story is so important to hear.
She goes right back to the beginning of start of the 2nd wave.
I agree that there is nothing healthy about the feminine movements at the moment. For those interested, I enclose my article Close Encounters with Brainwashing #2 - Women's Edition: https://nataliablagoeva.substack.com/p/womens-edition-close-encounters-with
An excellent article, Natalia. Your prescriptions are similar to my own - focus on the future, work on both women's issues and men's issues, collaborative inclusion of all in the creation of the new.
Thank you, David. I also felt we are pretty much alligned.
I agree and I will offer an article of mine on a similar subject to those interested: https://nataliablagoeva.substack.com/p/womens-edition-close-encounters-with
It is and it isn’t depends on the context. We don’t want stressed women.A relaxed woman is able to live better. A fighting woman is not healthy.
What do you mean, Nicole? Can you relate your comments to what I wrote? Where do relaxed women and fighting women come in?
I haven’t read it yet. What I mean is feminist women Are armoured and numb rather than relaxed. Feminine women have no need to resist fight or rally up against. However in this culture it’s hard to find understanding women to women it is a rare thing true sisterhood. It does exist.