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.

  • TheAnonymouseJoker@lemmygrad.mlOP
    0·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • ☭CommieWolf☆@lemmygrad.ml
      2·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • CriticalResist8@lemmygrad.ml
      0·
      1 year ago

      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.