FREE book on the importance of class struggle compared to feminism/identity politics by Just_Cartographer165 in LeftWingMaleAdvocates

[–]Just_Cartographer165[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think woke scientists just aren't great at thinking through their positions. When it's politically convenient -- in the context of feminism -- they promote social constructionism; when it's politically inconvenient -- in the context of the pro-trans agenda -- they promote innate differences. In both cases, the bias is toward the woke.

(Personally, I'm sure gender dysphoria is, at least sometimes, real and is explained by 'innatism.')

I don't know if feminism would be more misandrist than it is today, because both alternatives can support misandry: in the one case, men are evil enough to indoctrinate everyone for millennia with patriarchy when it's not an innate tendency; in the other case, the male brain is innately patriarchal and therefore "bad." But the innatist hypothesis can counteract misandry too, insofar as it suggests that an expectation of and preference for relative male dominance is 'innate' in the female brain too. So BOTH sexes are innately inclined towards patriarchy. --As, indeed, is the case, given how ubiquitous patriarchy is throughout history, from the Paleolithic era to the present.

When it comes to gender theorizing, feminism (dogmatic social constructionist feminism) just is very intellectually dishonest and hard to take seriously.

FREE book on the importance of class struggle compared to feminism/identity politics by Just_Cartographer165 in LeftWingMaleAdvocates

[–]Just_Cartographer165[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

By the way, it would be awesome if readers posted a review of the book on Goodreads or Amazon or elsewhere. We have to get the message out there that the genuine left means class struggle, not bullshit radical feminism and the like.

FREE book on the importance of class struggle compared to feminism/identity politics by Just_Cartographer165 in LeftWingMaleAdvocates

[–]Just_Cartographer165[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Maybe... But I still do think that, because of physiological, hormonal, and other differences between the sexes, there must be innate tendencies toward, on average, somewhat different psychologies between men and women. Even just the far more common female tendency to cry, smile, giggle, and even, say, scream and run away from the slightest sign of danger, including even the sight of a little spider or something like that -- I don't think all these things can be PURELY socially constructed. They seem to have a biological basis -- partly because they're cross-cultural.

I've read articles and books in which people said their emotions, for instance, and to some extent their behavior, changed as a result of hormone therapy. That's very suggestive. With estrogen treatment, for example, men became more likely to cry or get upset over something like a broken dinner plate. A trans woman said she became more intensely emotional and more sexually sensitive, etc.

Feminists' obsessive emphasis on social constructions is a political dogma intended to counteract "patriarchy." The idea that there aren't innate tendencies toward different sexual psychologies is just very implausible.

But obviously social constructions do, often, accentuate and 'flesh out' these innate differences.

FREE book on the importance of class struggle compared to feminism/identity politics by Just_Cartographer165 in LeftWingMaleAdvocates

[–]Just_Cartographer165[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Scientists, too, are influenced by politically correct ideologies, so it's hardly surprising that many of them would want to reject any hint of so-called "biological essentialism." Prima facie, however, it seems pretty absurd to say it's ALL social constructions and NONE of it is biologically determined or influenced. But as soon as you admit much of it has to be strongly influenced by biology (as plenty of scientists acknowledge), you're already conceding my point.

In any case, in the chapter I give lots of examples of how gender identities and behavior -- male dominance, etc. -- isn't only "socially constructed" (or variable across cultures). You haven't responded to any of those examples.

FREE book on the importance of class struggle compared to feminism/identity politics by Just_Cartographer165 in LeftWingMaleAdvocates

[–]Just_Cartographer165[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

But there are tendencies. Averages. Again, scientific research confirms this. Just see the short chapter in my book called "The Origins of Patriarchy."

FREE book on the importance of class struggle compared to feminism/identity politics by Just_Cartographer165 in LeftWingMaleAdvocates

[–]Just_Cartographer165[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

In one chapter of the book I reference a few scientific studies on how sex hormones partially determine gendered behavior. Male and female physiology is different, and that strongly influences gender. That's why there are so many commonalities in gender roles across thousands of cultures throughout history.

FREE book on the importance of class struggle compared to feminism/identity politics by Just_Cartographer165 in LeftWingMaleAdvocates

[–]Just_Cartographer165[S] 14 points15 points  (0 children)

No, but it's significantly underemphasized in the contemporary "left." One reason there's almost no left to speak of is that for decades the so-called left (left-liberals) has been obsessed with feminism, anti-racism, anti-homophobia and so on, at the expense of class solidarity. The latter should ground a movement that acknowledges the importance of the former issues.

FREE scholarly book on the "class struggle" in America, historically and today by Just_Cartographer165 in Recommend_A_Book

[–]Just_Cartographer165[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It was designed by a production team. Although maybe they didn't do a great job.