Is vs Ought to Be, Hegel->Marx->Neo Marxism->Wokeism Philosophical Development


Human animals and non-human animals start out with the same goofy innocence. We all start out with a reality ahead of us that we must learn about. We start out needing our parents, their protection and guidance. Elephants must learn about reality through elephant-culture, humans must learn about reality through human-culture. We must all “learn how to be.” Are we really all that different to the animals?

Matriarchal protection of the vulnerable (it’s not just humans that do it):

Notice how important elephant trunks are. They are to elephants what our hands are to us. They express themselves with their trunks, they sense the environment with them, the ends of their trunks are their fingers with which they feel, gather and hold objects. The theory of semiotics factoring in the biological differences.


I love elephants and also love my Mom, Aunts, Sisters, Grandmoms but you’re losing me @steljarkos .


I understand. There is much to undo.


The matriarchal role is extremely important and powerful, across all species. Feminism has done incalculable damage to Womankind in trying to disparage this role as irrelevant, and nominating only the male role to be worthy of emulation. Along with the rest of the humans-r-speshul agenda, it constitutes an unprecedented failure to disengage the ego. With people and cultures trapped into seeing the world from their own levels, huge strife on a global scale is destined to follow.




Partial agreement here.

As Ken has talked about many times before, a multitude of selection pressures caused most of human society to differentiate into two major “spheres” of conduct – the public sphere (patriarchy, dominated by men) and the private sphere (matriarchy, dominated by women). This made a ton of sense at the time, largely due to the limits of biology and technology (men can push a plow without having a miscarriage).

However, after the industrial revolution, those selection pressures began to go away. Technology was the great equalizer, now women could be just as productive as men. So there was a big push for women to earn the same public sphere rights as men – first by winning the right to vote (I’m sure no one will argue we should go back on that, except Ann Coulter maybe) and then by winning the right to participate in the workforce. And of course, WWII created a huge opportunity for women to move en masse from the private sphere into the public. I think this absolutely should be celebrated.

However, it’s not like we saw a similar shift from men out of the pubic sphere and into the private sphere. Which means that the private sphere was being largely neglected, reaching a critical mass after 1980 and the Reagan/Thatcher neoliberal period that ensued, which continued to double down on individualism over community, exterior value over interior values, etc. My own generation (Gen X) was the first to feel the brunt of this, as all of a sudden we had skyrocketing divorce rates, single parent households, dual-income households, latch key kids, and so forth. We felt the diminishment of the private sphere first hand.

So that’s where we are now. Men are still expected to “love their family by spending time away from their family”, as Warren Farrell poignantly says, while women are often expected to fill both public and private roles. And over the last century, women have made far more progress in the public sphere, then men have in the private sphere. (Any man who has to take their crying daughter home from the park, and felt the suspicious stares of women watching him, knows this pain I think.)

And this diminishment of the private sphere, I think, is single handedly responsible for the dramatic decease of empathy and increase of narcissism, depression, anxiety, and suicide in this country. Hell, I think it’s why we can’t even handle this pandemic like responsible adults who actually care about each other’s health and wellbeing.

Ideally, both men and women would have the choice to participate in whatever sphere they want, or both. I just don’t think we are there yet.

However, I do see some good news. I myself have been able to work almost entirely from home for the last decade, which means I’ve been able to enjoy an almost seamless integration of public and private spheres in my own life. Which is so incredibly precious when you have a kid with a chronic illness. And many more men and women are getting the same opportunity.

My sense is that, just like the industrial age allowed women to move en masse from the private sphere into the public, the coming automation age will do something similar for men, and allow them to find their place in the private sphere for the first time in a very, very long time. When that happens, this will be tremendously liberating for men, just as the 20th century was liberating for women. Because now men will be able to actually cultivate a healthy sense of intrinsic value, rather than only the extrinsic value of how much they produce for other people. This is why, I believe, men tend to commit suicide after losing either their job or their spouse – in the former case, they are losing their only source of extrinsic value, and in the latter case they are losing their only source of intrinsic value.

It’s a bumpy ride, but I think the moral arc continues to push all the way past the horizon :slight_smile:


@corey-devos, Your outline, one which I’ve subscribed to in the past, makes perfect sense. My former self has no issue with any of this. But I’ve since revised a lot of my thinking. At the center of my revision is that women cannot enjoy this level of equality without our contraceptive technologies - most notably, the contraceptive pill, but also including the abortion industry. Our contraceptive technologies represent an unnatural intervention that tampers with biology, which, in turn, tampers with culture. There is much to unpack.


The hormonal contraceptive pill tampers with biology. It is not clear how this impacts on the female sex drive. Anecdotal reports vary. Some say that it heightens sex drive, because it relieves women from the burden of childbirth, while others say that it diminishes sex drive because, hey, hormones. More recently, some women have been coming forward expressing dismay at the realization of the effect that the contraceptive pill has had on their lives. Whatever. I cannot comment on this with any authority. Subjective reports that cannot be measured objectively are always problematic. Let’s move on to the things that can be measured objectively.

Objectively, it is self-evident that the contraceptive pill has introduced into culture, options that did not exist before. The sexual revolution could never have occurred without the contraceptive pill. Feminism could never have occurred without the sexual revolution, and, so it follows, neither could have “women’s equality”. The sexual revolution was integral to massive cultural change. But what kind of equality is this? It’s a fake equality where hypergamous women continue to prioritize their choice for provider men (with the boundaries for what “provider” means having been somewhat redefined). For example, women’s choices have moved on from the responsible provider before feminism, to the caddish alpha of the contemporary PUA (pickup artist) movement [internet search engines are your friend, if you are unfamiliar with these terms]. Sure, women can now have careers, but they also continue to have an escape hatch if it all gets too difficult. Culture provides women with the escape hatch of childbirth. It’s an option that is not promoted for men. I first introduced this concept in my 2005 article in Transitions (a men’s movement publication): The Wage Gap Myth is Hazardous to Men’s Health. In contemporary culture, stay-at-home dads are entertained in theory, but the truth of their validation is embodied in the complete disinterest that many women have for “nice guys” and stay-at-home dads… the swaggering alpha wins their hearts every time. That’s a part of the contraceptive pill’s effect on culture. Tampering with biology has consequences because it introduces new options that never existed before. To put it bluntly, in a cultural context, women’s choices today bear little resemblance to the choices that women made before the sexual revolution (aside from the persistence of the dominant “provider” stereotype, albeit in today’s emotionally-stunted adolescent manifestation).

As to the feminist claim that women have been oppressed throughout history, this is also nonsense. But you’ve got to understand the biology of consciousness (the neuroplastic brain) to appreciate why. Recent comments on this forum express indignation at the suggestion that women have never been oppressed, citing the obviousness of the oppression of women in Afghanistan. The reality of the so-called “oppression of women” is much more complex and nuanced. Women are the primary nurturers. They have primary access to young brains when they are most malleable. One estimate is that 90% of a human brain’s wiring is accomplished within the first four years of life (Prof Jill Stamm, from Arizona State University, a child behavior authority)… when mothers wield the most influence. It is from mothers that children first learn what matters (Peirce, pragmatism). It is from mothers that children first learn how to be. Far from being powerless, the primary nurturer wields considerable power over culture’s destiny. Do we want the truth about the oppression of women in so-called patriarchy-dominated cultures? A passage from one of my articles:

Do as your mother tells you

On Australian Sixty Minutes on Richard Carlton’s report on suicide bombers (Carlton, 2001) , a Palestinian woman declared, raising her voice, trying to convince the ignorant westerner, who just didn’t seem to “get it,” that she wants her son to die, to become a hero for the Arab cause - as the camera panned across to the innocent face of a little boy not even into his teens.

In The Australian newspaper, Natalie O’Brien’s front-page headline (2005) reads “Mum’s permission needed for terror plan.” Quoting from evidence before Sydney’s Central Local Court, spiritual leader Abdul Nacer Benbrika is quoted as saying, “Some people claim to love jihad but don’t respect their own parents… You need permission from your parents to go to jihad. If your mother says no to jihad, then no jihad.” Two days later, Mazen Touma (alleged to have been training for jihad) asked for his mother’s permission to undertake jihad. Her response did not appear in the police evidence, and she refused to speak to the media.

This, is the power of mother over son. The sustainer of the known provides the framework to which a boy will refer in his transition into manhood. The sustainer of the known will provide the goals and standards that boys and men will feel obligated to uphold and carry out. Motherhood, femininity, provides the basis for the cultural known around which the explorers of the unknown will gravitate and test the limits. The power of the hand that rocks the cradle is formidable. It is from the mother that an infant growing into childhood first learns about the things that matter.

I’ve also referenced publications discussing the problem of child abuse (e.g., the Child Maltreatment reports by the US Department of Health and Human Services), establishing that women are the primary perpetrators. Child abuse by women - the primary nurturers - impacts on the wiring of the neuroplastic brain. Child abuse is never trivial. In comparison to the role that the primary nurturer has over the wiring of the neuroplastic brain, references to the oppression of women by The Patriarchy is way over-rated. Feminism disempowers women. Turning women into victims can never be empowering.

Factor in the silly choices that contemporary women make with the PUA phenomenon (women love dominant bad-boys), how on earth can we continue to take seriously the notion of women’s oppression by The Patriarchy? Women play a direct role in choosing the kinds of men that “oppress” them. Why? Female sexuality, the thrill of the forbidden, the thrill of “throwing it away” (much to unpack here, save it for another discussion). Men initiate and provide, women submit, they are the recipients, they wield the power of veto… semiotic theory relates. We cannot do this topic justice in a discussion forum such as here. It’s a whole other paradigm with much to unfold.

Neural plasticity and it relationship to the body is critical. Primary nurturers have direct access to that relationship during an infant’s most formative years. It is from the primary nurturer that children first learn about the things that matter. It is from the primary nurturer that children first learn about love, hate, kindness and violence. To hell with because-genes determinism.

There is an awful lot to unpack. There is an awful lot to undo… we are stuck in a broken paradigm that needs to be tossed out. A buddhist koan comes to mind, of a monk pouring tea until the cup continues to overflow, and his apprentice suggesting in alarm to stop “because my cup is already full!” The monk replies that he has to unlearn what he currently knows (empty his cup), in order to be able to receive new wisdom. There is indeed much to throw out, like that anthropocentric, humans-r-speshul determinism that continues to hold us back. There is much that continues to block us from receiving new insights.


Umm, would equality be an emergent property of our culture if dumb-ass men who have inherited positions of power from other dumb-ass men wised up and allowed women into their domain?


Dumb-ass men who have inherited positions of power are overwhelmingly favored by dumb-ass women for whom security and being provided for overwhelm any concern that they might have for a man’s character. Keyword: hypergamy.

In addition to hypergamy, further google terms: “Women are miserable” - Just an arbitrary entry or two:

Women are just not interested in doing men’s stuff. It all looks good on paper, but by the time that middle-age hits, so does the epiphany, and by then it’s too late.


“Men’s stuff” is a toxic cancer on our culture. Why would any sane woman wish to do “men’s stuff” ?


To address a few of your points:

  • Freedom and power for women and the sexual revolution are different things. Birth control is also seperate. They are all connected, but they are all independent.
  • Women having to rely on men to get their basic needs met - shelter, food etc - as they did in the past, meant that men had the ability to exert control over women. This enabled things like physical and sexual abuse towards women from their husbands to be commonplace. It used to be the case that men would see sex with their wives as a marital right. When a woman is completely reliant on her husband, it makes it very easy for him to be abusive towards her, because her life is basically dependent on him.
  • One of the reasons some men seem to be against feminism appears to be because it’s less possible for them to get sex. Fewer women are wanting to be in relationships or get married, and when they are in them, more women don’t have sex when they don’t want to.
  • A difficulty is, many women now need to work at the same time as bringing up children. They did in the past of course, but that was only poor women. Now it is the majority of women. This means women are often expected to do it all and it can often mean they rarely have free time, especially if they are single mothers. A restructuring of society needs to happen to make it easier for women to bring up children - e.g. free childcare for everyone, and full paid leave for women until their children reach school age (if they want it).
  • There are no ‘men’s domains’ and ‘woman’s domains’. On average, men tend to prefer certain activities and careers while women prefer others, but this is on average, and these average differences are often very small. See Cordelia Fine’s ‘Testosterone Rex’ and ‘Delusions of Gender’ for more on this. I agree with you that nurturing is an incredibly important role, and can be a beautiful and fulfilling one for many, but clearly that doesnt mean it should be every woman’s role.


@Julia248, responding to each of your points in sequence:

  1. No, they are not independent at all. They are all bound together within any one culture and the meanings that that culture attributes to them. “The culture is the thought”;
  2. Again, culture. There are cultural differences. Sizeable differences. The Central Europe that I now call home has greater respect across the genders (men and women respecting each other) compared to the Anglosphere that I’ve left behind. Domestic violence is complex, and you cannot disengage it from child abuse. The Child Maltreatment Reports from the US Department of Health have shown that women are the primary perpetrators of child abuse - as we would expect, given that women are the primary carers. What goes around, however, comes around. Children become adults who take their learning from the primary nurturer into adulthood. Children first learn violence from their primary nurturer;
  3. No, feminism has made access to sex, for men, easier than ever before. If it’s just sex that men are interested in, then it is in their interest to retain feminism. Feminism owes its success to the sexual revolution… and the sexual revolution owes its success to feminism… it’s the reality that feminism created and that the sexual revolution made possible;
  4. Women need to work to provide the additional earning power that was subtracted from men, thanks to the feminist agenda of “equality” (of the equal-outcome persuasion - as opposed to equal opportunity that I support). Feminism created the reality. Now it’s yours to enjoy;
  5. Men’s and women’s different domains within culture can be better understood by factoring in the mind-body unity (men’s and women’s different mind-bodies, and the cultural habits to which they are predisposed). Men’s and women’s neuroplastic brains are wired to accommodate different cultural priorities. There is no unilateral oppression of one gender by another, but there is systemic “oppression” in the sense that culture places pressure on both men and women to conform to gender stereotypes… oppression in which everyone is an accomplice. If men want access to sex, they must conform. If women want to be provided for, they must conform.



  1. They all have cultural aspects to them. And they are all both independent and connected. One’s ability to have freedom and power in a society is independent of sexual activity, obviously. However, birth control also meant women were not as reliant on men if they wanted to have sex with them, because when they did they were not at risk of becoming pregnant. They are both connected and independent entities.
  2. Yes, one side of abuse is connected to culture, how much people respect one another, and what is seen as acceptable when people are at the pre-orange stages of development. This is one part of it. (And Central Europe has domestic violence… do you have any evidence of it being lower than the UK or US? Any domestic violence is a problem in any case).

Another thing that lowers abuse rates is independence. It prevents adults needing to be or stay in situations where they are or at risk of being abused.

Contraceptives lower the risk of child abuse. They mean people can wait until they are ready to have children, so they are in a good mental and emotional situation which makes them more likely to be good parents. Taking away women’s freedoms and forcing them to have children is very unlikely to create conditions conducive to good parenting. It would increase the risk of child abuse. It’s never going to happen, however, unless the world goes really crazy.

And intergenerational trauma is very much a thing. Both men and women who were abused - by parents or partners, or anyone - are far more likely to become abusers themselves. Rather than thinking of this as a case of ''what goes around comes around", it would be better to think of it that there should be more mental health services for people who’ve experienced trauma, which means these cycles can also be broken.

  1. Access to sex is now easier for certain men, those considered desirable by women. But for most men it’s made it more difficult because women are far less likely to settle for men who they consider unattractive. Men can become more attractive to women however, and learn to be better at sex which would also mean women would more likely want to have sex with them, e.g. from learning from
  2. Women want to work. Women enjoy work. Think of the stages of development. When women get to green they may not be so focused on achievement for it’s own sake anymore, but they don’t want to go back to amber.

At the same time, the lack of focus on the domestic sphere relative to the public sphere has meant it is harder to bring up children. Incomes have fallen relative to living costs and so now often two parents need to work, and it’s even harder for single parents. There needs to be more support and focus on the bringing up of children and conditions conducive to healthy parents. E.g. free childcare and higher incomes so parents don’t need to work as much.
5. I recommend reading ‘Testosterone Rex’ by Cordelia Fine.

Are you saying you advocate for a culture where everyone is oppressed? No one needs to be oppressed.


We now arrive at a tangent (actually a couple of tangents) that I was anticipating and hoping to avoid. I was hoping to avoid such tangents because they are messy to unpack, particularly if one is not familiar with the narratives that I’m coming from.


Independence as “the cure”, preventing adults from persisting in abusive situations, sure. But how about not getting into abusive relationships in the first place?

Our contraceptive technologies open the flood-gates for dabbling with options and dumbing down our choices, secure in the knowledge that one can always have an abortion if hormonal contraception fails. Women no longer need be concerned whether they finish up with responsible men or losers. If a woman chooses an idiot, she can toss him out if he fails to live up to expectations. So far, so good. But if he gets her pregnant, she can always have an abortion? Not so good. The damage is done. Not just to herself and her soul (another tangent that I don’t want to go down). She’s validated his creepiness, creepiness becomes a cultural norm among men. Her dumb choice becomes integrated with the cultural narrative. Through her choice, she’s validated the idiot as an acceptable norm and lifestyle choice for men, and an expression of what that culture stands for.

But as I suggested above, this is a big topic, impossible to unpack here if we want to do it justice.

As for your contention that contraceptives lower the risk of child abuse… if you assume, as your given, a shallow culture where men and women routinely make dumb choices, then sure, contraceptives will definitely lower the risk of child abuse. I mean, how could it not if, in a worst-case scenario, all children finish up aborted? Of course you will have zero child abuse in a population that does not have any children.

It also stands to reason that cultures that are comfortable with aborting their children have a diminished capacity to love their children. Ain’t rocket science. Is semiotic.

Oh, and the spirituality of Central Europe… no I don’t have proof of less domestic violence. I just know that I belong. You know it when you see it, as they say :smile:


There is no such thing as a culture without boundaries. A culture is a system of belief, and systems of belief must always impose boundaries. “The culture is the thought” and you cannot have thought without definitions (boundaries).

Liberalism - the idea of culture unbound - is proving itself the fraud it is. Cancel culture has very specific boundaries and people pay the penalty for any breach of standards. Freedom of speech, by definition speech unbounded, is curtailed in contemporary Liberalism’s Cancel-Culture.

Diversity - diversity of opinion is good, so long as it is not contrary to the accepted (Leftist) narrative.

And so on. There are so many contortions and cognitive dissonances required to impose a culture without bounds that it becomes its own satire.


Abortion is another tangent that I don’t want to go down. It opens a Pandora’s box of implications for culture and the meanings that evolve in culture.

As I’ve already mentioned elsewhere in our forum, I have reasons for my assumption that life begins at conception. I also default to reincarnation as a given. The snuffing out of a life queued for reincarnation introduces a new moral dimension into the debate.

Bottom line, a culture which entertains abortions for reasons of convenience is an especially shallow one that is not sustainable. It belongs up there alongside battery farming and experimentation on animals (for example, in the cosmetics industry) as among the evils that characterize our era.

Thanks for the links you provided. Understanding human sexuality is vital to understanding culture and how human minds work, I look forward to exploring these links in greater detail.


@steljarkos, to be clear, are your views that you don’t want women to have careers or financial independence, you want all women to be housewives, and you don’t want women to have the option of taking contraceptives to prevent unwanted pregnancies? This is how it seems from your posting.

It seems the only freedom you want women to have is to be able to choose wisely on who they will marry, who will be their ‘guardian’, basically.

I didn’t mention abortion in my post.

(My view is that of course women should have the right to choose if they have the misfortune of becoming pregnant when they don’t want to be, in the wrong circumstances or for health reasons. Something I learned recently was that a single heart cell has a heart beat. They are the only cells of the body that produce electrical signals independently.

When people have abortions, in the vast majority of cases, what they are aborting is a collection of cells. I really don’t think these can be called a person. But the human imagination can bring a person into being.

I always thought it strange for people to disagree with abortions yet be willing to eat animals. However, everyone is allowed to have their opinions, so long as they aren’t harming other people (which they unfortunately often are in this debate).

However, I don’t wish to discuss abortion further.)

You’re welcome for the links. I should clarify that I wanted to show I didn’t think it simply to be the case that many men now had no hope of being intimate with women, and that’s the reason for posting the first link. The dynamic has changed and it is no longer men who have all the power and so they can’t just expect to have a woman by marrying one - because she has no choices other than marrying. But they can have real relationships with women, where both individuals actually want to be with one another.


Exactly as I anticipated. This is not a tangent that I wanted to go down, given the assumptions that we are trapped in. But hey, I succumbed, my bad. So let’s continue, see if we can arrive at some kind of closure :slight_smile:

@Julia248, to be clear, my view is that we need to take an entirely new direction. We need to integrate the truths of our past with new insights. There was a reason for the sorts of restraints emphasized in the old days and previous traditions. It is a huge mistake for us in the “progressive” era to write prior truths off as “old fashioned” and no longer relevant. Such arrogance has consequences. Instead of writing previous truths off as a joke, we should revisit them, to try to understand their universal relevance.

Before the consolidation of feminism and casual sex, women were far choosier than they are today. You suggest that women today are more likely to choose “attractive” men. I’m not sure that I agree. I’ve witnessed too many women make ridiculous choices. Traditionally, women tended to be drawn to confident, successful men and for other women, confident, charming and good-looking was sufficient; fair enough, things were much simpler in those more innocent times. I suggest that today, however, the women that choose wisely are in the minority. What do you mean by attractive? Successful as in career? An exciting alpha, as defined in the PUA (pickup artist) movement (google is your friend if you don’t know what PUA is about)? Or a supplicating feministy dude who seeks women’s approval? I find neither career slaves, nor PUA monkeys masquerading as alphas, nor supplicating betas, attractive. I see through them. Many women do not. Some women find mumbling degenerates hot - or at least easy to relate to. Some women are groupies hooking up with rock stars, bad-boys, drugs and rock-n-roll. Other women are drawn to brutish thugs because they present a challenge, something to tame, something to provide a life of drama and excitement, the thrill of the forbidden and all that. For gold-diggers, lots of money catches their attention, and they will cheerfully overlook the imperfections of a drooling, trembling geriatric with liver spots. A great many women make completely ridiculous choices.

Thanks but no thanks. Many men are starting to wake up to the realization that they don’t need to get involved with women who have been around the block more than a dozen times. It is the contraceptive pill that has provided women with all these wonderful opportunities to make dumb choices.

But hey, the contraceptive pill gives women license to dabble, and they can always have an abortion if it all goes awry. If she chooses an idiot, she has an exit strategy, and she gets off scot free. Fine for her. But that dumb choice becomes integrated with the cultural narrative. Through her choice, she’s validated the idiot as an acceptable norm and lifestyle choice for men. Not so fine for everyone else. Progressive culture now provides women with license to exit their dumb choices, instead of having to bear the consequences. I don’t want to live in that kind of shallow, dumbed-down culture. I’m a firm believer of “choose an idiot, birth his thug-spawn, bear the consequences.” I have zero sympathy for her if she gets smacked around. She made the choice and nobody held a gun to her head. She made her choice despite having ample other options available. So, to emphasize my introductory point: How about not getting into abusive relationships in the first place?

Reality, its truths and possibilities need to be treated with more respect and sacredness. Dumbing it all down to a vanilla level of banality in order to accommodate women’s dopey choices is no solution.

Still want to continue with this tangent? I suspect not. :disappointed_relieved:


50% of marriages end in divorce, and it’s usually the woman who instigates the divorce. I expect the aspects of bad sex and the expectation of bad sex have a lot to do with it (bad sex being defined here as sex that is not pleasurable/ is unpleasant for women - this is incredibly common - and being pressured/emotionally manipulated into sex is now considered abuse; it didn’t used to be. I would expect this kind of abuse used to be very common, but is becoming less and less so), amongst other factors.

What is your argument? You are against feminism. How do you want society to be structured? Do you want to stop women from making what you consider to be bad choices by taking away their choices?


There it is, right there. The proof that women are making dumb choices. The reason for all this bad sex that prompts women to initiate divorce? Maybe there’s something wrong with the choices that women are making. Just sayin’. There is nothing as overrated as bad sex (and there is nothing as underrated as a good dump, as they say, double entendre intended).


Okay. Well that was crude and shows poor character.

I’ve attempted here to understand your point of view around why you want women to have no freedom and power, but you don’t answer any questions and just repeatedly say women make poor choices in romance, as if it’s any of your business what other people do anyway.


Strawman. That’s your wording. It’s your projection. I want women to have real freedom, and to discover the source of their real power.

If it affects my culture and my truth, then it is my business. Lies and falsehoods must always be called out. It is our duty.

I said that it is complicated, and that I was reluctant to go down this tangent. We might get a lot further if you weren’t so disingenuous and insulting.