A big reason men's rights activism falls flat is that it tries to ape feminism from "a male perspective".

Gentlemen, feminism only works because it comes from a female perspective, from human females, with their own inclinations and other people's inclinations toward them.
It's like trying to throw a puppy party with lizards.

Uhm, that's cool, may be interesting for some, but the overall effect is different.
For people asking: “what do you propose?” Well, first step is removing the muzzle from your foot, then understanding that the great marxist men’s egalitarian revolution is not coming and that you’re condemned to a perpetual collective January 6th debacle.
Women get things through nagging and language games, men get them through taking them. This is tough in a society built on nagging and language games, but the idea that you’ll outdo women at their own game is lunacy

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Alex Kaschuta

Alex Kaschuta Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @kaschuta

30 Apr
While “women can’t have kids after 33” is dumb, women and men do have different timelines if they want to have kids.

I wish this was some internet echo chamber talking point, but I know enough people who have been burned with these issues IRL.
Women “thinking about” having kids at 40, going through a few years of horrendous IVF with no results. IVF isn’t everyone’s miracle and it isn’t easy, fun or - especially, cheap.

Men who were very surprised to hear that it’s really hard for women to have kids after 40.
There’s still a lot of silence on these embarrassing facts of nature in normieworld

And the issue is also that because the normative relationship type now is serial monogamy and not dating-for-marriage, you need to meet and live with someone for many years before kids come up.
Read 4 tweets
30 Apr
Great piece by @SohrabAhmari.

In human societies, moral fervour guides narratives, which in turn drive and legitimate policy.

If you don’t stand up for values beyond “live and let live”, don’t be surprised when someone else’s moral fervour sets the values for you.
The burden of proof is on people who say that there ever was something like “moral neutral ground” that we can return to.

History says otherwise.
*the slowly decaying scaffolding of Christianity doesn’t count
Read 4 tweets
29 Apr
Not understanding this & not teaching this is also one of the gravest injustices perpetrated on young people.

They're thrown into the dionysian end of the pool with a pocket calculator and told to "calculate your way to swimming." They struggle and fail and some even drown.
The fact that they want ever more explicit regulation (the most apollonian tool by definition) is an understandable result of this misunderstanding.

Some things cannot be negotiated explicitly, because they happen in a different realm. You need to cultivate a *feel* for them.
I've been in dark situations that involved sex and compulsion, especially because I lost my dad when I was a teenager and that's essentially the equivalent of strapping on a tracking beacon for predators.

I was very naive and made things worse by misunderstanding.
Read 5 tweets
28 Apr
My chat with Curtis Yarvin / Mencius Moldbug is now on all podcast platforms and YT.

We talk about how to be a dissident without getting your head chopped off, why it seems darkest before the dawn. the energies behind a counter-elite, rule-by-Basilisk/AI, the fertility crisis, religion, Martian colonies, toothpaste, swords, and his biggest whitepill.
Read 4 tweets
24 Apr
There is a huge difference between “not believing in objective reality” and

Understanding that objective reality is not the level at which most people derive meaning and make sense of their place in the world.
The problem opened up by this difference is also that a lot of people weaponize “the existence of objective reality” into “hey, we have a monopoly on objective reality” because *what actually is objective* is devilishly hard to ascertain.
But very, very easy to weaponize into a cherry picked version of your preferred narrative.

And, surprise, this is an example of normal cognition.
Read 4 tweets
16 Apr
It increasingly seems to me that wokeness is pretty much the emergent folk religion of this stage of (neo)liberalism - based on precursor ideologies in part, but I think even more so, on systemic factors.
You have an increasingly extractive, winner-take-all economy in which patterns of success and failure keep repeating across visible groups, a situation that is easily politically weaponized.

This layered on top of an (increasingly) diverse populace.
You have a primarily materialistic, atomized relationship to the world in which accomplishment is measured primarily on wealth and status in visible hierarchies.

Small, local universes of alternative, more collectively oriented hierarchies or metaphysical worlds are wiped out
Read 8 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!