Bloodmagic
'While there have always been men who were unhappy with the expectations and social roles placed on them, just as there were women who were unhappy with theirs. The idea that they 'were always really the opposite sex on the inside' and should be treated as such seems to be relatively new.
I believe it's a backlash against women's progress.
In Australia we got a women's AFL team and IMMEDIATELY they changed the rules to let a man join it. Because we can't go around pretending that women are REALLY equal or worthy of their own spaces and recognition.
We got a womens weightlifting division in the 2002 commonwealth games and in 2018 (4 games later) a man on the team. No one was fighting to change the rules to include transmen or tranwomen in weightlifting before 2002.
We finally remove restrictions on which roles women are allowed to serve in the military, we immediately change the rules to allow men to serve 'as women'. No one gave a shit how I identified when I was told I couldn't be a combat engineer because it's considered a front line role, and no one asked any of the men who were doing it how they identified. Now that women are treated somewhat fairly (or at least not discriminated against as openly), suddenly identity matters and men are entitled to women's spaces and to be counted as women.
No one gave a shit about identity when women were not allowed to vote. No man in politics identified as a woman when there were almost no women in parliament. But as soon as there's quotas and women making real progress in representation they will try ANYTHING to give some of it back to men, even if those men are 19 year old with squeaky voices and skirts.
Even my very conservative Aunt is seeing this shit happening in her church groups. In the last 5 or 10 years people have started talking about women being silent in church and obeying their husbands. Right around the time groups like the Church of England finally started ordaining women as bishops and so on.
Looking at history, this always happens. When women first got the vote in the UK the mens voting age was set at 21 and the womens voting age was set at 30. Because if the ages were the same women would have outnumbered men, and of course that couldn't be allowed. We make progress towards equality, and suddenly a subgroup of men panic and try to snatch back as much power as they can in the name of 'equality'.
This is just another facet of the exact same knee jerk patriarchal panic we've always seen.
It's more subtle and underground this time, because it has to be. Because we as a society have stopped allowing it openly. This is good. This is progress.
Our grandmothers fought for their rights; to vote, to marry as they chose, to divorce as they chose, to work, to be paid fairly, to be represented in politics, to have their voices heard. It's just our turn to keep going.'
So far so reasonable, not we get to the really doolally bit!
'If I may digress for a bit, I've recently FINALLY understood that the WHOOOLLE thing, the whole patriarchy, misogyny, trans thing comes from one unfortunate and inescapable truth:
Men don't matter.
On a biological evolutionary scale, men aren't really important.'
They possess half the DNA of humanity, I would say that makes them important!
'If you have 100 men and 100 women you get 100 babies in the next generation. If you have 1 man and 100 women you get 100 babies. If you have 100 men and 1 woman you get 1 baby and the tribe goes extinct.
99% of all men on the planet could die right now, and while we would all be very sad, everything would keep on spinning. We've already had nearly that exact thing happen when men went to war and women stepped into their roles. Women already do the majority of work on the planet. And the next generation would most likely have the exact same number of people as if all the men had lived.'
It might start with the same number but we give rise to really dependent infants which is why we have pair bonding. Without someone, and in the past that needed to be a stronger male, the children would pretty quickly have been killed. Or the women would not have got hold of enough resources to bring up their children
'Then you have evolutionary sex selection, which can be summarized by the phrase 'dick is cheap' (meaning there's always competition for a female mate, but there ins't really competition for a male mate). You think male peacocks wanted to look like that? Think it helps them? No, the ladies just up and decided they were only going to fuck the shiniest of males, and so all the males became super shiny. Which means in the wild they get killed a lot more often but that doesn't matter because they're not really necessary to the species.
It happens in humans too. They say our population is getting taller because we're evolving or because we're better nourished. Actually ladies just generally want to fuck tall guys and every time they do the genes for both tallness and a preference for tallness get passed on.'
This is a real example of confusing correlation with cause. The main reason for an increase in height is better nutrition. Look what has happened to the Japanese in one generation. Again, dick may be cheap but the capacity to provide resources for the incoming generation which comes with the 'dick' is quite expensive. In addition the 'preference' for 'fucking taller men' comes from the fact that the taller men could access resource and, in general, fight better to defend the family unit.
A similarly stupid argument could be made that breast size is getting bigger as men want to fuck big-titted women. Well, possibly, but far more likely is that breast size is correlated to overall body weight and the western world is getting fatter....
'Women decide which genes will and will not get in to the next generation. We decide what the future of the species will look like.'
Well, clearly not. Pair bonding depends on both parties wanting to fuck one another (to put things in the type of language that you like.
'If we all decide 'You know what? Humanity has had a good run, you fucked it up, and we're not having any more people'. That's it, end of species.'
But it won't happen. Equally if men decide to stop fucking, end of species. Both equally ridiculous concepts.
'There are any number of herbs and natural birth control methods that are actually pretty damn effective (we have been taught that they're unreliable and not to use them, hmm I wonder why) so any time a woman has the ability to access the outdoors and view her own body, passing laws about her reproductive right is rather an academic exercise.'
Really, we are in the land of wooooo now. I think most women want access to RELIABLE birth control and sterile medical facilities with qualified doctors.
The rest of the post kind of follows on from the rather nonsensical arguments that I have commented on.
Seriously, you have to do better than this for a grand theory of patriarchy in an evolutionary context.