Monthly Archives: November 2017

Things The Religious Should Never Say To A Non-Believer

This list (pardon the tacky title) is the result of a few years of fairly frustrating interaction with religious people,

some of whom, I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt, had the best intentions and were either seeking to build a bridge or give helpful advice (the latter, presumed as such).

You will understand why sanctimonious remarks from otherwise intelligent and affable people, friends included, provoke more nausea than the knee-jerk reactions of zealots who simply wave you off to Hell. Many of these remarks come in the current socio-political climate of the “West fighing for its values”; some, however, are unrelated.

And yes, I’ve heard or read all of the following, quite recently, as a response to discussing my apostasy. Perhaps at the time I answered in a fairly polite manner; however, the intrinsic reaction would have translated better as follows.

Parenthesis here – I’m not even an atheist/ materialist, as I know there are phenomena worth exploring on the level of energy use, transcendental experiences etc, which cannot be reduced to mere coincidence. Foreseeing a future event with great accuracy in a dream would be a good example. However, the term atheist is often cast on me as a label (many believers cannot tell the difference; there is a clear line between those worshiping their god and the rest; specifics are often unimportant). I can’t say I mind, though it’s not entirely accurate.

1.”You must be miserable without God; you must feel so alone; atheists are dark and suicidal. They need our help and our prayers.”

My honest but less than polite response would be stop masturbating. Psychologically and emotionally, of course – at the thought that you’re in a much better place, than, conceivably, a non-believer could ever be. That what gives you elation must give everyone else elation and lacking it must equate depression and dark moods.

Needless to say, these people have their own emotional struggles – yet if you dare mention one of your own, however common among humans, they immediately make a connection between that and your lack of belief. Everyone struggles with issues at some point, regardless of religion or the lack of it.

I find this assumption and afferent compassion disgusting. First of all because it is divorced from reality. Former believers experience relief, at least in the long run (some do feel lost for some time); certainly not misery, at the realisation that there is no sky goblin perked up in the attic, listening to their every word and thought and potentially condemning them for it (much like the Stasi, I might mention). I do feel alone in that sense. In a good way. That my thoughts are my own and there’s no one writing them down in a “book of judgement” which notes my brain’s activity more arduously than a corporate accountant.

Stop assuming the role of a benevolent saviour in my direction. Stop masturbating, that is.

2.”Atheism is a fad nowadays; a cool label. You’re just going with the trend. It’s trendy to attack religion. You’ll get over it.”

Might I mention, you totally inconsiderate person (which came to replace some other term), the many years I’ve spent reflecting on all this, feeling doubtful, guilty and fearful, and endlessly analysing my decision, with all the internal struggle that involves.

I didn’t just “sign up to another club”. I had a lot of life-changing reconsidering to do. I had to question all I’d previously thought, in terms of moral applicability. You don’t just give up your religion because a new fad has arrived on your doorstep.It’s far more complex. Far more intimate and far deeper than that.

To cheapen, reduce and trivialise someone’s decades-long experience of religion can only be the product of a fairly simple mind.

3.”God has a plan for all of us, yourself included. If things go wrong in your life, it’s because you have not accepted his plan for you.”

Although I know the thought of a divine plan gives people comfort in times of struggle, such as bereavement, one has to think of the cognitive dissonance of praying to and worshiping a God who allows all imaginable atrocities.

You’re expecting your life decisions to fall out of the sky, instead of employing your brain. And then you delegate your own mistakes or misfortunes to God’s plan, while thinking someone else’s are a result of their absence of faith and being misled by the devil. How arrogant.

4.”I’ll pray for you to find your way back to God; he will help you if you just let him. I just know you’ll be back someday.”

Of course you think so; you can’t possibly imagine people existing separately from your divine Sim Farm. “It matters not. He is your king.” (Braveheart).

In your mind we’re all ants depending on his mercy, on his benevolence, on his tolerance. We are all ant-like in the sense that we cannot successfully oppose physical forces greater than us (illnesses, earthquakes, the weather, accidents, other people’s use of force etc). However, what we think and feel is ours and ours alone and not lorded over by someone else, earthly or otherwise. At least that’s the capacity we have. Of course, brainwashing gets in the way.

When you interact with me and at the back of your mind have fantasies of converting me, perhaps you should look for like-minded company instead.

5.”You’ve been brainwashed by cultural Marxists, who seek to attack our traditional values; you’re giving up your religion so you can embrace the ideology of sexual minorities.”

Look who’s talking about brainwashing. And by the way, opposing bigotry is not an ideology and neither is belonging to a minority the religious love to pick on. It’s someone’s nature, not a doctrine others convinced them to adopt.

These proponents of falsehood project by seeing artificiality in other people’s attitudes; everything is a conspiracy meant to upturn the religiously-inspired order of society. It’s called being reactionary, not objective or realistic. History has had its fair share of reactionaries and, like it or not, cringes when looking back on their views.

6.”You’re just not ready to understand that the world could not function without religion; we would all become animals; someday you will (this coming from a self-declared fellow agnostic).”

Really now? I could cite five hundred sources disproving that claim, since the beginning of time to present day, when murderous religious fanaticism is perhaps the greatest danger we all face. I could list religious wars, genocides and atrocities; torture and maiming which goes on to this day, witch hunts, the delaying of scientific progress for centuries, slavery and what not.

But something else comes to mind first – you must have little love or respect for the people around you, to claim that they are not capable, on mass, to behave decently towards one another without adopting a fairy-tale as their moral pillar. You basically argue that it doesn’t matter whether those beliefs they organise their lives around are true, as long as they can, presumably, be deceived into better behaviour.

In other words, you place yourself way above them. You don’t think they can handle the truth with their measly minds; only enlightened people such as yourself can. And those trying to make them see it are doing them a disservice, leaving them prey, heaven forbid, to their own nature (which you also share but distance yourself from). In that regard you demean the species far more than you might perceive an evolutionist does.

7.”Something terrible must have happened to harden your heart, so now you see only darkness in the world and blame God for it. You’re just angry with life; someone must have let you down, and now you reject God’s love.”

There’s such desperation to think apostasy could never be the product of an honest intellectual endeavour and sincere self-reflection. Anything but the kitchen sink is envisaged as the potential cause. Such desperation to think intuition is completely valid when resulting in faith (this is what I believe and feel in my heart, therefore God exists), yet invalid when renouncing it, and that apostasy is caused by flimsy external circumstances.

Darkness has its role, or should I say realism. I could not, without vomiting, raise my arms to praise God’s love in my direction for, let’s say, having survived a shipwreck, when everyone else around me drowned. It’s a matter of being honest about things. Survival is a matter of luck and/or resilience, not God’s presumed love. Other people’s love or altruism towards me is of their own doing, not something planted in them by the supreme puppeteer.

8.”Your preoccupation with religion shows your heart is actually crying out for God, otherwise you wouldn’t give it a second thought and you wouldn’t be talking about it to others.”

It should be common sense to realise that when someone has spent decades believing and regurgitating lies, when they do eventually abandon them, they have a natural drive to deconstruct all previously held falsehoods, especially when those around them keep spouting them.

When someone starts to see how much religion had affected their life, from their perception of themselves to their interaction with others and propensity for falling into political traps, they naturally reflect on every single aspect.They seek information regarding these falsehoods and often share it.  Seth Andrews (The Thinking Atheist) explains this in all its complexity.

The needless guilt and mortification, the needless fear of being spied on every second of the day by an invisible bookkeeper, to the degree of censoring their thoughts. The bigoted things said to others, which cannot be taken back. People who come out of cults often turn against them vocally – and who can blame them? Brainwashing causes anger.

There is, of course, a degree of anger – not necessarily towards those who unwittingly carried out the indoctrination, having been subjected to it themselves as children, yet towards the phenomenon per se.

9. “There are simply people who don’t concern themselves with matters of greater importance than their measly day-to-day experiences and pleasures… “

And then there are those with such delusions of grandeur they think they are among the chosen who will inherit the Earth. There are those who engage in social engineering in their own heads – who should have rights and who shouldn’t, which categories deserve respect and which deserve ostracism (sexual minorities for instance) etc. The world is a board game for them and they think they have it all figured out.

They are preoccupied with conspiracies upon conspiracies by those who seek to “upturn the natural order” (as if laws and cultures had not evolved throughout time, from one generation to the next, and their understanding of things were flawless). And in the end, these illusions only produce a thin smoke around them, if not gas, in some cases, as only a negligible minority of wannabe social engineers actually reach positions of influence.

Rejecting such futile arrogance is not, in any way, based on reducing one’s preoccupations to trivialities, as non-believers are often said to do. It’s simply the awareness of one’s limited perspective and limited possibilities of influencing reality – not to mention the quest to develop as much empathy as possible, as to avoid seeing enemies everywhere.

10. “I don’t think you’ll actually go to hell; you’re a good person; Jesus will take that into account. I’ll pray for you and God will listen to me.”

This is a poor way of saying “the afterlife system I believe in is so grotesque it involves the people I love and like spending eternity in a pit of fire and boiling tar, with imps shoving pitchforks up their behinds, while I spend eternity in peace and harmony”. Instead of admitting that, they give imaginary passes to those they want to maintain a relationship with in their earthly lives.

Either admit there is no such place or shut up about it. You might actually think you’re doing me a favour by interceding on my behalf to your imaginary sky goblin.Your condescending benevolence and ad hoc advocate/saviour role, from a presumed position of superiority, is so delusional it is sickening.

11. “You’re doing God’s work without being aware of it.”

This patronising remark comes when a believer is confronted with actions which fit the moral pattern they adhere to, at the hands of a non-believer. Since morality supposedly comes from God and atheists or agnostics are “of the devil”, the only way to get around liking and approving of non-believers is to think they are secretly on God’s pay role and are secretly carrying out his plan.

I hate to tell you but I don’t want a place in your imaginary Sim Farm where everyone is a property of your God. I know you built this whole world in your head, allocating a small plot to each individual you know, according to your God’s criteria – the saved, the potentially saved and the rest. Either like me for what I am or leave me alone. I don’t belong in your fantasy.

Years ago, Christopher Hitchens made this claim, seen as hyperbolic by many – that religion poisons everything. Upon analysing it, though the claim might seem exaggerated or frightening to the struggling-to-be-religious-and-get-along-with-others type, it is actually very accurate.

God is in your family, in your marriage, in your bed, in your community, in your likes and hobbies, in your intellectual ventures, in your state policy, in your country’s international affairs, and first and foremost, in your head and heart, like a ballooned Stasi, judging and censoring everything down to your most intimate thoughts.

And therefore, religion does affect, or should I say poison every aspect of your life, or at least has the capability to do so, if you take it seriously enough.

Ex-Red Pill Members Describe Cult-Like Indoctrination

However organic and benign a group might appear to begin with, it seems most, when co-opting a large number of members, end up in roughly the same manner.

The Red Pill, based on the Men’s Rights Movement, appeared (at least from the outside) to counter toxic feminism, which has been an intensely discussed topic over the last few years (many times, deservedly). At first it seemed to base its line of thought on the fact that men are not what modern feminists claim (dangerous, led by instincts only, angry, prone to raping, abusive, manipulative, sociopathic, set on dominating women etc). And of course, any sensible individual can agree this is not what half of the human species stands out through, and that extremes should never be used for generalisations.

However, things quickly escalated.

This Reddit page details the effects of belonging to such a group on men who initially thought they were joining the “cool and strong crowd”, becoming empowered by its attitude.

To start with, the group attracts men in a vulnerable state of mind, freshly out of a failed relationship or marriage, or frustrated over not managing to secure a female partner. These guys already carry a substantial amount of anger and use the group for venting (much like disappointed women end up on forums about narcissists and psychopaths).

From there on they are led to believe women are naturally infantile, that “no” should not be taken as a “no”, and later on, that women actually get something out of being raped, on a subconscious level.

After enough brainwashing, some guys have ended up divorcing or abandoning their male friends who apparently shared the views of “beta cucks”.

You only need a short dialogue with a proponent of this line of thought to understand the venom; anger oozes out of their words; they are no different than Antifa or other leftist extremists, but merely at the other end of the spectrum. Politically, since they hate the left and afferent “beta” culture, they tend to be right wing or libertarian; many are angry enough to embrace the far right.

Akin to any group based on an iron-cast ideology, diverging an inch results in ostracism. After taking the bait of “enlightening” (red-pilling) themselves and experiencing a sense of empowerment, men who don’t want to go far enough are shamed with accusations of being covert betas, and are thus made to think they are the abnormality, and not the limiting, extremist group they are part of. Which is classic cult manipulation. “You’re with us or against us.”

And labels come to be taken very seriously when coming from people the holders have placed a lot of trust in. Even if the rest of society would discount them and would not regard these men as weaklings. Some sort of attachment keeps them going back to the group for feedback. A dynamic many of us have experienced with one group or another.

As this article in the New Statesman details, abandoning this guarded approach to women is equated with imminent failure.

By following the subreddit’s advice, its subscribers are promised a life of successful sexual encounters. If they ignore the Red Pill, they will undoubtedly be rejected, cheated on, and dumped.

In the same article, a former member describes a well-known dynamic.

“I believed everything, everything. And if you didn’t believe everything… if you go on Red Pill Reddit and you disagree with someone they either delete your comments or they try to make fun of you and shame you. You can’t criticise anything because people will quickly try to diminish you. So I really believed every little thing.”

Needless to reiterate, as the article’s author remarks, everyone has a story and these men should not be taken as a monolith. Their movement is fluid; people come and go on a frequent basis, and whilst what they say might be identical at one point in time, they, as human beings, are not identical.

It’s the philosophy that is toxic, akin to any that is fuelled by bitterness.

Marriage – Both Feminists and MRAs Get It Wrong

In the war for righteous affirmation of the sexes, marriage so often comes up as a bone of contention, both parties trying to agree on who and why is more oppressed by this arrangement.

Feminists usually argue the following:

  • Women are oppressed by marriage and motherhood as a cultural prerequisite for becoming respectable;
  • Unmarried women are oppressed by the stigma sex out of wedlock puts upon them;
  • Some married women are expected to remain in the home and are therefore oppressed by not fulfilling their potential;
  • Married women who work are expected to fulfill both the traditional role of homemaker at the same time as working;
  • Women are regarded differently when they commit infidelities;
  • The physical and emotional abuse of married women is very prevalent and generally overlooked.

Meanwhile, MRAs have arguments of their own:

  • Women demand fidelity while growing farther apart from the traditional mandates of a wife (perpetual attractiveness maintained overtime, efficient homemaking, motherhood, behaviour);
  • Women’s demands have increased substantially overtime, culminating in their current attempt to dominate men;
  • Women use their sexual appeal to ensnare men in the disadvantageous legal arrangement called marriage;
  • Marriage limits men by stigmatising their natural poly-amorous nature;
  • Women are culturally brought up to expect too much out of men;
  • Women are ravenous when it comes to divorce and are favoured in terms of child custody.
  • Women often make false claims of abuse in court.

Arguably, one cannot reach an informed conclusion without considering all the available data, from the origins of marriage to present day. When diving into history, it appears that marriage was, primordially, a form of ownership (the physically dominant sex, namely the male one, owning the physically weaker one, namely female). Later on, through religion, this was consecrated as a divine bond, for the same purposes of control through the control of sexuality (which has been one of the main focuses of Abrahamic religions). It is fair to say that in past times, marriage has been a form of ownership and enslavement; in certain societies it continues to this day (Islamic theocracies, for instance).

Today, in civilised countries, marriage is voluntary (excluding cults, which make their own constrictive rules, as well as religious minorities, which preserve their foreign traditions).

However, both men and women enter it with preconceived ideas regarding the ideal spouse and the perfect life they envisage. Both men and women, therefore, enter this arrangement with a set of illusions, which do not match the reality of their ancestors, nor the one of their peers and therefore, their own.

Women’s typical marital illusions are as follows:

  • A man will not fall out of love when initially in love, unless they do something major to cause it;
  • A man will not lose interest (sexually or altogether) when her body modifies, through pregnancy, age or otherwise;
  • A man will reject thoughts of infidelity as well as resulting actions, out of love;
  • A man who has pledged his role as the head of a family will always comply with it out of duty, where his children are concerned;
  • A man who has not been violent has no potential to become so;
  • Kindness, attentiveness and fidelity on her part ensure that a marriage will not fall down the drain, at least not without attempts of it being rescued.

Men’s illusions, as far as my modest observations go, tend to be these:

  • A woman will do her best to remain as attractive and sexually interesting as initially for the whole duration of their marriage (for life), expecting competition and being fully aware of it at all times;
  • A woman biologically yearns to please men and will do her best in that sense;
  • A woman is less likely to cheat and more likely to forgive if she is being cheated on;
  • A woman is primarily emotional, not practical, and that aspect can be used, in terms of making her happy regardless of reality (his thoughts, intentions and actions);
  • A woman should be protected from the truth and in doing so a man is succeeding in creating a harmonious environment.

Marriage is changing because the roles of the sexes are changing, as well as the general perception on fidelity. These alterations are proving dramatic compared to a few decades ago; some for the better, and others, perhaps, for the worst.

With the constraints of religion no longer applying, morally or socially, this union is therefore being put through the fine test of reality. Free will at its best. It is free will to remain devoted to someone even if they treat you badly, and free will to cheat or become disengaged.

In a way, both men and women cling to a glorified mirage of what the opposite sex thinks and behaves like, partly based on tradition, partly on fictitious narratives, and partly on religious ideas, where that applies.

Culture fails young women

When a girl swaps her taste for fairy tales for syrupy novels, poetry or soap operas, the narrative remains the same. That she will find “the one” who she can “dedicate herself to”, which will result in reciprocity in turn.

Whereas, in reality, men are simply biologically programmed to not remain monogamous.

That doesn’t involve a fault or vice on their part; it is simply their nature, restrained, if barely, so far, by religions (some of them, anyway) and social norms, which are now almost gone.

Monogamy is a conscious choice and an effort for men (and I say this after observing generations I’ve lived among). And infidelity is not some far distant threat but a high probability, always lurking in the shadows. Try as you might, you will never change someone’s nature and neither can society, through laws and ideologies, gods and threats of hell.

The men whose instincts are overcome by devotion, for one reason or another, are few and far between. And typically, they are not the ones women tend to go for (the alpha males), but rather the introverts, the artists, the ones who reach beyond the material realm.

Women are not equipped to deal with this sort of thing; to accept it and move on. They tend to hold on to an illusion, a complete reciprocity that never was, or existed fleetingly, in many cases. Sadly, all the drama around men cheating is needless heartache on the woman’s part.

The answer to this is not the SJW hysteria that all men are potential rapists and sketchy sexed-up animals, which is a sad cheapening of human nature, but the simple realisation and acceptance that this side of them is much stronger and regardless of a man’s intellect or personality, it is likely to someday kick in.

Culture fails young men as well

By not telling them their wives will not necessarily be like their mothers or grandmothers, in the way they organise and conduct themselves. Times have changed and women have changed; that much is true. When men decry that, they decry the traditional feminine ideal, which is under ripples of transformation. And although I do not agree with feminists, in their radical aspiration to elevate women above men, I do agree that the tendencies young women embrace nowadays are not their fault, as they are culturally-induced. These trends may change their attire or superficial behaviour but do not change their biological instincts. Men are taught to separate “good, obedient women” from “whores”, neither one being a realistic label for someone’s actual nature.

The objectifying, self-gratifying side of life advertised to boys and men is also hardly realistic and plays on their instincts (or preys on them, better yet). And therefore, they expect their wives to be the fulfillment of their intimate fantasies, to the letter, and remain as such throughout the years, which, when pregnancy appears, tends to swiftly modify. This is turned back not on questioning the unrealistic expectations they have of one individual, but on the individual in question, should she fail to meet them.

And nowadays, it fails them by telling them their nature is somehow defective and they should embrace a feminine perspective, which is contrary to their biological inclinations. Which is not the answer to anything and only results in a poisonous backlash of anger, sometimes manifesting as variations of the Alt Right.

The truth is no side, male or female, can dominate and change or subdue the other if equality really is sought. And the truth hurts. You cannot mould someone into an ideal partner. You either take them as they are, with the good, bad and ugly, or move on. No social or political movement will ever manage to change human nature to the advantage of one sex.

Those who have genuine intentions, aware of the effort they will be engaging in, and manage to find each other will thrive in it; those who do not, will fail at it. It’s as simple as that. Mutual love and respect can be achieved, enabling people to work through their differences with no authority hanging over their heads but these two concepts. Marriage isn’t even necessary for that to take place; it simply grants legal advantages.

The Men’s Rights Movement: A Misguided Octopus

In the vein of other political octopodes, this movement started with the apparently benign quest of countering toxic feminism, yet quickly developed into its “other side of the coin”, joining members not through calm and rationality, or hope for a better world, but anger, frustration, residual disappointment, entitlement, cultural claims of superiority, “regressivism” and in some cases, pathological hatred.

It is thus fair to claim that this movement, just like feminism, plays an active part in a manufactured tribal war of the sexes, as opposed to simply countering the extreme views it claims formented it in the first place.

If we engage in a rather grotesque exercise of imagination, we can compare both these movements with the human centipede envisaged in the creepy film bearing the same name. Once the tribal bond is established, the head of the centipede merely engages in an act of bowel relief, the contents of which pass through everyone attached. Such is the case with toxic ideas. I am attached, therefore I receive and pass on the message, without processing (digesting) it first.

The octopus analogy refers to the many subdivisions of this movement, each emphasising a different issue. On the whole, the MRM pushes forth the following ideas:

  • Western societies favour girls and women over boys and men, in terms of declaring them superior in nature;
  • Education is geared towards the needs and formation of females;
  • Women have legal advantages over men in terms of conceiving and raising children;
  • The job market favours women;
  • Women often make false claims of victimisation by men, especially when sexual misconduct is involved;
  • Feminism seeks to infiltrate Marxist ideas into western states;
  • Women have become undesirable to men through fashion fads and their lack of interest in pleasing men through their image or behaviour;
  • Women are deluded in thinking they can fill positions only men can;
  • Women are generally labile, hysterical and untrustworthy;
  • Women have unwarranted and delusional demands of men;
  • Women use their sexual prowess in order to prey on men;
  • Women seek to demean and demonise men;
  • Marriage is a prison;
  • Masculinity as a concept is under threat.

Needless to say, as in the case of feminism regarding all men with suspicion, there is only a thin line between making these assertions about some women and ending up making them about all women, not to mention male feminists (“betas” or “castrati” as they are sometimes referred to, the latter referencing eunuchs).

What is so disengaging about feminists today is precisely the generalisation and acrimony; the intention to dominate. Sadly, the same is present in the men’s rights movement.

It seems that neither side is actually looking for a better understanding and a harmony-conducive compromise through open discussions, but plain and simple dominance. This is achieved through righteous anger, demonisation, derision and solipsism.

The blind fighting the blind, so to speak.

Perhaps no advocate of this movement is better known than Paul Elam. To see the drive behind this individual one only needs to read a few of his “best quotes”:

Should I be called to sit on a jury for a rape trial, I vow publicly to vote not guilty, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that the charges are true.

There is nothing left to interpretation or fit for whitewashing. Fortunately, such declarations might see Mr Elam permanently excused from jury duty, yet the encouragement given to others, to do the same, is very poisonous.

Below I will expand on two offshoots of this movement, on a gradient of harmful prejudices and intentions.

MGTOW 

Along the way, the men’s rights movement developed a radical branch known as MGTOW, short for Men Going Their Own Way. This particular group, though not disavowing sexual interactions with women, for short-lived practical purposes only, does swear them off in the sense of commitment and forming families, as apparently, all women are ravenous, manipulative parasites who can exploit men more than ever before due to our current culture of female empowerment.

It’s safe to say personal experience along those lines is a prerequisite for men who adopt this radical declaration. Both in being disappointed and looking for a justification for disappointments caused (that does, indeed, happen).

For a taste  of the group’s attitude (rather reminiscent of bile), here is a collection of fine quotes.

Incel

Although the term itself is gender-neutral, Incel, as in “involuntarily celibate”, is mostly circulated in online discussions between young men who find it difficult to find a female partner. It is often associated with the men’s rights movement and at some point spawned a radical offshoot known as Truecel, which in turn, spawned Elliot Rodger.

In other words, this group is a glorified case of blue balls, pardon the frankness.

They tend to focus on the superficiality of women and their preference for overtly alpha males (the MGTOW type perhaps), arguing women have materialistic and self-gratifying selection criteria when it comes to male partners, and some, such as Rodger, argue the female sex is animal-like in pursuing assholes.

They blend in with the rest of the select MRM gathering through their awful views on women; the only difference is their lack of dignity about it. Whilst the MGTOW crowd tries to display some type of spine, even if the result is members’ own loneliness and nothing more, Incel types declare their desire for vaginas (artificial ones will do, some claim). An infamous Truecel member even came forth with the proposition that it’s the government’s responsibility to provide men with sex, as some kind of social program.

For a taste of this group’s attitude (with a tinge of sour grapes), here is a collection of their intellectual produce. 

Identity politics are not limited to the left. To counteract the plethora of labels and categories the left has consecrated in popular jargon, the right is slowly building a system of its own.

Those who are willing to share their lives with women provided women always obey them.Those who hate women to the point of wanting little or nothing to do with them. Those who hate women but demand sex of them.

And on it goes; it seems all these attitudes, temporary as they may be for each individual, are identities and chosen paths in life now.