This is actually a pretty sound framework and I mostly agree. Usually it's justifiable to intervene when somebody is harming someone else and not before. I think it's a bit oversimplified, though. Do you think it might contribute to the incel epidemic and the associated violence? In that sense one could make a similar line of argument to that of the temperance movement's talk of alcohol contributing to wife-beating (which it did). I don't believe that indirection leaves a clear enough link to justify state violence to ban something, but there do exist less explicitly moralistic arguments for it. Not really my position but it's not constructive to reduce every criticism to "moralizing".
> Do you think it might contribute to the incel epidemic and the associated violence?
No actually I don't, not at all. I blame the patriachy and feminism for the creation of incels. Not in the sense that feminism is bad, but the contrary.
What I mean is, incels have always existed. However, our tolerance for widespread misbehavior of men has grown thinner over the last 70 years.
When I was in college, it was typical to hear "oh man, don't go to that frat house, they roofie!" Looking back, it's almost comical. What? They... roofie? Is... anybody going to do anything about this? Should I tell someone? No, evidently - just don't go there.
Of course, it used to be worse. Men used to be able to just beat women, and nobody cared. Financial abuse was not only common, it was mandated by law.
We've come a long, long way. And, we've left a lot of men behind. Before, you could be a piece of shit and still be almost guaranteed a marriage, or at least sex. Our standards for behavior are much higher.
Men have been, understandably, slow to evolve. It's a much less sweet deal. This is compounded by the fact we've really never had a progressive movement for men. To this day, there are infinite ways to be a heterosexual woman - but there's only one way to be a heterosexual man. Men are closed in, trapped, by social expectations. We carry all the baggage of the patriarchy and misogyny of days gone, but we reap few benefits. We are not so liberated, not so open-minded.
It's a fine line. You must evolve, but not too much so that you may reject the performance of masculinity. You must be progressive, but not so much so. You must be traditional, but only in the right ways. Some men, even a lot of men, cannot keep up or fit into what is expected of them. And, there's no moving back.
It's true, and for all the reasons you list, men are in fact genetically inferior.
At this point all male babies should be aborted or otherwise discarded at birth. Babies born with two X chromosomes can simply transition into the gender identity role of "man" during puberty, if they so choose.
Bio-essentialism is an inherently patriarchal belief. I'm sure you're being sarcastic, but no - obviously men are not born evil. They're socialized in such a way that sets them up for failure, and they have to actively work to overcome this. Those that don't, fail.
For the record, I'm a man. If you want to argue against the things I say then actually address the things I say, instead of some obviously hyperbolic strawman.
> They're socialized in such a way that sets them up for failure, and they have to actively work to overcome this. Those that don't, fail.
I can unquestionably see what you are talking about with respect to white culture, but it's literally racist for you to presume that all other cultures (e.g. Asian cultures) socialize all of their men to be evil.
