GirlChat #740064

Start A New Topic!  Submit SRF  Thread Index  Date Index  

I essentilaly agree...

Posted by Dissident on Thursday, January 27 2022 at 4:20:22PM
In reply to My remarks were not about LGBT. posted by Eeyore on Thursday, January 27 2022 at 03:31:10AM

...but here is maybe putting it all into my own words. This is what I think about this topic, from the perspective of a civil libertarian (not Libertarian) and egalitarian standpoint. And also that of a classical Marxist and progressive, I should add (in contrast to the fake progressives and "Marxists" that the "woke" comprise).

I fully agree that people who are naturally homosexual or bisexual-pansexual should have the same rights as anyone else. It is not a choice on their part, practicing it openly among themselves is not hurting anyone, and it clearly has a place in both nature & society. However, it should not become the "norm" in the sense of the dominant, i.e., most common form of lifestyle via being imposed upon us by governmental or cultural-ideological decree and expectations due to a hatred and vilification of heterosexuality, particularly male heterosexuality. This we currently see being done by the "woke" crowd, a twisted mockery of the Left that also twists Marxism into uber-authoritarian directions (much as the Soviets did) that essentially turn the class conflict into a cultural conflict, pitting mainstream-recognized minority races, ethnic groups, genders, gender identities, sexual orientations, and religions against white male heterosexual Christians--and oftentimes against each other in what has been called the "victim Olympics."

Now granted, in the past, when heterosexual men truly dominated the culture and government in addition to actual numbers, they often did not behave very well. That is what a disparity of power does to any demographic. But, here is the problem.

Once the post-modern "woke" culture turned the tables, the minorities who embraced it do not act any better than male heterosexuals when given power. They adopt all the traits they demonized as "toxic masculinity", going for revenge and entitlement instead of true equality. They proved that a despotic numerical minority could become as tyrannical, power-drunk, and ruthlessly competitive as a numerical majority when they are handed the reins of power.

Also important to consider: back when the patriarchy was truly a patriarchy, the dominant men gave certain frills to women to offset their lack of economic, social, and political equality. Courts and their male judges almost always took the side of women in child custody battles; routinely gave women a slap on the wrist or even a free pass for crimes that would get a man thrown into jail for years; demanded huge amounts of alimony from husbands they divorced; never conscripted women into fighting wars; never expected women to earn sizable amounts of money; developed and maintained through the centuries the concept of chivalry, where men defended the "honor" of women, often meaning that they took their side in any heated dispute between a male and a female; weighed social welfare programs heavily in favor of women, etc. Moreover, there were always jobs that a majority of employers favored women for over men, such as nurses, teachers, veterinary assistants, social welfare workers, secretarial work, and childcare. These jobs rarely had lucrative paychecks, but they were always there.

In contrast, the vengeful "woke" crowd demands all the power hetero men once had while offering none of the consolation perks once afforded by heterosexual men to women; including none of the advantages in a court of law, the favored collection of alimony, etc. Hetero men who embrace "woke" culture (and there are many of them) agree to hate and emasculate themselves, offering fealty and deference that men never openly demanded of women when the power structure was reversed, since "woke" ideology has no counterpart to chivalry.

The same goes for MAPs and AAMs in a potentially youth liberated world. The latter two demographics wouldn't handle power and dominance any better than any other demographic, and we need to concede this fact. Power has to be evenly dispersed among all groups of people, and a constitutional democracy would guarantee this to those whose numbers were in the minority so they did not become victims of mob rule. But the "woke" crowd has proven that a despotic minority is every bit as nasty and authoritarian as a tyrannical majority.

Hence, while naturally-occurring homosexuality and pansexuality (and transexuality) should be accepted and respected, they should not be imposed on the basis of achieving "more inclusivity" or as "balance" for past injustices. Heterosexuality and male sexuality have a very important place in the world, and there is good reason why nature creates many more of them than those with innately disparate sexual proclivities. Trying to artificially enhance the latter's numbers by considerable means via authoritarian imposition does not create social justice in any true civil libertarian definition of the concept. It only imposes a type of unnatural "dominance" that was created by societal culture, not nature, and it has nothing to do with either innate feelings or freedom of choice. This makes the imposition of it by necessity authoritarian and a burden on those who do not naturally possess that proclivity. This is why civil libertarian LGBT+ people oppose it as much as non-liberal heterosexuals.


Follow ups:

Post a response :

Nickname Password
E-mail (optional)

Link URL (optional)
Link Title (optional)

Add your sigpic?