If this is a post about strategy then strategy can be discussed. It's not a vanity post from my perspective, but even if it is I'm not married to authorial intent.
As for any group being too small to infiltrate for gain, that hasn't been my experience. It only takes 3 members for entryism to occur, as only one needs to defect from the established order. You see this in cases of adultery within a social group all the time. Lots of people lose their partner and their 'best friend' at the same time.
As you point out, whether something is entryism or politicking isn't particularly clear. I look at what OP has written - that they had a popular vote go against them, that they refuse to accept that, that they want to increase their level of authority by bad faith action, that they're coordinating an agenda with allied individuals, etc. - as indicators that OP is new to the group. This is conduct that is essentially antisocial within a group, and the antisocial get weeded out over time.As to OP's agenda being relevant to the group, the no vote and OP's reaction to it suggests otherwise. I also seriously doubt that OP just one day decided to be an identity politics activist out of the blue. This ideology is basically a non-theistic religion and is pushed with all the zeal you'd expect from any bible thumper. That being said, people have a right to their beliefs, and if those around OP choose to associate with OP whilst OP acts on those beliefs then there (probably) isn't a problem here. Quibbling about bathrooms and wording at a dance isn't really that big of a deal in the scheme of things.All that being said, I don't know OP, I don't know the situation, and it's none of my business.
Entryism is ethically bankrupt.
If you wouldn't want entryism done to the groups you care about then don't do it to the groups of others.
You must adapt to the world, not the other way around. Expecting others to fix your problems, especially at their cost, is both unreasonable and irresponsible.If you want the aid and respect of others then you have to earn that. You fit in, you put in the work, you become respectable in the community. Then you don't have to worry about "us and them" because you become part of the "us".Tangible harms are to be dealt with by law that applies to all. Intangible harms are not a problem for society to deal with. Your own thoughts and emotions are your responsibility to deal with.People tend not to like bigots. It's one thing to build a ramp for someone with mobility issues, it's quite another to have racial hiring quotas. The former is a disability, the latter is not. The former increases fairness, the latter does not.It doesn't matter if your apartheid is for or against a particular class, it is unjust either way. Also, it's only a matter of time before it gets used on you. That's how weapons work.
A society is a group of people. Much as with any group, the more that people care and are on the same page, the more you get done.
When you don't give a damn at all, or when your tribe is fighting the other tribes, you have less time and interest in progressing. For you to labour effectively your labour must matter and it must be constructive.
The CDC data has figures on numbers of relationships, including marriages, by age and gender in the tables at the end of the document. The data and conclusions about STDs is irrelevant to me in that, I am interested in what happens to people's pair bonding abilities as their number of sexual partners increases.
Promiscuity appears to have effect there, which would imply that it is at the very least a correlate with relationship failure (and therefore relevant to the topic of pair bonding). Is it causal, are there other factors at work? I can' t answer that question, I can only do the best with what I have. Unsurprisingly, research into possible negative effects of promiscuity on mental health, life outcomes, self reported metrics on happiness, etc. isn't exactly well funded. This is an area of research that is made radioactive for social reasons.
I will say the same thing to you that I did to pjeby: I made a mistake in trying to cover too much ground. For me to address every little point pjeby makes (because from my perspective a giant portion of what pjeby writes are claims that have nothing to do with anything I've written, or are misinterpretations, etc. For example, he makes a false equivalency between his experience as a member of the class and the entirety of the class) it turns into an essay, which then feeds straight back into the whole *death by a thousand cuts* game. I've cut that right off with pjeby because I'm not interested in that kind of a back and forth and I don't think it's productive.
On the other hand, you've asked a single question, and I've given you a single answer. That's manageable. You can just go ahead and tell me I'm full of shit and it ends right here, no diversions or *whaddabout-isms* or *not alls*.
Disinclination and proscription aren't the same.
The Tragedy of the Commons is the problem here. If everyone (or enough) chooses themselves over the common good then the common good will suffer as a consequence. Everyone wants the utility of the next generation, nobody wants to actually give birth to them.
It's very clear that sexually dimorphic behaviours work. They're present in thousands of species. What isn't present in thousands of species is human society. Biology just happens but society must be created and maintained, some of which is contrary to our biological imperatives. If we want the advantages of the kind of society we live in then we're going to have to make a lot of compromises on our biological imperatives. Everyone, not just women. In many domains. Either we give up on the utility we gain from society or we start ensuring that utility is maintained.
All expectations on the citizenry from the state come with the threat of violence for non-compliance. If we can draft men to extract utility from them at their risk, then unless there's special pleading going on we can do exactly the same to women. I don't think that's the answer, but it's a possibility and is congruent with other areas of custom and law.Violence is unnecessary here, all that is required is for the state to pick up the responsibility that women don't want. I don't want to remove women's agency, I want to remove society's dependence on their gestation. If women don't want to have babies that's fine by me, but society needs babies so it's going to have to source them from somewhere else. This is a supply and demand problem.Fortunately, procuring gestational services is a solved problem. Depending on what options you select, a child that is the product of in-vitro fertilisation, artificial insemination, and surrogacy can be had for about 40K USD. That's completely within the realms of state spending given the return on investment. If Western women don't want to have children there are tons of rural Indian women with no such qualms. Outsourcing tasks that Westerners won't do is something the West has been doing for longer than I've been alive.The ultimate solution to this problem is artificial gestation but we aren't there yet.
My response is an attempt to provide answers to a complex subject, where the tendency of participants is to act as if their own catastrophising of ALL WOMEN or NO WOMEN scenarios are something that has actually been voiced and supported by me. This easily turns a discussion into a death by a thousand cuts where every tiny little statement is attacked (potentially disingenuously) from every single angle possible.
Let me give you an example:
> Men do not favour a minority of women
Then you say:
> What? Of course they do. I'm a man, I would think I would know if I favored the majority of women. I don't. Similarly, you state that "men" require reproductive opportunity. I don't. I don't want children. So I'm a trivial counterargument on both counts.
Straight up you make a false conflation between the individual and the class (I don't as a part of the class, therefore nobody/not enough in the class do to matter).
I cite the OKCupid data that specifically supports my statement here. I am saying men, as a class, do not favour a minority of women.
I do not state that men require reproductive opportunity *anywhere*.
I can't respond to a false conflation other than to point it out, I can only give you the citations I cannot force you to read them, and I absolutely cannot be expected to defend statements I didn't make and don't believe.
I am more than happy to respond to any point you wish clarified, and/or to discuss any matter in relation to this topic, but it's pretty clear that if we can't make it six sentences without two showstopper errors my usual *word vomit* format isn't going to work here.
If you still want to talk, pick the single most important element and be as reductive as possible. You are going to object to *everything* I have to say, so keeping a very narrow focus is the only way this is going to work.
Where are we to get our people from, if not from our own citizenry?
Currently, no Western nation (outside of Israel, thanks to their large Ultra Orthodox community) has a sufficient replacement birth rate. If we cannot make more people to replace those that die then our societies die. If we strip mine the third world for people (unethical and unsustainable) then we face two problems: either we successfully incorporate those migrants into our culture and effectively destroy their fertility as we have our own, or we don't successfully integrate them into our culture in which case our culture dies and is replaced with a colony of their culture. Either scenario results in our death.
We know the recipe for killing population growth, and we've deployed it successfully in Africa (and by accident, here too): education for girls followed by employment (and you don't even need birth control to see the dramatic effects). This recipe has no effect in certain cultural groups, namely strict patriarchies like Islam, the Amish, Jewish Orthodox, etc. Educational and employment opportunities for women are strictly controlled in those societies (fun fact: in researching for this thread I found out that Boko Haram *literally* means *Western education is forbidden*).
I know things that are true, and that I don't particularly like. It doesn't make those things less true. I didn't make the problem, and I don't have the solution for the problem (I'm not even sure there is one, or if there is even time left to implement it). The one thing I won't do is pretend there isn't a problem that is there for all to see.
As for men doing the bulk of the work, we've had reliable birth control for less than a century, labour has been gender segregated for the entirety of human history up to this point, and men and women have significant biological differences. The circumstances for women to be equal players have barely been around and things take time to change. That being said, I invite you to consider who built your house, who makes sure the power and water come to it, that the sewerage and garbage leaves it, who comes to put it out if it catches on fire, and who would come and help you if you were in trouble and called the police.
Assuming gender parity in labour is even possible it won't happen until you and I are both long dead. Give it a century at least. History moves slow, even the weird history we find ourselves in right now.
As for the scoffing at men's protection, I think the best (and most tragic) examples of what men with guns do for a country is seeing what happens to xenophilic baizuo that decide to prove how *safe* Islamic countries are. Raped, murdered, beheaded. Multiple cases. The universe isn't a nice safe place, and coddled Westerners are free to walk outside of the borders that protect them and find that out any time they like. Privilege is invisible to those that have it.
Honestly, I think some people walk around with a reality distortion field protecting them from inconvenient information. That building I live in designed, built, and serviced by men? I guess that house just built itself and looks after itself, no men to be seen! These safe streets I walk, I don't see men with guns on the kerb, I guess the street is just naturally safe! All these things around me just, poof, into existence! Where *does* stuff come from?!
Nobody's asking you to give men a medal, or to even thank them in any way at all. It would just be nice if you saw them as *people* rather than utilities.