The reason I am asking about the pill has nothing to do with the manosphere. Any time I come in contact with almost anything in that space I feel slightly nauseous. Not necessarily because I intellectually disagree. Like, I do not intellectually disagree with someone making sweet love to a dead goat.…
The reason I am asking about the pill has nothing to do with the manosphere. Any time I come in contact with almost anything in that space I feel slightly nauseous. Not necessarily because I intellectually disagree. Like, I do not intellectually disagree with someone making sweet love to a dead goat. I exaggerate, of course. Slightly. And when you say "Jim who needs no surname" I immediately think The Doors. Although when I googled him I realized that I had read some of his stuff before (e.g. Reaction 101) in passing.
There is an approach that if something hurts you should do it more. At some point I decided, however, that outside of my professional and family life I would strive to avoid negative emotions. I avoid depressing or abusive friends. And I do not watch horror movies. All of the above is of course about me. No disrespect for manosphere denizens meant or implied.
The thesis that the pill was at the root of the Sexual Revolution, which in turn is probably the cause of most of the angsts and tragedy in the modern relationship world, does not appear in one single place. It's a very attractive idea and I implicitly took it for granted. Until I started thinking about it. Not deeply, mind you, and more from the side. Here are the red flags I found:
(1) It's reductionist - reducing complex cultural phenomena to simpler lower-level causes.
(2) It's thoroughly materialistic.
(2a) Moreover, it smells Marxist. According to Marx ideas are the product of material conditions, and only of the material conditions.
(3) It is supported by The Cathedral dons (Tyler Cowen comes to mind)
(4) A significant part of the Sexual Revolution happened more silently and gradually in the aftermath of the AIDS epidemic which was used by the progressives to install sex education in schools. I do not know much about the latter (my kids are homeschooled), but my hunch is that it is not only about wearing condoms, it goes much deeper than that.
None of those red flags is a refutation or a strong direct argument against the thesis, though. As a matter of fact I am still not convinced that it's totally false.
The Latin America argument on its own does not refute it. The main point of the thesis is that the pill was at the root of women obtaining the Ring of sociocultural power, misuse of which is in turn "the cause of most of the angst and tragedy..." The pill just did not have enough force to tip over deeply conservative Latin American attitudes.
Will go read Jim. It is to be hoped that the pain is worth the gain.
I appreciate your response, thank you.
The reason I am asking about the pill has nothing to do with the manosphere. Any time I come in contact with almost anything in that space I feel slightly nauseous. Not necessarily because I intellectually disagree. Like, I do not intellectually disagree with someone making sweet love to a dead goat. I exaggerate, of course. Slightly. And when you say "Jim who needs no surname" I immediately think The Doors. Although when I googled him I realized that I had read some of his stuff before (e.g. Reaction 101) in passing.
There is an approach that if something hurts you should do it more. At some point I decided, however, that outside of my professional and family life I would strive to avoid negative emotions. I avoid depressing or abusive friends. And I do not watch horror movies. All of the above is of course about me. No disrespect for manosphere denizens meant or implied.
The thesis that the pill was at the root of the Sexual Revolution, which in turn is probably the cause of most of the angsts and tragedy in the modern relationship world, does not appear in one single place. It's a very attractive idea and I implicitly took it for granted. Until I started thinking about it. Not deeply, mind you, and more from the side. Here are the red flags I found:
(1) It's reductionist - reducing complex cultural phenomena to simpler lower-level causes.
(2) It's thoroughly materialistic.
(2a) Moreover, it smells Marxist. According to Marx ideas are the product of material conditions, and only of the material conditions.
(3) It is supported by The Cathedral dons (Tyler Cowen comes to mind)
(4) A significant part of the Sexual Revolution happened more silently and gradually in the aftermath of the AIDS epidemic which was used by the progressives to install sex education in schools. I do not know much about the latter (my kids are homeschooled), but my hunch is that it is not only about wearing condoms, it goes much deeper than that.
None of those red flags is a refutation or a strong direct argument against the thesis, though. As a matter of fact I am still not convinced that it's totally false.
The Latin America argument on its own does not refute it. The main point of the thesis is that the pill was at the root of women obtaining the Ring of sociocultural power, misuse of which is in turn "the cause of most of the angst and tragedy..." The pill just did not have enough force to tip over deeply conservative Latin American attitudes.
Will go read Jim. It is to be hoped that the pain is worth the gain.
Thank you, again.