Why women should not be feminists and rather defend masculinity?

As absurd as it may sound, the war on masculinity is going to destroy the very feminine. And that would ultimately lead to the destruction of women's many acquired rights. Men are masculine for a reason, that is, they have acquired masculine traits through a complex process during a tremendous amount of time. Nature shaped men to be masculine, not to oppress anybody, but quite the opposite, men's masculine traits major purpose is the protection of their wives, tribe and offspring. Today's society is organized artificially -- that is, we no longer have the state of spontaneous order -- and that's why feminists fail to see the purpose of masculinity and rather view it as a threat to equality. Now, it is our organized institutions that are supposed to protect everybody and no one expects anything from a man, but, ironically, nature is nature and unconsciously expect men to be men. 

Again, it is the genius of Nietzsche that opened our eyes to the fatal mistake of thinking that the thing and its opposite are exclusive. Feminists are misguided by their ignorance that for women to be equal, and to acquire equal rights as men, they somehow should attack masculine values and the traditional structure of institutions, because, in their view, these values/institutions are what are excluding women from being equal to men. Some of them are aware that the thing originates in its opposite, -- i.e. men are masculine because women are feminine and the other way around --and they are managing to pursue another plan: to attack both the feminine and the masculine -- no wonder almost all feminists are either females with masculine traits or males with no masculinity at all and both are excluded from the mating market. The problem of these social constructionists -- since being man or woman is a mere social construct according to their view (RIP science) -- is that they want to mess with the current structure of social institutions artificially using the power of legislation. They want to end the patriarchy. This is a mistake -- a disastrous mistake, because this view does not take into account the future consequences of what might happen. The prediction concerning very complex social phenomena is very difficult and usually one ends getting the opposite of what he had been planning. To view men and women as blank pages that are easy to write whatever you want on them is absolutely stupid and naive. We are humans and far complex than mere machines or parts of a chess game to be messed with. I am very concerned that their plans will lead to the opposite of what they think: instead of reducing violence in society, we'll have more totalitarianism and more violence. Instead of harmony, equality and respect, we'll have chaos, discrimination and oppression. Please note that I am not stating whether men or women who will suffer more from these malicious sicknesses because obviously everybody will suffer. 

Feminists think that if the distinction among males and females is removed from language and social institutions, then, necessarily, the systematic sexism would be vanished. I don't buy that, and I think this is an over simplistic way to look at both men and women and it deprives them from any meaning that they might wish to pursue. Our subjective wellbeing (anyways, any wellbeing is subjective) depends partly on how our psyches are shaped evolutionary. And any deviations from our nature might result in a negative impact on our wellbeing. 

My problem with feminism is that it thinks that it can use the power of the law and legislation to achieve its ends. Without any scientific research whatsoever on how all this drama will end, they expect a utopian egalitarianism between men and women. Men and women are not the same to be compared in the first place. And speaking of equality is misleading. When I say equality I mean that the law should be indifferent regarding our sex but feminists talk about equality of outcome which I think is almost impossible to be achieved and we have strong evidence for that. Needless to say, I definitely think that the law should deal with people only as individuals. Feminists don't want to let the society function according to its spontaneous order. If men and women are really neutralized from any social construct, and then left to behave naturally, they surely will end up in a structure similar to the one we have today and any interruption with this spontaneous order can only result in a worse off situation for both women and men. 

To where feminism is taking us is beyond my scope of knowledge, but there is a number of things that are absolutely clear where they're leading us. I see nature as a corrector of the deviations from the path that it is writing for us. Once we deviate from its ultimate purpose, we shall be willing to bear the correcting consequences. Attacking masculinity will certainly destabilize males. They'll no longer feel satisfied with the new altered situation. That is, the male psyche is primarily shaped for specific ends, and how it functions to achieve those ends is the problem feminism can't see. Males are designed to be competitive and today's enforced equality is holding them off. Males are less and less likely to get into higher studies and this is a problem. A society of failing men is a society of violence. The resentment that men will feel when they are in the lower level of social hierarchy will certainly push them to be aggressive and criminal and especially toward women. That is because they are judged very badly by women. Why a woman would want to bother with a loser? If men suffer, women suffer too. I've never seen a man who's successful interrupting anybody's way but losers do it all the time. Feminism now instead of looking for the root of our problems, they seek to mess with legislation and make things only worse childishly. They may cure for the very short run few problems but in the long run things are certainly becoming worse. 

Feminists are neither driven by logic or science nor the desire for real equality; and I will not advance the arguments pushed by many alt right and men's rights movements to counter feminists pretensions of equality, since these arguments are ridiculous as well. Some men's movements usually state, whenever feminists ask for equality in high paying jobs, that it is men who do the uneasy risky hard jobs and therefore equality for women means sharing men these jobs: men drive huge machines, and build huge buildings, roads, bridges and almost everything, that is, according to men's rights movements, men literally created civilization. Of course I don't say that activists of men’s movements are wrong when stating these things. And they are right when they say that this is hard work, how could that be a "white privilege"? My problem with these movements is that they are as stupid as feminists. The reason that I don't buy this is that, just like feminists, they think of people as part of a group (males or females) and I think of people only as individuals. 

I think through this little essay I have succeeded to show that we can only speak of human rights -- human natural rights. 

Those envious full of hatred and resentment who speak about equality in high paying jobs need to be schooled in basic economics.

The metaphysics of happiness

 "Ask yourself if you're happy and you cease to be so" - John Stuart Mill

 Humans endeavor is mysterious, and how we run after things is no less unclear. The most mysterious and strange thing we have ever come to encounter is certainly our own self. The self – whatever it maybe – is what defines who we are, it is the responsible why often people struggle with life, it’s the cause why they complain about its meaningless nature. We are conscious beings, that is, we know what it means to be happy, and we can tell how horrible it is to suffer. For me, it is this realization that makes everything matters, either good or bad.

You can doubt everything, you can be skeptic about being, but I doubt that anybody doubts the feeling of suffering. You might think that the feeling of happiness, the feeling of being in love and the feeling of serenity are mere delusions but not the feeling of pain and suffering. In my view, this is the first building block to argue for our being. It is this feeling what pushes people to think that life is pointless, to prefer not being over being, to think that the best for us is to not be born at all, because, as pessimistic philosophy pointed out, life is nothing but a journey of suffering and a struggle for survival.

You might expect to hear it only from nihilists but I heard it from all sorts of people. According to materialist nihilists, it is impossible to make any sense of life if it is the result of cold, deterministic, uncaring interactions between matter and energy. What meaning could one assign to trajectories of particles that are describable with mathematical equations? Accordingly, if you sum up the huge number of atoms of your body and how the particles forming them interact with each other and with the world surrounding you, then can you tell who are you? Aren't you anything but a ghost inhabiting these atoms and deluded by your "consciousness". Probably, atheists think, one day, we'll be able to describe the immense number of matter particles in the whole universe with precise models and come to see everything as mere simulation and inevitable deterministic fate of matter and energy. If that is the case, then what's happiness for us? What's pain? What does it mean that we are obliged to face all these different emotions through our lifetime, since nothing is a choice? If you hold this world view, you definitely think there is nothing you can do and everything is imposed on you.  There is no escape that whatever emotion you experience, be it joy or pain, is an inescapable fate. And therefore you realize that the point of living is meaningless in the first place. I understand the position of this philosophy, despite my conviction that it is a naïve and coward way to see life.

If nihilists have their reasons, what about religious people? Is it possible to be a nihilist religious? Indeed, Buddhism and a lot of ancient mythologies have recognized that life is suffering. To overcome this suffering one should transcend his own nature, that is, to devote himself to a greater purpose that is worth the suffering. The whole foundation of religion and the metaphysics of meaning are somehow predicated on this idea – to transcend human nature.

What’s the purpose of belief if it does not provide you with meaning? If metaphysics can't save you from the hell of being drown in nihilism, then there must be something wrong with it – psychologically speaking. People presuppose that the meaning they ought to find is “happiness” and as long as they haven’t found it, then, they think life must be meaningless. No religion ever tells you that the point of your life is to be happy.

The problem of both religious and nonreligious people is that they ask the wrong questions. They want to be happy and they ask what they shall do to be happy. I see dozens of posts on Facebook, I hear many advices from friends and I encounter it a lot in magazines, all, they give advices on how to be happy. Happiness is the ultimate goal of all simpleminded people.

We want to be happy and we want to maintain that feeling. Happiness is nothing but the result of your reward system. When you get something that enhances your chances of survival, you feel happy, when you don’t, you feel the other way around. Even if your reward system is responding to a favorable situation, after a short time the feeling vanishes away. Happiness in the mind of the simple minded intellect is purely a physical thing.

When you are involved in questioning and discovering, to the point that you forget yourself, you forget that you are hungry and need to eat, you forget that you are wasting a chance of mating with “highly desired mate” and when you no longer care what car you’re driving or what home you’re living in, then, you have figured the secret of happiness. Intellectual curiosity is full of mysteries and inquiries; it satisfies a desire in you that is transcending your whole nature.   Your primitive reward system no longer tricks you and you are no longer naïve to track “happiness” because you are already happy and you should not ask yourself if you’re happy.