u/sevenliesseventruths

This is something that I have been thinking for SO long, and just recently could put into words.

Lets put some terms into the table first. The essentialist believe that the etiquettes we have in society are necessary for our identities and the restitution of social inequalities. Meanwhile the universalists, or in this case I will say humanist, believe that those same etiquettes can be overcome to create a fully equal society on which everyone is judged as an individual rather than the member of tribes they did not choose to be part of.

Now, iconsider myself a leftist, yes. And I value the job of leftist across the world. However, I do think that most of them don't have any core reason of why they believe what they believe. And that is not bad by itself, any help is welcomed. That is what I think. But I also believe that there will be a time on which universalists and humanist will be at arms (metaphorically) against the essentialist. Both sides within the left. And I realized that, the much I like leftist, I wouldn't want to live in a world led by essentialist of any kind. I don't want to live in it already, that is why I am a humanist. So knowing most leftist are also essentialist leaves me with a deep sense of hopelessness. Knowing that even in the best case scenario we will still need to continue the fight.

But recently, I realized we still have a good hand. The thing is that most humanist have never heard about the philosophy, they just live it. Naturist are a good example. They have been existing for longest than we imagine, and yet they have not been considered polytical despite the hyper polytical fact that they blurred or destroyed the lines that separate men and women as some form of different tribe. Which is impressive. The same happens with most non racist people in places like South America, once you analyze it deeply. And the hippies too were humanist. So perhaps we are not completely lost after all.

But what do you think?

I could mention how Grrm had the drive of showing how power is complicated and corrupting, or the manichean world of Tolkien which also spoke about nostalgia. And I know this is a simplification, but there must be something that drives what happens on your books.

In my case, there are many cases. But I will speak about Arinmar.

Arinmar is composed by different races, none superior to the other, just different. And each race is inspired by some particular diasphora or real cultures, thought it is not equal. Each race has a curse. The Laomar live short lives, Sodrag women are 10% of the population, and Zarinko women get infertile or die for the horrible pain of birth giving. But there are people who don't share the curses: the globetroters, and the Tamohina. And both factions have a single thing in common: the races coexist.

You see, a third of the gods known as "the blood pact" have declared themselves allies of the mortal races, lead by Ararath, God of honor and fatherhood and Dwain, goddess of wisdom and motherhood. It was precisely one of Dwains acolites, Marcus, the one who created the globetroters. This is a faction born of different ex slaves groups from all continents, and are now merchants, adventurers, and artisans. They joined on a single faction because Marcus convinced these revolutionaries that the only way they could be free if is they organized together. The large empires of th world would kill them all otherwise. Their weapons are the best, being the only faction with napoleonic era technology on a world where most factions still use matchlock rifles. Because they unified their efforts for their own defense. They are basically sindicalist, as their cities are led by a council of high members, with companies ruled by the workers (most of whom are sailors and soldiers) and they are the largest faction that has banned slavery. And despite being the smallest faction in numbers, they are the most powerful in terms of soft power. As many admire them, and they have a monopoly on ancient relics and magic. But they also discovered something else. The curses seemed to fade with the generations. Sodrag women were born more often, Laomar stayed strong and lived longer, and Zarinko women got easier births that allowed them to have more children. This because of the Blood pact's blessing. As these gods grew a preference for them, considering the the future of the world. The only faction that grows up while the other empires root under their own aristocracies and stagnate forever.

And also, there is an entire kind of magic that is based on two things: listening to nature, and cuddling. It is awesome. You can talk with animals, cure injuries, know what babies want and who are their biological parents, or simply feel good. All races have this magic on a low level, which makes them way more driven to phisical gestures of affection and naturism.

I consider myself to be a sort of post genderist. Not someone who wishes trans humanism to become rampant, though I'm not particularly against it; but rather someone who believes gender is mostly social performance, and we would be better without it. I use my own experience, as someone who, in my own words, is a male, not a man. I do not have many masculine characteristics. And those I have are more adaptations I developed to survive rather than things I am proud of. And since under my worldview man and woman are mere lifestyle performances, I am not a man, for I do not perform that lifestyle. This is already against many things you might believe, and that is alright.

However, this view, as progressive as it might appear to be, since of course it implies radical gender equality and freedom for personal development; does disagree with some ideas I have encountered around certain circles that also claim to be progressive. And that troubles me deeply. You see, my worldview is also linked with the idea that separation of people based on arbitrary differences, like gender, only makes us miserable. Since, under patriarchy (even a soft patriarchy like the one present in most of the west) men and women are so different that they cannot have any sort of honest relationship. You will never fully know your sister, your wife, or your female friends. Because both of you contribute to create a wall, as thick or thin as both of you decide, that will forever keep you separated. At the same time, if you do not fit the expectations of what you are supposed to be based on your gender (like me), you will have another wall around other people in your group. I have found myself on this position, that is why I feel more at home on lgbt circles, where gender roles don't matter as much.

You might wonder what about this could disagree with progressive ideals. Well, some feminists circles I have visited, mostly online and on educated spaces, share an idea of separation. Not without reason, as many of them have real life dangers to back their ideas. I don't precisely disagree with them neither, after all, people need to survive and remain safe in real life. But I also fear the results of these views. Ideals that link the patriarchy, a complex and undefined system, to everyday men. without the idea of educating them on what essentially is a disruption of cultural aspects they might not even question. The average person doesn't think their actions are bad, even if they indeed are. And it is our responsibility as educated, progressive people, to educate others. I understand why would someone prefer to avoid this. But I also know why separating people isn't the answer. Because if you do not know others, it is easy to buy dangerous ideas. You see, even if I had my time of disagreeing with feminism, when I was a young teenager. I never disagreed with the idea. Just with the method and attitudes of the movement. Because I grew up around women, My mother, my sister, my cousin-sister, my friends at school; even if I have bad luck with romance (both with men and women) I would never buy redpill ideas. Because I know they are untrue.

But not everyone is so lucky as me. Most boys who enter these circles do so from a place of misunderstanding, even fear or hate that they, as teenagers or kids, can have due to misleading experiences or expectations. And they buy these ideas because, well, theyre easy to buy if you do not know they are lies. But how are they to discover those are lies if they do not have the opportunity to know the women around them? Our society is very isolated, everyone knows it. Even I am not innocent of not really knowing those I have lived with all my life. So if we want this to change, we need an effort to destroy those walls as much as we can. That is why I am so driven by naturism, even if I do not practice it. Because it is a first step (and some achademics agree with me) towards a world of actual understanding. This is why I think the actions of some social movements of today are not the way. And the only thing I can do is to continue writing, and use my education (currently going on) as a psychologist to help people directly. A social movement would have to wait.

The reason I write this is... Well, I don't exactly know. Perhaps to hear other ideas, after all, most of mine come from reasoning more than theory (even if I have read some theory, it is scarce) and I might be wrong. I also feel like I have to clarify, but I do NOT agree with redpill bullshit and neither I oppose feminism nor the people who follow said ideals. I think I just see the issue a different way. So feel free to tell me what I am going to die off in the comments if you disagree with me.

I consider myself to be a sort of post genderist. Not someone who wishes trans humanism to become rampant, though I'm not particularly against it; but rather someone who believes gender is mostly social performance, and we would be better without it. I use my own experience, as someone who, in my own words, is a male, not a man. I do not have many masculine characteristics. And those I have are more adaptations I developed to survive rather than things I am proud of. And since under my worldview man and woman are mere lifestyle performances, I am not a man, for I do not perform that lifestyle. This is already against many things you might believe, and that is alright.

However, this view, as progressive as it might appear to be, since of course it implies radical gender equality and freedom for personal development; does disagrees with some ideas I have encountered around certain circles that also claim to be progressive. And that troubles me deeply. You see, my worldview is also linked with the idea that separation of people based on arbitrary differences, like gender, only makes us miserable. Since, under patriarchy (even a soft patriarchy like the one present in most of the west) men and women are so different that they cannot have any sort of honest relationship. You will never fully know your sister, your wife, or your female friends. Because both of you contribute to create a wall, as thick or thin as both of you decide, that will forever keep you separated. At the same time, if you do not fit the expectations of what you are supposed to be based on your gender (like me), you will have another wall around other people in your group. I have found myself on this position, that is why I feel more at home on lgbt circles, where gender roles don't matter as much.

You might wonder what about this could disagree with progressive ideals. Well, some feminists circles I have visited, mostly online and on educated spaces, share an idea of separation. Not without reason, as many of them have real life dangers to back their ideas. I don't precisely disagree with them neither, after all, people need to survive and remain safe in real life. But I also fear the results of these views. Ideals that link the patriarchy, a complex and undefined system, to everyday men. Not with the idea of educating them on what essentially is a disruption of cultural aspects they might not even question. The average person doesn't think their actions are bad, even if they indeed are. And it is our responsibility as educated, progressive people, to educate others. And I understand why would someone prefer to avoid this. But I also know why separating people isn't the answer. Because if you do not know others, it is easy to buy dangerous ideas. You see, even if I had my time of disagreeing with feminism, when I was a young teenager, I never disagreed with the idea. Just with the method and attitudes of the movement. Because I grew up around women. My mother, my sister, my cousin-sister, my friends at school. Even if I have bad luck with romance (both with men and women) I would never buy redpill ideas. Because I know they are untrue.

But not everyone is so lucky as me. Most boys who enter these circles do so from a place of misunderstanding, even fear or hate that they, as teenagers or kids, can have due to misleading experiences or expectations. And they buy these ideas because, well, theyre easy to buy if you do not know they are lies. But how are they to discover those are lies if they do not have the opportunity to know the women around them? Our society is very isolated, everyone knows it. Even I am not innocent of not really knowing those I have lived with all my life. So if we want this to change, we need an effort to destroy those walls as much as we can. That is why I am so driven by naturism, even if I do not practice it. Because it is a first step (and some achademics agree with me) towards a world of actual understanding. This is why I think the actions of some social movements of today are not the way. And the only thing I can do is to continue writing, and use my education (currently going on) as a psychologist to help people directly. A social movement would have to wait.

Hi. On the biggest fantasy setting that I have I made every single of the multiple cultures I have inspired by a real culture. More or less. The different races, continents, kingdoms, empires, etc; have an anesthetic and certain cultural drives that are resembling to real cultures. You notice this specially on their names which are the thing that tells you the inspiration most directly. Let's focus on Mesuria, the "Rome" of this world.

Mainland Mesurian language is a mix of Latin and Greek, but each province and region uses their own accent and they vary the words to the point that it would be difficult for them to understand each other. But it is latin, you and me both understand it is latin. And when I was trying to write knights, I realized they were not knights, they were not feudal lords. I needed a different name, and I found the perfect one by just looking at roman history: Tribune. And that same day I wrote plenty of other concepts by just taking names that the Romans used and adapting them to my world. The same way everyone uses knights but they vow to non Christian gods or are one thing or the other. But of course, you could argue I could have said: low noble warrior. And show what they are or tell their specific function. But I just liked the name and the way I applied it to this particular society. So it stays.

But like I said, I have plenty of different cultures in this world with a different real life inspiration. And that brought me to this crossroad. Because I can't decide to which extent this could be applied. Like, if I have an Aztec inspired civilization, should I have jaguar and eagle warriors?, should I call their clubs Macuahuitl instead of describing them? (if the pov knows the name of the weapon, of course) or with a Japanese based civilization. Should they use Katanas or just "curved blades" and I can extend this idea on and on.

I must also make emphasis on something. While I know the languages of this people are not exactly like their real life counterparts, and most of the time it appears it is actually gibberish using the phonetic structure of the real language because I AM NOT A LANGUAGE MAKER; I also know everyone will recognize what said language is inspired by, and it is a shortcut I have to be able to write different cultures without resolving to the "everyone speaks English" trope. So I think it is not to much of a stretch to have some words being the same. After all, as I said, the similarities are often reduced to a baseline on which the rest of the civilization is constructed based on the fantasy world it exist in, and aesthetics. The same way Grand Kathai is China and the empire of Sigmar is the Holly Roman Empire.

So what do you think?

This is a discussion that I fear will have no end. And I made a similar post in another community the past year, answers of course depended on personal experience. So I thought putting it here would give it an interesting turn.

In short, my opinion is: parents rights shouldn't override children's rights. Why? Because having sex doesn't mean you will love your kid. And even if you love them, that doesn't mean you will be emotionally capable of taking care of them. And many parents tend do uninformed decisions that satisfy their own ego rather than decisions that are beneficial for their children. But of course, this statement alone doesn't mean anything without a way to be applied. And the way this should be balanced is the topic of this conversation.

So tell me, using your humanist ideas as a baseline. How would you balance the rights of parents to control and raise their children however they see fit with the rights of the children to have all their psychological and physical necessities fulfilled? You can focus on any matter: education, religion, discipline, ego, ownership, free development of the personality, and so on.