[throwaway87378]

> Move forward to today: a large percentage of men are totally removed from the dating market (not by choice), they do not have sex, they have no hope of getting into a relationship. The reverse is not true for women, who have countless options and can at any time open their phone and have their pick of men.

You are totally ignoring the demographic of women over 40. Older women have a very hard time dating.

> So, when it says young people are having less sex, it’s primarily men who are having less sex. The world changed, women do not need your money or your protection. The fancy jobs do not matter like they did before, nor does having a ton of money. What matters more than anything now are your looks.

This was already foreseen by many feminist and population control advocates in the middle of the 20th century, such as Mary Daly. Here is Terence McKenna's take on it in a 1994 talk:

"There are not only too many people, there are too many men. I would be very interested in seeing a set of social policies, tax incentives, medical policies, insurance policies, put in place to limit male birth. It is very rare in mammal populations that you have a 50/50 ratio of male to female. In fact, it is well known that male infants are less robust than female infants, and the reason we have a 50/50 sexual ratio is because we artificially support males and withdraw resources from females. I suspect that in the high paleolithic the ratio was closer to two to one. My supposition, in thinking about this, is probably that the best ratio is three to one. This is the way to feminize the human race, if you are serious. This is the way to advance women, if you are serious… I have never heard anyone say that male birth should be limited, but it obviously should… we can steer ourselves towards a population with a predominance of females, and those females should have only one child, and 75% of those children should also be female. I don't consider myself a gung-ho feminist… As a humanist, I advocate a reduction in male births. It just seems obvious that it is the way to go. If it does not seem obvious to you, then let's have a public debate about it, and at least make it part of the rhetoric of the culture, that this is an option to think about."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IO7pHD3X9M

[ThrowawayR2]

> "I have never heard anyone say that male birth should be limited, but it obviously should… we can steer ourselves towards a population with a predominance of females, and those females should have only one child, and 75% of those children should also be female."

Yikes. So how does this mesh with the idea that the modern left is about gender equality? That's pretty much naked eugenics and this individual does not seem to be broadly vilified as one would expect.

[throwaway87378]

There is no such thing as the "modern left," except as a straw-man used by various people in US corporate television and radio.

Mary Daly was a Catholic professor of theology and prominent second-wave feminist in the late 1960s/1970s, and according to her "If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males." Valerie Solanas argued for total androcide in her 1967 SCUM Manifesto (IMO a very underrated book).

These ideas are not new, are not liberal, and should not be particularly surprising if you stop emotionally investing in consumer society, corporate indoctrination, and "traditional" (authoritarian and misogynist) cultural values, and instead look at where the life-carrying capacity of the Earth has been, where we currently have reduced it to, and where it is heading towards if present trends continue.

[repolfx]

There obviously is a modern left and feminism is a central tenet of it. The fact that feminism has been riddled with violence, man hating and calls for androcide from the start is taboo to discuss today because feminists will respond in the way you'd expect: meltdown followed by an attempt to destroy the "men's right activist" who pointed it out.

Even in the comment above you can see someone has been conditioned to think that men caring about their own rights is somehow "mysoginist" when the truth is MRAs are concerned with things like false accusations, equal rights, fair treatment in family courts and many other important issues. And some MRAs are female, just like some feminists are male.

[throwaway87378]

> There obviously is a modern left and feminism is a central tenet of it.

Since you seem to be so well-informed on the subject, maybe you can help me with a question about the "modern left" that I have had for several years now: what does John Zerzan have in common with Hillary Clinton?

[repolfx]

I don't know anything about John Zerzan but from his Wikipedia page he sounds like someone who applies Marxist theory to primitive vs modern societies instead of proles vs the bourgeoisie.

The feminist philosophy of Clinton and the primitivist ecophilosophy (?) of Zerzan share at their core the same ideas as Marx: they see the world as a struggle between innocent oppressed groups and evil oppressor groups, with everyone being categorisable into one of those two categories and in which world progress inevitably builds to an overthrow of the oppressors leading to a kind of universal peace.

Zerzan uses the same terminology as Marx even, that of alienation. Feminists don't use that rather archaic word, but they do talk a lot about discrimination, oppression, patriarchy (instead of bourgeoisie) and so on. The phrase "the future is female" expresses the same sentiment as Marx when he predicted the inevitable victory of the working classes over their oppressors.

[throwaway87378]

> I don't know anything about John Zerzan but

Stop right there. You know nothing about the "modern left" if you have never heard of John Zerzan. And if you think that he is some kind of Marxist because you skimmed a Wikipedia page, you are clearly a know-it-all idiot Dunning-Krugering himself.