GeniesLoki

Build something totally new, but try to avoid the positivistic sciences feminism is built on. Those are its weak points (really what all that’s annoying about it follows from)

I'm not sure it makes sense to build something entirely new without reference to feminism - it both ignores a lot of good work and also leaves you open to easy criticism of not having engaged with prior art..

But I'm curious as to what you have in mind?

I agree, I'm curious as well. I don't think quality masculinist and feminist discourses can exist without each other nor without a sort of interdependence.

An attempt at this existed in the late 1980s/early 1990s, the problem was the Manosphere stuff came in and basically managed to sweep up and basically devour it whole. It made laying claim to "masculinism" or "masculism" in a positive sense almost impossible.

You can rarely compete with accomplished griftavists (actigrifts?) at defining words in the public consciousness. When all of them push in a certain direction because it suits them (including people outside the "Manosphere"), it's impossible even to swerve. Meaning: Bulldozed.

All meaning is lost in the “pop sci” versions of philosophy. When twitter activists get their hands on a book at 15 they think they’re protégés because they got thru it. I wonder, though, if it’s possible that now that the Manosphere is established, it’s easier to distinguish?

It’s a bit paradoxical but it makes sense. The Manospheria can’t really latch onto it because it is diametrically opposed to Manospheric framework. It could be harder to coopt a masculinism today than it was 30-40 years ago, though the internet might offset that somewhat.