notes of a freethinker

Yes, there is truth in everything you have listed. I should also add that I'm thinking like a guy, so the truth isn't that harsh. And finally, it's what we want out of life. More power to you. :)

It's interesting that you label yourself a "free thinker." Just sounds like a mish-mosh of boilerplate Marxism and it retarded offspring feminism, anarcho-syndaclism and nihilism to me.

Nothing new. Nothing "revolutionary." Just the same, tired, played-out nonsense that all college kids "experiment" with while on drugs before crashing head-first into real life.

Carry on, and my your quest to abort and cleanse your followers out of existence continue unabated.

You are not a "freethinker". That term was coined with a specific idea in mind. You are a crackpot and your use of the tag is an offense against rationalism.

Once upon a time there was a Christian sect called the Shakers. They were very numerous, their communes were all over the United States. They were famous for their industriousness and their chastity.

At their height they numbered some 6000 souls. Today, there is one (1) remaining Shaker commune with four people in it.

Wonder how that happened, eh?

Anonymous, first use your retard brain than you will know that marxism and feminism were products of free thinking. "Free" inples freedom from "institutionalised" thought and neither Marxism nor Feminism have yet built any churches or states

and have some balls before calling decent people names.

Like you said, to each his own.

I am more alarmed about the tone some of the commenters have taken. I mean its democratic to oppose but you do not have the right to ridicule a person in his cyber space. I am sure he did make you read his blog under a shotgun.

Fun reading these comments. Thanks for some sanity, Tazeen and SloganMurugan. And Shahryaar, thanks for jumping to a defense of my freethinking credentials.

Rationalism ain't everything, Brian Macker, because it was cold rationalism that informed the convictions of Social Darwinists who wanted the inferior races to die out. But if you wanna be rationalist, do check out the VHEMT website link I provide in my first post - they make a pretty good rational case of ending reproduction.

There is no nihilism in my post. If the reader inclined to conclude so, I would urge a re-reading of the above and identify the humanistic concerns therein)

How is a statement like "...if they don't think that they can find any meaning in it without children, then to them their own choices." non-judgmental?

It is easy, in your early years to equate marriage with being tied down or somehow being enslaved. Consider the freedom that comes with a stable and growing relationship.

With your preconceptions around marriage, I would say that you're the most likely person to exploit your partner and perhaps it's best if you don't get married.

How can you contribute to a society if you absent yourself from it. Personal Relationships are the closest ties we have with the greater society. Life-bonds (marriage, lifelong partnerships etc...) are the strongest of those. Just because people jump into them for the wrong reasons or don't give them the commitment they deserve, doesn't invalidate them.

It's like the person who stops eating apples because they get a bruised one.

How is a statement like "...if they don't think that they can find any meaning in it without children, then to them their own choices." non-judgmental?

I'm not saying that if you go and have children, it's because your life lacked meaning. Stop turning statements on their heads. Having children is a meaning-giving experience of transcendence for a lot, and if you don't identify with it, you can read on and maybe see that I also talk about celebration of love.

Check out my first post. Marriages and families don't take place in a cultural vaccuum, and it's not entirely up to the individuals concerned to avoid the general trends of exploitation and oppression that takes place in families. I am sorry if you haven't read radical feminist works that identify the problems with marriage and family, but rest assured that this is not just the rant of a disillusioned youth.

Are you coming to my blog through PTH? If so, I expect you to be antagonistic. I also doubt your credentials in gender theory. Because I did not expect to have a sane discussion of this here, I posted my piece on feministing, where it led to a sane discussion that mostly avoided a personal attack on the author (go here).

Enjoy the read, and be sure to read Rachel in WY's comments over there. She's a PhD who explains the radical feminist stance much better. Read also my comments there where I clarify certain things. And of course you could get your kicks out of reading the opposition there.

Read Shulasmith Firestone or Nancy Chodorow for a psychoanalytic perspective on family, and the essays of radical feminists like Jill Tweedie and Emma Goldman for all the things we mistake marriage to be.

'With your preconceptions around marriage, I would say that you're the most likely person to exploit your partner and perhaps it's best if you don't get married'

That's a really twisted stance. Critics of culture want to change things, not internalize them.