The new world views you refer to that former religious adherents adopt aren't usually terribly radical, and it's a thought-terminating pitfall to call them religions or even spirituality. Much improvement over the new cults of the 1970s.
Monotheism is against pluralism where polytheism was not. That was there from the monotheist revolution.
> it's a thought-terminating pitfall to call them religions
No it's not. Just go listen to what Harari says in his book Sapiens. Ideologies like Feminism, Liberalism, Conservatism, Humanism, etc, are all parts of a modern syncretic religion and their adherents are syncretic believers that mix and match different ideologies to fit their tastes. It's just a bald faced lie that these things are so much different from the stuff they replaced. Buddhism has no necessary Gods as don't some forms of Hinduism.
Typically less fringe than you may think. Quoting "Visualizing the Transition Out of High-Demand Religions":
> Subjects include disaffiliated Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Fundamentalist Protestants
Typically these groups express many of the same characteristics as "mainstream" religions due to their age, and share the same elements driving religious decline.
Luckily for future generations humans are fairly adaptable and I'm sure the rich will be just fine.
The observation does nothing to further the debate because it assumes a broad unified opinion about a group of individuals. Do third wave lesbians want chivalry?
'we live in a less chivalrous world'
chivalrous - adjective - (of a man or his behavior) courteous and gallant, especially toward women
Could just live in a more courteous and gallant world and leave out the gendered nonsense?
Also the idea that a specific gender is inherently moral / immoral is also ridiculous generalization and shouldn't be made my anyone.
These objections are exhausting. Yes, there are exceptions to every generalization. Generalizations are the only way we can reasonably describe large groups of people. In this case, the individuals in question are more or less defined by this shared opinion, so it's definitely a fair, constructive observation.
> Do third wave lesbians want chivalry?
I don't know what a "third wave lesbian" is. Also, to be clear, I doubt any third-wave feminist would say they want chivalry; but when you look at the things they advocate for ("believe all women", etc) and how they treat each gender, it looks like chivalry taken to extremes.
> Could just live in a more courteous and gallant world and leave out the gendered nonsense?
Sure we can, but it's not consistent with a traditional or third-wave-feminist worldview. Note that this isn't a criticism of any particular worldview.
> Also the idea that a specific gender is inherently moral / immoral is also ridiculous generalization and shouldn't be made my anyone.
Sure. I'm only making observations about different worldviews, not prescribing any particular worldview.
"believe all women" is a slogan. Slogans are handy because they save time. They are easy to chant. They build unity. If you were to ask 100 'feminists' what does believe all women mean to you, there would be many answers.
> Sure we can, but it's not consistent with a traditional or third-wave-feminist worldview.
I never said I wanted a traditional or a third wave world, just kinder; there are other options.
"Generalization" doesn't mean that you believe the observation is true for exactly every individual in the group. That a generalization doesn't hold for every individual in the group doesn't imply that generalization isn't useful. Now can we be done errantly nitpicking well-established semantics?
> If you were to ask 100 'feminists' what does believe all women mean to you, there would be many answers.
Many variations of the same theme.
> I never said I wanted a traditional or a third wave world, just kinder; there are other options.
You're agreeing with me rather aggressively. I didn't claim or imply that you wanted any particular kind of world.
These semantics are mental shortcuts that are harmful in this case to actually solving the problems we face. They frame the issue narrowly, which leads to a single viewpoint coloring the entire population.
> Many variations of the same theme.
Do you agree/disagree with all of them?
> You're agreeing with me rather aggressively. I didn't claim or imply that you wanted any particular kind of world.
I thought you were suggesting that only one or the other could exist, or that I needed to choose one.
The population is largely defined by that fairly narrow viewpoint. Generalizing isn’t harmful for people who understand the term, and I won’t pander to those who don’t.
> Do you agree/disagree with all of them?
I disagree with the central theme—that gender is useful and perhaps even primary for establishing credibility and/or guilt. Theoretically some women may have used the slogan to mean “pizza is delicious”, in which case I would have to agree, but this falls well outside of the normal parameters of communication and sentiment (which have regrettably been challenged too often already over the course of this conversation).