You habitually collude humanism and equalism. They are not the same. Also – you are wont to equate expressions of human aspiration that are found in conventional wisdom with humanism, per se, which I think is an error.

Humanism has a lot going for it and try as you might, the fact is that whether you are fully conscious of it or not, there are humanistic strains running roughshod throughout your writing.

So – to take on a few of these things as posted in this article, you write, “What Randi doesn’t consider is the natural complementary states men and women’s psychological firmware descended from since our hunter-gatherer tribal beginnings. He can’t consider it because it disagrees with the ‘higher-selves overcoming our natural state’ aspect of egalitarian humanism.”

Ok – but:
1) You are colluding egalitarianism with humanism, and you are colluding a specific form of pop culture heterosexual egalitarianism with humanism, where we could decipher political, economic and even gender egalitarianism apart from heterosexual egalitarianism, and in all cases the egalitarianism remains intact against your implied suggestion of its frailty

2) You are not allowing for a difference between heterosexual egalitarianism and gender egalitarianism

3) Regardless of how we parse egalitarianism, humanism does not by necessity collude with any of it

You go on to write,
“Androgynous men, by definition aren’t men – they are neither masculine or feminine – so is it any surprise that women’s innate, heteronormative, subliminal and tingle inducing need for a traditionally masculine man is frustrated by the same egalitarian mindset they’ve fostered in compliant men for so long?”

Here I think you are really on to something, but your earlier conceptual collusions are preventing you from breaking through to the next clue along the way.

It is: heteronormativity – that is at stake. To see what I mean by that, back up and come back at it again.

Begin with this starting point: human beings – men or women – can be androgynous. They are still human, in fact: they are 100% human.

“Male” and “female” do not add one iota to the humanness of a human. That is a key, critical, vital fact – well known to humanism, that “red pill” aware types have a huge gaping blind spot for.

If we correct that blind spot then we need to acknowledge several humanist insights: men are women, androdyne or not – are morally equal, and from their moral equality follows their equality of autonomy.

From autonomy follows that a woman may choose to be feminine, masculine, or androgynous, and a man, likewise.

Humanity is NOT at stake in the outcome. What is at stake is ask you said:

“heteronormativity”.

Men can choose to be feminine or androgynous. Women can choose to be masculine or androgynous.

Humanism requires neither end choice – humanism only requires the autonomy of the individual to choose.

But humanism would also say that for choices to be truly autonomous (i.e.: humanist) … those making the choices must understand the results of their choices – they must make their choices in the context of “informed consent”.

And someone properly informed – as by someone such as yourself – should understand that if they choose heteronormativity … which is a wholly valid choice under humanism … then that means men choosing to be masculine and women choosing to be feminine.

They are of course free to choose not to be masculine or feminine, but they should understand that in doing so – they are repudiating heteronormativity.

Humanism as far as I can tell does not brook having one’s cake and eating it to. This is where “red pill” probably has something to say to humanism and to add to humanism, but which doesn’t undermine humanism. “Red pill” will get push back when it makes impositions on people’s autonomy and forces their choices, … many of us call that “fascism”, but “Red Pill” is on solid ground when it informs humanism that heteronormativity is something that men, and women, can have, or not have, and it can only be had by those who want it when men are masculine and women are feminine.

People can choose anything else they want, autonomy and all, but they shouldn’t kid themselves into thinking that with their different choices will come a nice healthy dish of heteronormativity. These are either/or propositions.

All in all – I would prefer that if you must collude humanism with a qualifier then avoid “equalism” or “egalitarianism” as those stand on their own two feet and are unnecessary to humanism.

The qualifier that cannot be divorced from humanism, if you need one, is “autonomy”.

Off the top of my head how about:

-Is the betafication of men in marriage inevitable?

-Dread in LTR’s

-The Married Man’s Frame

-The long-long Game

-Fulfilling AF/BB in LTR’s

-When can you turn it around?

-When is it time to call the lawyer?

-Shit Tests and Comfort Tests in LTR’s

etc

http://therationalmale.com/2012/03/09/relationship-game-a-primer/

http://therationalmale.com/2012/04/23/relationship-game-wife-sex/