mr_engineer

And we have to shame that behavior. That's our job. Deal? The people who believe this invalidating shit are evil and we have to be prepared to fight them. They have shamed lonely men for far too long. This time, it's their turn. Justice will be served.

Can we stay on topic here? The topic is collective change, so that men feel emotionally safer putting themselves out there.

Looks like we know what 'toxic femininity' means now. We have to start shaming this behavior, immediately. For the sake of our own mental-health. People who invalidate loneliness should have no place in our society and they should be ostracized. It is time to make this a stigma. They should not get away with this behavior. It's incredibly unfair and we have to take a stand against it.

I'm offering a tutoring-service in which I change the dynamic between student and teacher. My aim is to maximize classroom-engagement, so that the students aren't just sitting there passively and bored, zoning out. Rather, they're engaging in active discussion and contemplation of the concepts. Their ability to apply the concepts to solve real problems skyrockets when I do this. My ultimate vision is to bring a change to the education-system. The monologue-based lecture-structure is inadequate for students to have a deep conceptual understanding of the material. Rote-learning and indoctrination is an archaic and barbaric practice that needs to be abolished with immediate effect.

Something interesting that just occurred to me is that 'bossy girls' or 'boss babes' have a certain definition of 'real woman' that aligns a lot with Andrew Tate's definition of 'real man'. Andrew Tate wears suits and smokes cigars and says that 'real men don't need women', the 'boss girls' wear suits and smoke cigars and say that 'real women don't need men'. In other words, they're just using the word 'woman', when in reality, their definition of it actually is the traditionally masculine definition of 'man'. Therefore, never take anything they say about 'femininity' and 'feminine power' and 'girl power' and 'women empowerment' seriously. They're just using the word 'feminine' cuz they have lady-parts. If they had man-parts, they'd be saying 'masculine'.

2 years.

The enlightened people of the world think that there is a bright red line between a 'boy' and a 'man'. What is that line? Is my whole question. Everyone is very certain that it is a bright red line, there is no ambiguity in what it is. They disagree on the contents of what it is, though. Which is incredibly interesting.

So, a real man is a dog?

That's kind of a circular definition, right?!

You emit pheromones when you're 'industrious', i.e. when you're doing a lot, when you're fully exerting yourself.

In my experience, what women call 'masculinity', in reality, is industriousness. When I'm industrious, I emit pheromones that signal to women 'Him. Get with this guy, he has the testosterone to get everything done and provide for you'. This is going to suck for some guys to hear, because what this implies is that the average woman doesn't care about your 'why', what's driving you. They just care that you're driven. And then it's their job to use their sex-appeal to manipulate you into getting with them. The average smart woman will care about your 'why' (whether you're working hard for social validation, for pussy, for materialistic ambitions, or your Life-Purpose), to see what your future is and to make a rational decision as to whether they should be with you or not. They won't care about your struggles, the only reason your 'why' will matter will be for them to make a rational decision. And, a third category of women, women who are empathic, will understand that if you're struggling and frustrated, this will lower the quality of the relationship. This is why they will care about what you're going through! Do women 'stand at the finish-line and pick the winners'? No. It's just that the average man is so castrated these days that it's only the top 5% of men who are truly industrious and who are truly emitting these pheromones!

Just say that you want to deflect everything onto the man, it's fine.

@StarStruck : I'm scared of jaywalking. @Leo Gura : Why? @StarStruck : Cars zoom really fast where there's no zebra-crossing. @Leo Gura : I hope you get hit by a truck when you're jaywalking once. Maybe it'll knock some sense into your silly head.

My question is - why tolerate people who will disagree with you for no reason, who will just act hateful towards you?! Agreement is how you create peace, right?! Yeah, don't be scared of debates and have some integrity, so that you can intellectually protect your tribe, but that shouldn't be the end-goal, right?!

You are entitled to your judgements. It's called figuring out the root-cause of the disagreement to weed it out. I'd suggest you don't teach me to create peace. I've done it the way you're suggesting, the weak way. It hasn't worked. Now, it's time to stand up for your opinions and let the people who agree stay and the people who disagree leave.

You are entitled to your judgements. That is misogynistic. To say that 'femininity implies conflict'. No, it doesn't! It's the failure to be feminine that creates conflict. Being bossy is the opposite of being feminine! It's being masculine. 1. I don't want a woman to challenge me. If she does that shit, I'm out. Next. 2. Challenging a man is not femininity. The masculine and feminine are supposed to work well as a team, they're not supposed to be in constant battle. 3. I want peace in a relationship. Once you have peace with the people in your life, you can be a force of good for the world and you won't be hating your life in that process. I'm not fully sure if I have to choose between that and a passionate relationship but if I had to, I'd choose the peaceful one. Cuz it's more sustainable, less tiring and conflict-ridden. I'll pass on the spiritual ego, thanks.

I ask you 'Should you have two eyes? What's your opinion?' You say 'Yeah, I should have two eyes, why, what's the problem?!' I say 'My opinion is that you should only have one eye. But, you know what?! If you disagree, let's 'agree to disagree''. You laugh at me, nervously looking at whether I'm going to stab you in the eye or not. This is the reality of 'agreeing to disagree' with someone who you're bringing into your life. You have to agree on the basic principles, or else you're going to have to spend the rest of your life walking on eggshells. Opinions aren't just opinions, they lead to actions. And if the opinion is factually off or missing important details, the actions they will lead to will be really problematic. Some opinions are just red-flags in dating, honestly.

It is valuable if it aligns with the goal of building a relationship, i.e. if it is a constructive opinion. And yes, as the man, you get to decide which opinion is constructive and which one isn't, because you're the leader (if you're masculine and she's feminine. If it's the other way around, she'd better have a vision for how the relationship will go and she'd better be able to justify how her opinion helps build this relationship. The masculine party gets to regulate this.). I (and a lot of men) value peace in a relationship, where there isn't incessant fighting. If you have a woman who needlessly opposes your opinion, this goes against our values. So, putting up with this shit is incompatible to us. Well, that's just how things go when you try to make a relationship work between two egos. It's important that things flow smoothly and in the right dynamic, so that the sex keeps happening. Because ultimately, that's the goal of the relationship to begin with. First sex, then children, then parenting. All of us have an intellectual ego. And you cannot wish it away. There are reasons why we have it. And, if you're relationship-material, it benefits the relationship in some way, shape or form. So, there is a point to treating it with respect and not trashing it.

Dogmatism is unattractive on everyone.

This is the right one. Exactly my point. It alienates Western people for no reason. You have to be cartoonishly nationalistic to be on board with this. Most globally-minded Indians are not happy with it. Sorry, 'Bharatiyas'. Guess yall are going to have to learn that word too.

I second this. There is a lot of danger with pushing for more nationalism. Potentially, when WWIII happens, India will have to take sides, because it is trying to historically isolate itself from the world. Which is paradoxical, considering the 'one world' agenda of the G20.

I mean, it's possible for this man to have secure attachment-style in theory. But, in practice, with the whole world conditioning him with insecurities, will he be secure?! I personally don't use the number scale as purely appearance-based. In my books, you can go from a 6 to an 8 purely by working on your inner-game/self-worth. Applies for women too. In other words, if you date fairly, if you don't manipulate, if you don't blame the opposite sex for your problems, if you don't play power-games, if you know what you want and you have realistic expectations, you're an 8. Then, to go from an 8 to a 9, you need to be in the top 1% in the world in one gross area of attractiveness. Be it your physique, money, fashion-sense, social-skills, etc. And, to be a 10, you need to be fully self-actualized. A lot of your self-worth is conditioned into you by your environment. So, working on that conditioning is key to see yourself as more valuable/'higher-rated'. My point is, it's not me who's rating you. I am just reflecting to you the way you rate yourself! And we all do this. We have 'leagues'. A lot of our approach-anxiety is rooted in this.

So, their self-worth is too low to recognize a guy with secure attachment-style and get with him, but it's too high for them to entertain the possibility of being with a regular guy? The regular guy does not have a secure attachment-style either! If you have a secure attachment-style as a guy, you're a 9 or 10 yourself. 80% of regular guys have avoidant attachment-style and some of them have anxious attachment-style. Most players have one of these attachment-styles too.

The contemporary Americanized English-language, in which we can entertain ideas without dogmatically believing them, is very good for any country to progress towards individualism. My issue with Hindi is that there aren't enough abstract words (at least in spoken communication). This makes it so speaking in Hindi makes you sound more dogmatic. I think that India has a lot to learn from the West and needs to be very friendly and welcoming towards them. There is no need to psychologically alienate them, for what?! To establish a stronger sense of national identity?! Why screw with the language of communication?! Why not just stick with what works?!