mr_engineer

Day 1, lesson 1 of approaching - state is everything. And, you want to be in a masculine state. Here's what worked for me.

Here's the thing, though. When someone resists me being in his masculine, my red-flag antennas go up and I start looking for what's wrong with them. And then, what I do isn't 'giving advice'. It's having expectations! To treat me with respect. I'm staying humble about femininity. I'd suggest you stay humble about masculinity too. Cuz I have noticed a lot of ignorance about masculinity on your side too. Yeah, but when you go against my self-interest and then say that 'staying in your lane means that you don't have this expectation', you're asking me to be selfless. You have every right to want what you want. Perfectly fine. The problem starts when you have a certain self-biased definition of 'safe man' that you project onto everyone else. Other women don't agree with your definition of 'safe man'. I'm not giving a prescription of 'femininity'. I'm voicing my expectations of respectful treatment as a man. Feminists are the ones trying to come up with an 'objective definition' of sexism. My attitude, from the very beginning, has been 'to each their own'. If you have a son, I'd suspect he'd disagree with you on this. But, he won't tell you to your face, of course. Again, this is what may be right for you. I'd suggest you don't project your preferences onto everyone else. Here's where I disagree with you. I'd suggest you don't tell men how to embody their masculine. Because you don't know how to respect men. Men will not and should not listen to you about this. 'Chivalry is benevolent sexism'. When you make an integral part of masculinity in the context of relationship 'sexism' and you fight it, you are, in fact, stopping men from embodying their masculine.

@Emerald I respect your opinion on femininity. I don't think today's men will know that much about femininity, cuz they're not women. So, if you want to talk about woman-problems, I guess having a 'women's circle', so to speak, is the best for that...? I very much have selfish reasons for leading women to their feminine expression. So, first of all, if you have a problem with that, that's an unrealistic expectation of 'selflessness'. Real men are not selfless with women. The ones who are, become the 'nice guys'. This is my 'game', but in a conscious way. I see too much manipulation going on in the pick-up community and this is my solution to that problem. The thing is that for this to work, co-operation from women will be needed. Cuz if they don't, they'll keep getting manipulated by men who are actually sexist. I don't care how feminist they become, they'll still lose to the patriarchy. For this reason. When I say 'leading a woman to her feminine expression', I mean, in the context of relationship. My goal here is to have a good relationship and to make things work with women. It is a selfish goal. But, to my credit, I'm also looking out for their long-term best-interests here. Because the 'strong, independent woman' lifestyle is not sustainable. Ask any modern mother. This is why I'm spending all of this time debating this out and figuring out how to lead women to their feminine expression, in a respectful way. This is why I'm spending all of this time researching the meaning of 'sexism'. This is not fun for me either! But, I recognize that women have been traumatized by the patriarchy. I have a faster solution than 2-3 more waves of feminism. That is, to allow men to embody their authentic masculine expression (in relation to women, before you tell me that 'you shouldn't need female support for this'), to experience the benefits of that and to get the opposite experience of being fucked over by patriarchal, sexist men. This will resolve the root-traumas behind feminism. The wider society may go the way you're saying, which we can't do anything about. But, if individuals recognize this, we can get to where we want to get to much faster.

@Emerald First of all, it's not just 'my agenda'. I see feminine potential in these women getting wasted because of this stupid ideology of 'equality'. And I feel like helping them because of that. And, I'm not coming from a space of scarcity, I have plenty of abundance of good women in my life. So, I have no incentive to 'control them'. Secondly, this is called 'leadership'. I know, you don't know what it looks like for a good man to lead a woman to her authentic feminine expression. So, you dismiss all male leadership and chivalry as 'sexism'. It's alright, you're not there yet. I'd advise you to stay humble and keep your mind open.

I have had 'strong, independent women' defend the way they are. And I have been called sexist a bunch of times because I expected them to behave in feminine ways. For their own benefit, by the way. If they wake up to their feminine power, they'll be the ones who benefit the most. But, they didn't want to do that and their excuse was 'you're being sexist'. Now, I know what to make of that. I used the term 'blue-haired SJW' cuz it's a culturally relevant metaphor.

@Roy The reason I hyper-focused on your results is that first of all, you're a mod. So, you are a credible counter-example. And secondly, this test was made my academics. And they have to know what they're doing, they have to clearly define their ideas in the process of doing this. If I can beat their reasoning, I can beat the reasoning of some random blue-haired SJW who's yelling in my face.

@Emerald I'd say it is masculine. I looked into the test, despite my resistance to it. So, that's bravery. I figured out what academics think feminism is and what sexism is. That's research from credible sources, valuing facts over feelings. I applied it to reality and found a bunch of counter-examples. That's critical thinking. I was able to demonstrate credible counter-examples here. That's assertiveness. (Got warning-points for that, which says something) I came to practically applicable conclusions and started acting accordingly. That's action on what I learned. I was able to rationally counter resistance to what I was doing. That's level-headed leadership. And then, I was vulnerable about my motivations. That's emotional consciousness. And finally, I showed you what you have to gain from this. That's being purpose-driven. BOOM! There you go.

Good blogging-practice! Thanks for the opportunity.

It's not this trauma that led to my negative opinion of feminism. It's the way the feminist conditioning hurt me. And this conditioning doesn't just come from the family, it comes from the culture. And people you meet everywhere. Like saying that 'chivalry is benevolent sexism'. Not even from what anti-feminists say, from what feminists say! So, before you point out to me that the root-cause of my trauma is not feminism, you're right. The point of me talking about my traumas is to tell you why I care about this. I'm not forming irrational opinions based on trauma. And, if you come looking for trauma, you will find trauma. I could do the same with you. Correlation does not imply causality. I daresay that taking what I say seriously could benefit you. I urge you to question your feminist conditioning, where you have to be 'equal' to women. Where you have to abandon your masculinity and 'become more feminine'. It is this desire to contribute something positive to both men and women that's motivating me. I'm not pointlessly ranting here. And, I can only feel sorry for people who think that I'm 'playing victim because of trauma'. You're saying that because you're lost in the conditioning!! And there is no biological/psychological basis for it. We are physically different, epistemically different (the masculine epistemology is facts-first and the feminine epistemology is feelings-first, which is why men respond better than women to stress/pressure) and psychologically different (men are hardwired to protect, women are hardwired to seek protection). And feminism says that all of this is BS.

Doesn't make me wrong. And it's not 'anti-SJW content'. It's real life.

If I'm going to be very honest, the reason I made the thread of 'What does it mean to respect women?' was that my feminist conditioning was confusing me about this. Because I didn't know what 'sexism' even meant. But now, on this thread, when I took the test, things are making a lot more sense now. I don't know about you people, but my conclusion from all of this work, has been that feminist conditioning has been what's getting in my way when it comes to embodying my masculinity. And, the traumatic experience I mentioned previously was thanks to feminism as well. And, to top it all, feminism is the reason my mom got the bright idea of being a 'strong, independent woman', which is why I was raised only by one parent. If not for this toxic anti-male ideology, she would've remarried and I would've had some masculine role-modelling. So, I know what I'm talking about.

You keep jumping to these conclusions, that 'it is an unhealthy way of viewing the world'. And you have no proof for that. Look at @Roy's results and how they relate to his life. Then tell me what's healthy and what's unhealthy. I know, you want a negative sob-story of 'trauma' and 'suffering' that's behind my views. The reality is that I've also had positive experiences with women and that has taught me a lot about their psychology. And they've told me that feminism destroys their ability to be feminine. Because it shames them for wanting to be feminine. It also happens to shame men for being masculine!! As said previously, chivalry is benevolent sexism. Interesting. Maybe it's not our masculinity and femininity that's the problem here, but the woke ideology that's scapegoating it. I will not open my mind to outright lies like 'chivalry is benevolent sexism'. This is very disrespectful and offensive to a lot of good, decent men. Because chivalry is the natural way that men show respect to women. Open-mindedness doesn't mean that you open your mind to any nonsense. What's BS, is BS. End of story.

I took the sexism-test, I studied it inside-out. I know what I'm talking about. And that's what's being defended here. The trauma happened because feminism is conceptually antithetical to the idea of gender. To 'equalize' men and women, means to destroy the male and female identities. They want to say 'I don't see gender'. (Analogous to 'I don't see color'.) Daddy-issues. That's why they're passionate. It's not complicated! They hate men, they hate women who act like women, who act feminine, so they want to destroy both identities. And they call that 'equality'. You're saying that the people driven by anti-feminist ideology are driven by 'trauma'. And, I'm presuming that you're saying that that's evil, that creates 'evil sexist men'. I'm saying that feminists are driven by trauma. So, by your logic, that's also evil, right?! You can't un-indoctrinate lived experiences. You can't un-indoctrinate a genuine experience of masculine and feminine energy and how they work well together. And how feminism gets in the way of that.

To all the feminists worried about my dating-life because of my 'bias' - don't worry. I'll be fine. @Sincerity, I stand by what I said. Feminists are the biased ones. And their bias is anti-male. And you will have to prove this wrong. I have proof for what I said. The logic and proof is in front of you. Now, you will have to counter that with logic and proof. Not ad--hominems.

@Emerald I've already shown the middle-finger to feminists on the topic of dating. I don't need your condescension on this front anymore, thanks.

You didn't answer the question. What is your opinion on this?!

Done. The part about 'victim-mentality' was the gaslight. And, saying 'you're imagining battles in your head', that are actually very real lived experiences for me - that's textbook gaslighting now, isn't it?! It's not anti-woman. It's a criticism of feminism. Sounds like someone hurt you in the past. Who was it?! (Turning the tables in the psycho-analysis game!! I will use this information against you now, to show you how much of a failure you are in your inner-work. Then you'll get a sense for what men actually struggle with.) There's a first time for everything.

I'll make this simple for you, then. If it's anti-male rhetoric, it's probably BS. And yes, 'pro-equality' often means anti-male, because to collapse the distinction between 'male' and 'female' and to make both 'equal', is anti-male. And, anti-female. Both. I don't want such a person within 10 miles of me, in dating terms. We all have patriarchal conditioning. Some of us do the work of unwiring it, others project their shit onto others. And I've got no time for the latter. These are your 'unconscious feminists'. Workable. If she has good feminine qualities, the drama will be tolerable.

Feminism is the bias! It's the bias towards 'equality'. I request that you don't conflate this position with 'objectivity'. Do you actually believe that men and women are equal? In actual, practical reality? Not in your feminist books, in your 'intersectional theory' books. In actual reality. I hope that this forum, of all places, would understand that just because it's taught in university, does not make it objective. And it certainly doesn't mean that 'equality' is the solution to these otherwise complex systemic issues.

This is why I show the 'middle finger' to feminist women in dating. Because of this gaslighting. Do you know what it's like to be a man?! What battles we fight every single day?! When I said that 'you don't know one thing about what it's like to be a man', it was not 'inflammatory'. I meant it. You are ignorant about the male struggles. So, kindly, don't psycho-analyze me. And if you gaslight me another time, I will report it.

I thought that previously. Because I wasn't as mature of a man. But now, I see that it's not a 'system of expectations'. It's the natural way a man treats a woman with respect. This kindness gets shown to women, for the most part. It's respect for a woman's softness and sensitivity. Towards other men, the kindness gets shown, but in a tougher, more masculine way. Involving accountability and outright criticism to each other, even swearing at each other, 'out of love'. David Deida talks about this in depth in his book 'The Way of the Superior Man'. You just said that's 'benevolent sexism'. And chivalry is traditionally masculine.

Good. I actually genuinely don't trust the woke environment to not cancel me for lifting a finger against the narrative. All I can do is poke holes in it. Feminists will call what Teal says 'benevolent sexism'. They'll be like 'We don't need containment from men! We don't need men to protect us! We're strong and independent!! And by assuming that we need protection from men, you are insulting us!! YOU DESERVE TO BE CANCELLED!!'

@something_else Thank you for your concern. I have figured out how to fight this battle. At least, I don't pretend to not be biased. I don't make an enemy of bias either.

The good part about feminism is what they did in the 60s and before that. Fighting for equal rights. And, the toxic part about feminism... well, I don't want to get cancelled, so please excuse me as I don't reveal that to you. Whoever really wants to know what I think about this, kindly DM me.

Alright, fine. What is the difference between 'chivalry' and 'benevolent sexism'?!