mr_engineer

The two don't go together. A loving woman will know her value, she will not go for a dysfunctional man. She will choose a good man. If she's calling herself a 'loving mother' in this situation, she's calling codependency 'love'. And, she will have another part of her that'll hate men for being 'bad'. But, because that's her idea of men, that's what she'll be willing to put up with. Then, when the divorce happens, feminism will give her an amazing way of rationalizing how all men are evil. Feminism is responsible for this cycle continuing. And this has to stop. Go to jezebel.com. You'll see. You said 'happily married'. They can be married, sure, but because they're so 'independent', they have no role for the man in their life. That cannot go well for them. Why is this being idealized, though?! Feminism idealizes single-motherhood because 'all men are evil'. You are challenging the OP right now. Read the OP. Look at the struggles of 'independent women'. And look at how, instead of taking responsibility for it and seeing that 'independence' is the problem, how they blame it all on men and 'the patriarchy'. It's sad, honestly. And, nobody is built for independence. Interdependence is the human reality, no matter who you are. Especially women and children. That's due to feminist conditioning. It's not actually natural.

I've been the victim of a divorce as a child. Don't tell me it's not bad. It does align with feminist values of 'independence' and hating men. It's very easy to lie. They may not be. But, this is the point of feminism. To break up homes. It is man-hating at its core. It's not healthy. There is such a thing as conflict-resolution. That could be tried instead of feminism. I'm telling you what it is. Not what it 'could be'. Women are not built to be 'independent'. They need male protection to be in their feminine. That's their natural state. When that's your reality and you choose to hate on men, that's dysfunctional. And unsustainable.

Feminism is deeply, deeply tyrannical. Let's not forget the cancel-culture and censorship. The fundamental man-hate they hold is toxic and should not be taken lightly. Corporations are lionizing it right now cuz it benefits corporations to have women work, to lower labor-costs. And to have women compete against men. They're the only ones who benefit from it. And, as far as women's 'independence' goes, it can be beneficial to have a phase of your life where you're being independent. Simply because it's better than being codependent. But, an entire life of 'independence' is dysfunctional. And unsustainable. (Not very different from men's lives, though, where it can be beneficial to just not think about women for a period of time, but fully going MGTOW is dysfunctional.)

So, you say that rising divorce-rates and children growing up without both parents is a good thing?! Do you know what happens when a 5-year-old loses a parent?! Say, their father?! In the past 10 years, I've seen the opposite. I've never really seen this happen. From what I've seen, traditional gender-roles are strongly discouraged nowadays. And the thread talks about the toxicity of that. Just to be clear, we're not talking about what happened 50 years ago. We're talking about today's world.

@something_else It's going to become more and more apparent with the rise of divorce-rates and broken homes. The whole idea of 'independence' is fundamentally flawed, as said in the OP. No, it's not about being more loving towards women. It's about women being more 'independent'. They believe in the idea of 'independence' so strongly that if a woman decides to not be 'independent', she'll be seen as 'regressive'. Then, all of your 'expansion of consciousness and love' will get thrown out of the window, as a feminist! And you'll become even more fascist than the patriarchs themselves, with your cancel-culture.

I got falsely accused by a girl in high-school and the female teachers abused their power over me in that situation. This caused me to lose confidence with women forever and hate women for a long period of time. All thanks to feminism. I was raised by a single mother, I didn't have a father. She decided to be a 'strong, independent woman' instead of remarrying. Thanks feminism. I only had one parent. Now I see why some of you 'male feminists' appear so ignorant about the practical realities of feminism. And how it affects us.

Update - Here's what happened on the 26th. Somebody sabotaged the Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2 pipelines, supplying gas from Russia to Germany, within a span of 24 hours. There were holes in those pipelines, seawater got in and it was a whole mess. This means that Europe cannot get gas in the foreseeable future. Which means no fertilizer, no food, no power and no heating. For the foreseeable future. My heart goes out to all of you Europeans here. I sincerely wish you the best in battling this.

Hey everyone, I found something interesting/terrifying. On September 24/September 26 right now, something really bad is going to happen. In the economy. It will be historically bad. September 26 is the end of the Shemitah year, the end-day of the Jewish calendar. It comes every 7 years. September 17 2001 was the first day the stock-markets opened after 9/11. There was a major crash on that day. That was the end-day of the Shemitah year in 2001. On September 29 2008, which was the end-day of the Shemitah in 2008, Bear Stearns and Lehman brothers collapsed because of the housing bubble. Dow Jones dropped 777 points. (7 is a big code-number for the Shemitah year, by the way.) September 13 2015, which was the end-day of the Shemitah in 2015, was a Sunday. So, nothing happened on that day in the US. But, there was a major crash in China. Now, something is staged to happen on September 26 2022, starting on 24th. September 26, which is a Monday, is the end of the Shemitah in 2022 Let's see what happens!

In high-school, I got rejected by a girl. Her advice to me was to just not date until you're done with high-school and college. And, I agreed. And, I still think that. As a guy, dating costs money. So, I'd suggest that you fully be on your own first. Especially if you struggle with oneitis, what this means is that you want something serious. And building the foundation for that takes a lot of time and effort. So, as hard as it is, I'd suggest that you fully focus on doing that. If you want social-interaction, work on team-projects. I did this and I do not regret this one bit. It'll also help you with women and making your relationships work. Cuz it is a team-effort. You will have to 'work together', so to speak. The reason computer-nerds struggle with women is that their projects can be individualistic where it's just them and the computer. You work on team-projects and you should be fine, socially. 'Dating' in high-school and college is a lot of immature stupidity on the whole. Those kids are wasting their time fucking around, basically, not knowing what they're doing. Going to parties, getting wasted (ironically), is a waste of time. If you see a young couple and you think they're 'in love' or something, I can assure you, they're not. They don't have the slightest idea what 'love' even means or what it takes. Now that I have some understanding of the correct way to do this, when I see them, I cringe hard. (That was my boomer 'kids these days' moment lol)

What is their rationalization/excuse for how things will get better? What have they been told by the authorities of their time?

@integral These kind of conversations are the best to have in an after-party, when everyone's tired of partying, drinking and dancing on the dance-floor or something. Tired of the small-talk. If you're the sober one in that situation, you'll still have energy and that's when people want to actually hang out. Especially if they're also sober! And they don't want to deal with the drunk and the stoned. I did this once, where when everyone else was high and either staring at lights or mumbling inexplicably after passing out, I was sitting on a table with other sober introverts and having a deep conversation about politics. It's pretty deep, given the environment!!

In theory, you can. And, on an individual level. It's like saying 'You can escape wage-slavery' or 'You can become a model' or 'You can win an Olympic gold-medal' or 'You can become a billionaire'. You can, on an individual level. But, everyone can't. On a practical level, the reality of feminism as a movement is that it suppresses masculine and feminine nature. I know, you're going to quote ten books of theory as to how that's not what it's about. But, this is what it's practically doing.

If the police are killing you for protesting, and they're setting a precedent by killing a 22-year-old girl, and then if you protest, I'm sorry but you are playing right into their hands. You'll simply be next in line. To directly retaliate would be strategically suboptimal. If your parents are telling you to not join the protest, and you still feel the urge to go out and protest, I think you should bring this up with your parents and ask them why they're telling you to not join. And what they think will be the way out of this. I'm not saying they will have the answer. But, when they tell you how the system works and what the light at the end of the tunnel is supposed to be, you will get a clearer idea of how the system works. And what the loopholes are. Then, you can hopefully devise a better strategy to deal with this situation! HTH!! Edit - This point about talking to your parents is actually very important. Because, if your parents saw no other way out of this situation, they would be on the streets with you. The fact that they're stopping you, means that their experienced judgement is making them hope for something better down the line. Now, whether that hope is true or false, that's your call, when you put on their lens to make sense of the situation.

@Tyler Robinson Most of what you're saying is correct. I don't disagree with it. What I said was a reply to you asking me to explain how men play a role in preserving women's femininity. What do your hormones have to say about going down a dark alley at night? Does that have nothing to do with men? Can men not change that situation? And believe me, men don't feel that way about going down a dark alley. You feel that way only because you're a woman and a lot of baggage and conditioning comes with it. Alright. Let's say you're in a relationship with a passive man, who takes no responsibility and who 'whines to you about everything', as you'd said in the other thread. Is that helpful for you to be in your feminine? Or, does that put you in a mom-role, which means that you have to be masculine? You probably haven't met a man who actually embodies a masculinity that fits with you. Maybe it's cuz you don't know yourself. I am getting a resentful vibe from you. I would like you to open your mind to the possibility that the issue of male passivity is even worse than what feminists think it is. And that if you meet a guy who is actually dominant, you won't be so resentful anymore.

This depends on who you are as an individual woman and what your individual definition of 'femininity' is. That's how you'd define 'masculinity' for yourself and that's what you'd seek out from men. First of all, masculinity and femininity can only be defined in terms of each other. For example, if the masculine is dominant, the feminine is submissive. If the masculine is physical, the feminine is spiritual. If the masculine is the giver, the feminine is the receiver. If the masculine is the leader, the feminine is the follower. If the masculine is the rule-setter, the feminine is the rule-keeper. None of these are hard-and-fast rules, you pick the qualities of the role you want in your life, depending on who you are and where you fit in. Compatibility plays a huge role here. This is seen very starkly in the romantic context, but also applies everywhere else. Individually and collectively. You could try.

Are you sure you know what dominant men want? Do keep in mind that men play a very important role when it comes to preserving feminine nature. You'd better know what role you have for men in this process, or else your endeavors simply won't work. There are very big connections between you wanting a dominant man and you talking about how feminism is de-polarizing men and women. 'Emasculating men and masculating women', in your own words. Some of the Tier-2 Stage Yellow big-picture systems-thinkers here can feel free to jump in on this one! You're not special to me. (Not yet . You could get there if you want.) You are just one of many women who say they want a dominant guy. So, no. I don't really care about your approval. There are a lot of other details about you that I could care less about. The socially responsible part of me thanks you for raising this social issue.

Sexual de-polarization is the biggest side-effect of this problem that you're talking about. And, on another thread, you said that you want a dominant guy. My point is that if we are to collectively resolve this, this would be your role. Or the role of any women who have been indoctrinated into feminism and are not happy with it, for these reasons. Especially you, if you want a dominant guy. I won't respond to the personal remark. And, about the issue of thanking you - I'm respecting your ability to be heard in society and I'm thanking you for using it in a mature and responsible way. It's basic respectful treatment. Not for your approval! This is a limiting-belief that rests on the lack of understanding of the difference between 'dominant' and 'dominating'. A 'dominating' guy would be doing so for manipulative reasons. He has control-issues, because of internal weakness. That's why he's very easy to manipulate for women. A lot of 'bad boys' fall into this category. But, a 'dominant' guy is someone who has his shit together. And women can't do anything to them. They are 'dominant' cuz they have their shit together, they take ownership of themselves and others and they are self-consciously at an advantage over women, physically and socially. Some may use this advantage responsibly, some may not. But, they're not weaklings. So, their 'dominance' doesn't come out of control-issues or 'dominating behavior'.

That's not really news to me or anyone here. Maybe you'd want to be the change you want to see in the world? You'd do very well to stop swinging your metaphorical 'dick'. Not very appealing to dominant guys.

If you were a guy saying this right now, you would get warning points. #Cancelculture. So, thank you for speaking on our behalf!

Maybe you want an open relationship. You can have a deep connection with her and get sexual freedom like that!! Monogamy makes sense if you want her in your life, to the degree that you want her to be exclusive with you. And you're willing to sacrifice opportunities with other women for it.

After some thought on why I didn't really care about the answer to this question 'why they're emotional', I realized that I care about the 'how' more than the 'why'. How are they more emotional, how does their mind work differently to mine? So that I can figure out how I should be communicating with them. From questions of how to approach them, how to not run out of things to say, how to escalate, etc. to proper conflict-resolution in relationships, ultimately it's all about communication. (Which is why being with a smart woman really, really matters to me) But thanks anyways! Doesn't hurt to know this.

It's just hardwiring, I guess. I don't know. What's your take?

You want to give me answers, without wanting my trust? What do you think I'm going to do with those answers that come from someone I don't trust?! Oh no sir. I don't act that humble with people I don't trust. Women don't like rude men. They're just willing to put up with someone who has a style that their daddy had, if they have low self-esteem. And, why are women emotional? Well, first of all, all humans are emotional. All mammals are emotional, in fact. The difference between men and women, is that men have a facts-first epistemology and women have a feelings-first epistemology. I.e. men's worldview is in terms of facts about the material world whereas women's worldview is in terms of feelings and emotions. This is why, in a moment of danger, men become very efficient at doing something about it whereas women slip into a fear/terror-space. Because women get the emotional response to the dangerous situation before they get the facts. Which is why they slip into catastrophization relative to it. Seems irrational to men, because we're able to see all the facts first. So, when the fear hits us, we're able to set it aside as a secondary concern and directly focus on the problem at hand. But, doesn't seem irrational to women!

My dude, I would like to kindly draw your attention to the logical inconsistencies of what you're saying. When did I 'demonize women for being emotional'?! I'm getting angry cuz I'm being targeted here for pointing out the inconsistencies in your reasoning. You want me to ask for answers?! Well, fix the inconsistencies in what you're saying first. Then I might consider that you know what you're talking about. Is this your first time having to earn someone's trust in your opinions?!

Repeating a lie is not going to make it the truth, give it up. That starts with hypotheses. I have explanations for your perceptions about women 'not being logical'. My experience with women says that they are very logical and pragmatic. Some smarter than others. Emotional is not the opposite of logical. Now, complaining is illogical. But, that's an assumption on your part. I never said I don't understand your perception of 'women are illogical'. I do understand it. And I disagree with it. Emotional is not the opposite of logical. If you assume that, yeah. I can see why you'd think that women are illogical. I've already called bullshit on your 'truth'.