Lila9

I already covered it here:

Women are expected to prevent male violence, survive male violence, report male violence, prove male violence, and recover from male violence silently. So much invisible struggle.

Open doors and paying on dates is a nice gesture, but this is not enough for a gender that does most of the labor in the world and is paid half of what it deserves. In patriarchy, there are often two options: either benevolent misogyny or standard misogyny. Of course, women would prefer the benevolent one because it appears softer, as it masks itself as kindness. But this is still misogyny not real love, kindness, appreciation, or respect. Women are socialized to expect so little from men, and the bar is set very low. Men working more helps usually themselves, gives them more opportunities to focus on their careers, self actualize, have more power in society, more dating opportunities and have more money, while women being at home raising the children of both of them are not paid for it, do not accumulate wealth in this time, do not progress in their careers, and are exposed to being financially vulnerable and dependent on men. The stakes are too high for a woman. Being a woman in a patriarchal system is the biggest risk, but without all the glory and money men receive. Please go through the resources shared in this thread, if you really want to learn and open minded. I am tired from going in circles an replying to the same arguments over and over again.

This is too dramatic. You are the first one who started with those childish tantrums because I didn't validate your bias as you expected.

Nah, you don't support feminism. You’re just an incel and a misogynist. If you supported feminism, you wouldn't talk to a woman like that.

How does chivalry help women? This is benevolent misogyny. If you want to help women, stop expecting invisible labor, stop raping and making women feel unsafe, stop watching porn, stop supporting this industry, stop protecting predatory men, stop bullying feminists. Exploitation of women is part of patriarchy. Because this is obvious, if you live on earth for a while.

Yes dude, as if my real-life experience as a woman of sexual assaults, rape, direct misogyny, and systemic oppression are some irrational woo-woo things that I imagined. Don't gaslight me. You are an hypocrite, because you previously stated that you support feminism. Probably virtue signaling from your side to appear more conscious than you are. Typical "nice guy". Do some real work on your misogeny rather than covering it up. .

Most billionaires and people in power are men because of patriarchy. They are the ones responsible for the crisis. Why are you protecting them? Are you afraid of them? Are you loyal to them because of some bro code while blaming women for exposing shitty and abusive behavior of men towards both men and women? If so, congrats, you are brainwashed by patriarchy. Patriarchy persists in your brain. You are such a good and submissive boy. Good job. I’m sure Jeff Bezos appreciates you.

How do male desires for fairness because of testosterone go in line with a patriarchal structure which is inherently hierarchical and unfair? If that were the case, then men would simply act fairly and wouldn’t be oppressive towards women or exploit nature over the last few thousand years. There would also be no poverty or hunger. Saying that this study debunking patriarchal structures as being socially conditioned is simply not accurate.

Western/white feminism is just an extension of patriarchy. The 50/50 feminism, the girl-boss feminism, the choice feminism, the feminism that does not question patriarchal expectations of women and beauty standards, that is not real feminism. It is a puppet Patriarchal, capitalistic and distorted version of feminism that is convenient for the system.

Patriarchy harms sex. It creates asexual women. How? By slut-shaming and socializing women to repress their sexuality and to be fully attuned to male sexual needs at the expense of their own. Reclaiming women's sexuality is a crucial part of starving patriarchy.

Great thread of yours, which I appreciate, as always.

All those behaviors certainly happen to people who are considered intelligent as well. Intelligent people can still be selfish, biased, and have typical human flaws. Nobody is really immune to ignorance, stupidity, stress, bias, egoism, immaturity, etc. Not to mention that there are multiple types of intelligence, and rare are the people who master all of them. Usually, when a person is highly intelligent in certain things, it comes at the expense of other types of intelligence. There are people whose type of intelligence is to prioritize efficiency and functionality above beauty, while there are people whose type of intelligence is creating beauty. Saying that the first is more intelligent than the second is biased. Nah, there are narcissistic people who are geniuses and would never admit that they are wrong. While there may be some correlation, intelligence doesn't guarantee integrity.

Women were deliberately erased from history. When we talk about great men, philosophers, mystics, scientists, artists and inventors, we often don’t mention the women who worked with them, the women from whom they stole their work, or the women who provided them with the emotional and domestic labor so they could do their own work uninterrupted and to be the "lone wolves". Did you know that Socrates’ teacher, yes, the great Socrates, was a woman? Her name was Aspasia, but she is rarely mentioned, if at all. Additionally, Socrates’ wife is always seen as the “nagging wife,” but she literally was the reason he could freely walk around, interrupt strangers with philosophical inquiries and debates, and dedicate his life entirely to philosophy, because she handled all the survival and the invisible labor of raising their children, providing for them, and sustaining the household.

A very good and in depth series about the 4 pillars of patriarchy:

It is weird that there are people who consider those women feminists. They definitely don't. Of course, they benefit from the freedoms feminists fought for. But they uphold the patriarchy, say what is convenient to say, and believe what is convenient to believe (like the bioessentialist patriarchal paradigm of rigid and biological "traditional" gender roles). They have selfish and myopic thinking rather than seeing the bigger picture, bootlick and submit their way into power while backstabbing and betraying other women. They are not safe for children and other women. They are usually the women who support their pedophile husbands, those who envy and compete with their daughters, and those who groom their sons to be their emotional support toys as a replacement for a partner. For every Jeffrey Epstein, there is Ghislaine Maxwell. Regarding white feminists, aka, actual women who describe themselves as feminists and are culturally white/western are many times too focused on empowerment and on being as powerful as men. They rarely truly question the patriarchy, but instead seek success within it (i.e., Taylor Swift), rather than actually deconstructing patriarchy and addressing the real issues of most women in the world, who are still struggling for freedom and basic human rights. The dude whom the video is about is indeed really dangerous with his soft-spoken nature. On the surface, he may seem like someone "balanced" and reasonable, but he never challenges mainstream misogynistic and sexist beliefs. He is part of the problem. Literally, there are not many good male role models, and people think, "Okay, at least he is not Andrew Tate." But it only shows how low the bar is for being considered a good man.

I see. This is a very positive characteristic of yours. What do you think about someone so intelligent that you simply can't understand their thought process or what they are speaking about at all? I know that IQ is not the only measure of intelligence, but what if you talked to someone whose overall intelligence gap between you and them was like the gap between someone with an IQ of 70 and 170? Or 70 and 700? Their concepts and view of life would be so alien that you might start to think they are the stupid ones. Sometimes humans project stupidity (as well as insanity) onto those they simply do not understand. Ok, you mentioned your autism, and it explains a lot. You describe a common issue among autistic and neurodivergent people overall. The thing is that most people are focused on emotions in their interpersonal communication and on feeling good, bonded, and emotionally validated, which also often includes having their biases go unquestioned. Most people do not tend to see conversation with others as an opportunity for a good intellectual discussion (especially in this anti-intellectual age), but rather as something more casual and cathartic. Not that this is ideal, especially in institutions or environments where you would expect more intelligence and integrity, so in that regard I understand your frustration. The tendency you describe, of people to project is unfortunately inescapable.

I think that if you feel that people may not have the intellectual, emotional, and psychological basis to understand you, it is better to talk to them at their level or not to talk to them at all. Because most people don't like to feel unknowledgeable, stupid or incompetent. Even if it is technically true in some aspects. Talking to people with tact, at their level, to not make them feel uncomfortable is also a form of intelligence, social/emotional intelligence (and also self protection). It is also depends on the person and yourself. If they are open to truth, thinking, conversing, and learning, and trust your intelligence and that you will not judge them for their lack of knowledge, then this is another thing. Question: If you meet a stranger which is a very intelligent alien dressed as a human, who is so advanced in all measures of intelligence (but you don't know it), had a conversation with you that made you feel very stupid and incompetent, literally deconstructing your entire worldview and perception of reality and pointing out all the flaws in it, in a very smooth, natural, casual and elegant way, would you enjoy this conversation? Would you be defensive, fascinated, or confused? How would you react to and treat this stranger? With kindness, curiosity and an open heart, or with some anger and impatience?

Definitely. Looking outward too much is a distraction.

Creating a society/system that values truth and intelligence and teaches its children from childhood. This is possible. Of course, it is difficult because the elites don't want it, since it is easier to control foolish and ignorant people who are fragmented and separated from nature, from their ancestors' ancient wisdom, from their bodies, from their intuition, from themselves.

This is what happens when society is focused merely on efficiency and masculine values while repressing the feminine. If the main goal is efficiency, everything will become this seamless gray slop because real individuality, creativity, beauty, and authenticity cause too much friction and are harder to control (by those who seek power). This is the time to switch to more balanced values and welcome the divine feminine.

I think that the mix of love with resources is not natural. The new clear family unit is a patriarchal idea and is something that is not sustainable, not for love between a couple and not for raising mentally healthy children. This is why all those options you listed are flawed. The best structure for humans is a community in which all the needs are shared and provided by various people, because one person can't give everything to another person. Even if two people share the financial burden equally, there is no real equality because the woman pays a bigger price for giving birth to children. This is not realistic. Ideally, money and love should be separated.

Which is?

Why are you asking?