Lila9

I have no idea what you are talking about. Why do you bother me? Please leave me alone and don’t diagnose me.

Huge side eye I am concerned that you are too obsessive with me and my posts, and apparently they don’t make you feel very well. This is too unhealthy for you dude. I kindly and wholeheartedly suggest that as a recovery you put me on your ignore list for your benefit. I know it’s difficult for you but please try.

Men don’t understand that feminists are not fighting against men. They are fighting for your soul, because society is trying to break it. Men are not inherently aggressive. This is a myth. Research shows that infant boys are often more emotionally reactive and sensitive than girls. Patriarchy works very hard to “harden” men. (Book recommendation: Why Patriarchy Persists by Naomi Snyder which explores how boys and girls are socialized under patriarchy and how those forces shape relationships, behavior, and identity). Patriarchy promised men a throne and told them that being a man means dominating, possessing, and being “alpha.” But at what cost? Isolation, higher suicide rates, and detachment from the soul and the community. Men feel unloved because the system wants their labor, while the community once wanted their soul. Only within a community are men valued for who they are. For most of human history, men were not lone wolves but deeply integrated into their communities. They were protectors of the tribe, not submissive soldiers of hierarchy. The patriarchal and capitalistic system stole their village and gave them a mortgage. This is not their fault, but it is their problem. Patriarchy and capitalism benefit when men are lonely and starving for power. Lonelier men are easier to control and easier to send to war. The lone wolf idea is a capitalist fantasy. In nature, a lone wolf is often a wolf that is close to death. Real wolves, like real humans, thrive in packs. Alone, you are easier to break. When communities were destroyed, boys lost their mentors. They were left in a system that values only what they can produce, not who they are. This is why so many men feel empty and unloved inside. When feminists and women speak about feminism in a passionate, even provocative way, it is meant to shake men awake, so they can see that what patriarchy presents as their “best interests” are actually the worst interests for their hearts and souls. When feminists speak about matriarchy, they do not mean a reverse patriarchy. They mean bringing men back into the fold. A circle where you do not have to be “alpha” in order to feel safe. You have a pack that has your back. I don’t want young boys to grow up and inherit a world in which they must “conquer” in order to be seen, or be “alpha” in order to be treated as human. I want them to inherit a village, a community where their sensitivity is their greatest strength. Sensitivity is human. Being able to read the room, feel empathy, be intuitive, and connect with other human beings is what fulfilled men before patriarchy took over. We are taught that testosterone is the “aggression hormone” that makes men naturally want to fight and dominate. But this is an oversimplified and patriarchal version of science, often used to justify oppression. In communal societies, testosterone functions differently. It is not only for fighting, but for seeking status through contribution. In a healthy group, a man gains status by being helpful, generous, and a good protector. When a man becomes a father and is deeply involved in childcare, his testosterone may actually decrease to make room for oxytocin the “bonding hormone.” His biology can shift to prioritize nurturing over competing. Patriarchy takes that protective energy and distorts it. It tells men that the only way to protect is to own and control. It turns men’s biological strength into a weapon. Before the Industrial Revolution, men worked in guilds, tribes, and communal groups. They had deep emotional bonds with other men. They were not lonely, they had a village of brothers and sisters. Capitalism needed men to be efficient units. It broke those communal bonds and turned men into competitors for a paycheck. It forces men into a lonely, nonstop grind where rest feels like weakness. Are you exhausted? Of course you are exhausted. There is also the patriarchal nuclear family trap, which can become a pressure cooker for men. They were told they must be the sole providers, which is an impossible and unnatural burden to carry alone. The nonstop pace of modern life governed by the solar rhythm of 24/7 ignores the human need for cycles of rest (wintering) and renewal. This constant “on” state leads to high cortisol and chronic stress (and more aggression as a result). Men’s bodies long for rhythms of rest and restoration (moon rhythm) just as much as women’s bodies do.

In some cases, it's good; in others, it's dangerous. Our feelings are messages that fuel our intuition. If you hear a person and he gives you an uncanny valley feeling, this is for a good reason.

You asked me what I think about this interview. I answered that I don't agree with him that women and men are equally powerful, and I explained why. This doesn't mean that I don't acknowledge men's suffering. Both can be true: they suffer and are oppressors. If you can't see it, I don't know how to help you. And no, I didn't give my consent for debate. I just shared my opinion. Class and patriarchy are interwoven. Why are there poor people to begin with when there is such abundance on earth? Because there is a system built on hoarding wealth and power (mostly by men) at the expense of everyone else. But as long as it gives you the tiniest privilege over women, you will blindly support it and never question it. Men made a bargain with the devil. The same goes for women who uphold the patriarchy. The world is not the unnatural, human-made civilization. I can think of many good things about life and existence. But I need your help to understand what is good in patriarchal and neoliberal civilization. If you believe I have a blind spot, then please enlighten me. Why can’t you say anything good about it yourself?

What exactly in this is my blind spot? Can you elaborate on it?

This is about the manipulative way he uses this soft, spiritual voice. It feels forced, and I sense a lack of genuineness. Who is at fault of homelessness? Why there is homelessness?

Men don't control everything, but men have more power. I genuinely want to know what are the advantages of this system? Who it benefits? From what I see, the male perspective is often very entitled and misogynistic. They often view things in a such distorted and selfish way. Yet, I see men as human beings more than they see me as a human being. My level of compassion toward men and all living beings is something that most men will never grasp or feel about women.

What are they? Can you please elaborate? No I don't agree with him and I honestly don't trust him, and his soft voice sounds not genuine. He claims that he studied feminism for 10 years, but if he truly studied it, he would have understood that women experience gender-based oppression worldwide. No need to open cards or read coffee grounds. This is clear to anyone who has eyes and ears. Patriarchy is a cult of masculinity at the expense of femininity. It sees masculinity, and men who symbolize it, as superior to femininity and women. There are homeless women (even with children) too. Women also experience mortality due to pregnancy complications and violent men, addictions and drug use, prostitution, and on top of that, unpaid domestic labor and a greater lack of safety than men experience, more chances of abusive and controlling relationships, rape, sexual harrasment, policing of our bodies, predujedies, the government can take the rights on our body at a whim while men rights on their bodies are never questioned. Women have to work twice as hard as men to get half of what they get. Women experience more symptoms of depression and anxiety and mental illness. Women are taken less seriously by medical authorities. He tries to equalize the suffering of men and women to make men feel better so they buy his book or something. This is not the same. The issue is the repression of femininity. As long as society represses femininity and feminine values, psychopathic men will keep ruling society. Women can also be psychopathic and narcissistic, but those traits are more common in men, and even men who are born without those traits are socialized to imitate them and are punished by other men when they act in a more considerate and prosocial way. I also recall that he clearly said that technology benefits women more than men and gave the washing machine and the vacuum cleaner as examples of technology that benefits women. Yes, it makes domestic labor somewhat easier, but it is still labor, unpaid labor. Men would never do labor without getting paid. This is why men hate doing domestic labor and look down on it. Technology has always benefited, first and foremost, the men who created and sold it. And the rich and the privillaged, which are mostly men. He also said that women now have more options because of the pill, while men do not have any pill. This is very inaccurate because a pill for men was created and tested. Since many men complained about depression due to the pill, it was decided not to sell it. The pill also causes depression and other health risks for women, yet it is still offered and sold to women. This shows how society values men’s lives, bodily autonomy, and health more.

I don’t agree that men and women have equal power in society. He downplays the advantages men have. They hold much more political power and wealth than women. All the issues he describes men suffering from are because of patriarchy. Patriarchy represses the humanity and wholeness of men so they will be submissive to it and maintain its structure, while at the same time giving men enough privilege to never question it. I also don’t agree that society treats men as uniquely disposable. In a patriarchy, everyone is disposable except the rich and the powerful. He also presents it as if a woman marrying a rich man is some kind of cheat code and a privilege men don’t have. Do you know how difficult it is to marry a rich man? Rich men usually marry women from rich families. Also, the average age of rich man is 60 years, which is neither relevant nor appealing to most younger women. Even if a poor woman marries a rich man, he is very likely to treat her poorly and cheat on her because he can. He knows she is financially dependent on him. Men complain about divorce and paying alimony because they lack accountability and basic care for their families, not because their families are irrationally angry at them due to feminism. If a man’s wife and children angry at him, it is probably because he is a jerk to them.

From what I read, Our Blood by Andrea Dworkin and The Beauty Myth by Naomi Wolf made the biggest impact on me.

I see. This makes some sense from this perspective. However, I don’t really know whether LGBTQ+ people are less selfish or not, and I also think that game theory is too limited. I don’t believe that our survival is only about raw brutality. It is also dependent on our ability to cooperate, imagine, adapt, and create.

I don’t think one person can fulfill all needs, no matter how good they are. People need community. One person can’t provide what an entire community used to provide in the past. This is why modern romantic relationships often fail. I don’t think this applies to all women. I’ve noticed that men in the manosphere often say contradictory things: they say women demand too much from men, and then they say women tell men to “just be themselves.” But even when women give good advice, men don’t always listen to women. Men deserve other strong and non-misogynistic men who will coach them in good faith and kindness, without abusing their vulnerable situations or exploiting them for profit, which is what often unfortunately happens.

Yes, it is amazing that human sexuality is fluid and not as strict as we were socialized to believe. Humans can have all sorts of relationships with both genders. We are denied many variations and nuanced experiences of love because of strict gender roles and the demonization of homosexuality. I genuinely grieve that.

Yes. I think that one gender oppressing the other is a relatively new development in our history that didn’t happen before.

From what I understood, he described an asymmetry in which women need to chase and men don’t, and he provided a metaphor I disagree with, because nature and reality show that it does no good for women to chase men. Women need partners who can share the burden of relationships and survival. Today, many women lead their relationships because many men don’t want to lead or lack leadership skills. Leading requires emotional mastery and sacrifices for someone other than oneself, and many men simply lack these skills because they have no incentive to develop them. They want control over women rather than true leadership because this is how they were socialized. Women don’t need men to lead them because we can be good leaders ourselves, studies show that women are often better leaders. We need men to be as good at leading as we are, so the burden of leadership and responsibility does not fall only on us.

I want to clarify that I’m not trying to idealize pre-patriarchal societies or suggest that we should regress and live exactly like them. What I’m saying is that the way they organized society holds valuable insights that align with human needs, and we can adapt this lost wisdom to create a better civilization.

The guy who coined the terms “alpha” and “beta” later debunked them himself. But if you insist on using these definitions, what is perceived as alpha in a patriarchal society would be considered beta in an egalitarian society, and what is considered beta in this society would be considered alpha in an egalitarian one. Men have a lot of power in shaping their own attractiveness. The "top males" are self made, not born.

This doesn’t change the fact that modern civilization is not in alignment with our human needs and nature, this is why there are so many problems. It is dysfunctional. This is why the problems can’t be solved on a shallow level within the structure, but only on a deep level with the destruction and reconstruction of civilization. This will happen automatically. We are just in the period between its slow decline and the formation of a new civilization, which naturally is very confusing for everyone.

In pre-patriarchal societies, there was no concept of purity or control over women’s sexuality. Women slept with as many men as they chose and did not necessarily know who the father was. The concept of alpha and beta has been debunked.

I don’t believe harm to oneself is arousing for a healthy person raised with a healthy view of sex, because it implies destruction, the opposite of sexual energy, which is creative. If someone is aroused by destructive acts (to themselves or others), they have likely been traumatized or shaped by a society that views sexuality in a violent way.

What he sees as traditional marriage is not my definition of tradition, but simply an oppressive structure that benefits men more than women, so obviously he supports it. For me, a fundamental human tradition is pre-patriarchal and more egalitarian. Capitalism is the offspring of patriarchy, the value of capital, the material above any other value, is the same as patriarchy valuing possession above anything else. Both are pretty materialistic and non-spiritual, which are not in alignment with human nature, which is more rounded. For me, the casual dating era and casual sex (which is often non-erotic, with strangers) are just the natural outcome of such a society. Feminism proposes the radical idea that women have sexual desires and the right to sexual autonomy. But society is not ready for it. This has been abused by patriarchy and capitalism through porn and the hooking culture. I recommend the book Pornography: Men Possessing Women by Andrea Dworkin.

In nature, women are those who give birth, they are the creators of life. Men are those who need to fight and prove themselves to gain access to them, because if they don’t have access to a woman, they don’t have continuity. Look at the structure of the egg and the sperm. The sperm are competing to fertilize the egg. There is a limited number of eggs, while sperm are constantly produced. A man gives a woman one sperm cell, and her womb creates 99% of the other cells. She does most of the work already. Why would she chase a man? It is hard for a woman who is in alignment with her femininity to chase a man, why would creators submit to their creations? Men are naturally more risk-taking than women. Women can’t afford to take the risk of chasing a man. they have children to take care of, periods, and constant hormonal changes. They feel peak sexual desire only a few days a month, while men desire sex more consistently, which motivates them to compete and to prove themselves in order to gain access to women. Men can afford to chase women because they have less at stake if a woman rejects them, whereas women can’t afford to waste time chasing a man they have a limited time to bring children into the world, and caregiving takes a lot of time and energy. From my observation, men don’t value women who chase them because chasing is an active and masculine behavior. I have never seen a man who is enthusiastic about a woman chasing him. Men usually treat women who chase them very poorly.

Exactly. Everything is so distorted.

Strength in men is attractive, especially when used in positive, prosocial ways like building, protecting, or carrying things. It is also includes mental and emotional strength. But from what she said in the video starting at 11:18, no, this is disturbing. I don’t understand how this can be attractive to a woman unless she has internalized misogyny or trauma. When survival conditions are harsh, it is better to have a strong man than a weak man, even if the weak man is nicer. But ideally, strength without kindness and kindness without strength are not ideal. The combination of both is perfect. I also want to address his implication that women don’t know what they want or hide their true desires. Of course we do, because it is often not safe for women to express desire. This was controlled and demonized for the last thousands of years. Our sexual desire is frequently suppressed through socialization. We are taught to view sex and sexuality from a male perspective and to fit ourselves to male standards. We internalize objectification, which can leave us disconnected from our bodies and desires.