Lila9

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.

Believe me, women have very good reasons to be angry because it involves their lives and safety in the world, about which many men don’t seem to care. “Nice” women don’t make change. Without some angry women there would have been no feminism and women would still be considered the property of their husbands or fathers by law today. And no don’t reduce it to some romantic kitsch. It has nothing to do with online misogynists. We women don’t have to go online to experience misogyny.

Feminism is really much more advance and also more rooted in reality.

A Deep Explanation Of How Women Mate The girl with the sword in his video likely has internalized misogyny, social conditioning or unresolved trauma. This is not something a healthy woman would truly desire. I find his choice of her as an example offensive and misleading. How can brutality and force against a woman, who is not a physical match for a man, be seen as attractive? It is disturbing. If a man threatens me with a sword, I will definitely make sure he regrets it. Even less harsh things that men do make me angry. Because of their nerve and entitlement. He also ignores that many men are perceived as unattractive to women because patriarchy represses traits women value most, such as strength of character and kindness. Patriarchy gives men privilege and entitlement rather than encouraging character development. Unlike ancient tribes, which had rites of passage (and were more egalitarian and matriarchal), in patriarchy many men remain emotionally immature until death. Patriarchy also discourages basic human kindness that independent of the outcome toward women (or anyone who is not a powerful man) because such behavior threatens its structure. This is why so many men are oblivious and indifferent to women suffering. They were conditioned to. He overlooks that the “dating market” is shaped by a patriarchal, individualistic, neoliberal, and capitalistic society, conditions that are not natural for humans. Therefore, any claim that his theory is somewhere the ultimate nature of dating or mating is wrong. Regarding chasing. This is not the woman's role to chase. In general, chasing on itself is very controlling, lacking in self respect and unhealthy behavior regardless gender. Traditionally, before patriarchy, men were the ones who put in the effort to impress women and prove themselves, not vice versa. For example: This shows how distorted it is that, in our society, women are the ones expected to perform for men. Think about how little respect patriarchy has for women. She not only has to bring children into the world, and do all the unpaid labor, but also spend so much time and money performing for men only to be treated like an object.

Yes, it requires constant and radical awareness. I don't know how doable it is to transcend our tendency for beliefs (as well as biases and assumptions, which are in the same family). Maybe the transcendence is part of being enlightened, which is rare. Or we can access temporary states with no concepts in mind, including beliefs, through various spiritual practices (meditation, yoga, drugs, nature etc). I agree. There must be many undiscovered truths, the same as for anyone. It depends on how open one is to the truth and how attached they are to their beliefs.

I agree with him that the elites are generally those who are responsible for this gender war, but who are the elites? Mostly rich white men, patriarchs. Patriarchy is built like a pyramid scheme, with rich men at the top (capital, money, possessions), the rest of the men below them who look up to them and try to imitate them, and then women, minorities, children, animals, and nature. Rich men at the top harm everyone in the end, but on different levels. He presents this as if women are angry at men because of social media, but this is not true. Women have real lived experiences of being hurt by misogyny (both personal and systemic). One in two women have been sexually harassed by a man. We don’t need to open social media to realize that men can be unsafe for us on many levels. This is how feminism started, long before social media. Just because the elites who own social media profit from the gender war doesn’t mean that women’s hurt from men as a group is not real. In some cases, the internet (which is mostly monopolized by social media) can be a lifesaver for women who are stuck in toxic relationships or are in danger, because women around the world, including in 3rd world countries have more opportunities to educate each other and share valuable information that can be life-saving. This is why I can’t equate the manosphere and the men participating in it on social media with women commenting about it on social media, because women’s comments are not fueled by the same ideologically driven hate, but rather by caution and safety precautions in response to real danger.

This reminds me of Osho, who talked about trusting existence rather than having faith in some divine figure, guru, or caricature of God (which is more of a concept). Existence is here and now, we are interwoven in it, in our breath and heartbeats, inseparable from it. It takes care of us. There is no need to guess, open cards, read coffee grounds to know what it is, or make efforts to be a better believer. It is here and now in our very being, in what is. We have a direct connection to the source.