Lila9

https://lettersfromnomfundo.substack.com/p/stop-calling-it-a-fucking-pipeline Stop Calling It a fucking Pipeline Why boys who idolize misogynists aren’t being groomed, they’re making a choice There is something deeply dishonest about the way we talk about boys who idolize men like Andrew Tate. We are told they are “vulnerable.” That they are “falling down a pipeline.” That they are being “groomed” into misogyny. But listen carefully to what that framing actually implies. It implies that when men are not centered, praised, or rewarded, they drift toward cruelty. That without constant validation, they become dangerous. That their violence is something that happens to them, not something they choose. That is not compassion but rather quiet admission. It is an admission that male morality is conditional. Because let’s be honest about what is being said in all these headlines about “alienated young men” and “lost boys.” Strip away the soft language and the therapeutic tone, and the message becomes clear. Men are angry that women have autonomy. They are angry that women can say no. Angry that women can leave. Angry that women are no longer economically or socially forced to tolerate them. And instead of confronting that reality, we dress it up as a crisis of male loneliness. But loneliness does not create abusers. Plenty of people are lonely. Women experience isolation, rejection, trauma, and systemic violence at staggering rates. Girls grow up in a culture saturated with objectification, sexualization, and threat. And yet, women are not forming mass movements around the world to exploit, dominate, or violate men. So what exactly are we saying when we claim boys are being “groomed” into misogyny? We are saying that exposure to the idea of female autonomy is enough to radicalize them. We are saying that when boys encounter a world where women are not subordinate, some of them interpret that as oppression. And instead of holding that reaction accountable, we pathologize it. We soften it. We explain it away. “He felt rejected.” “He was bullied.” “He didn’t have a father figure.” “He was looking for belonging.” No!!!!! At some point, we need to draw a line between explanation and excuse. Because the truth is, not every boy exposed to this content embraces it. Not every man who feels rejected turns to misogyny. Not every person who suffers becomes someone who harms others. There is a choice being made. And the refusal to name that choice is part of the problem. The idea that boys need “better role models” is also worth interrogating. Better than what? History, culture, politics, religion, business. Nearly every domain of power and influence has been dominated by men. Boys are not growing up in a vacuum devoid of male figures to emulate. What they are losing is not role models. They are losing entitlement. And that loss is being reframed as injustice. So instead of asking why some boys admire men who openly degrade and exploit women, we are asked to empathize with the boys. We are told to understand their pain. We are told to meet them with compassion. But where is that same urgency when women speak about fear? About violence? About the daily calculations they make to stay safe? Why is male anger treated as a crisis to be solved, while female suffering is treated as background noise? There is also something deeply disturbing in the suggestion that giving men access to relationships, families, or social status will “stabilize” them. Stabilize them from what? From harming others? Because if the argument is that men need women in order to remain non-violent, then what is being proposed is not partnership. It is containment. It is the idea that women should absorb male frustration so that it does not spill out into the wider world. That is not empathy. That is sacrifice dressed up as social policy. And women are expected to play along. To be more understanding. More patient. More accommodating. To fix a problem they did not create. Here is the uncomfortable truth. Some men are not confused. They are not lost. They are not being misled. They are responding exactly as intended to a worldview that tells them they are entitled to dominance, and that any deviation from that is an injustice. Figures like Tate do not create that mindset. They capitalize on it. They articulate it. They give it permission to speak out loud. And the boys who cheer are not doing so because they have been hypnotized. They are doing so because something in that message resonates. That is what needs to be confronted. Not excused. Confronted. Because if we keep insisting that men who embrace misogyny are simply victims of circumstance, we will never hold them accountable for the harm they cause.And without accountability, nothing changes. Women are not responsible for managing male reactions to their freedom. And the sooner we stop pretending otherwise, the clearer this conversation becomes.

Thank you, this is exactly how it is. Men do listen to other men and respect them more than women. We need more men who hold each other accountable. I appreciate that you get it.

"When a woman is poor and hungry, the human thing to do is to put food in her mouth, not your dick" Rachel Moran

Come on. I was being truthful and accurate, and there is data that backs up my posts. They say very personal and harsh things to me, and you moderators are ignoring them because of your obvious pro-male bias. I got warning points for less than that, seriously. You police women on the forum more harshly than men. This only proves why feminism is so important.

They are frustrated because they will never reach my level of compassion, intelligence, wisdom, open-mindedness, and spiritual development. They know I am better than them in every aspect, and therefore they try to humble me 😊

I do have fun to be a free spirit lovely woman ✨😍

Haha what a childish tantrum. Seemingly I am not the hateful one.

Phones are designed to be addictive, almost like drugs, because of some entitled and out of touch tech bros. Yes, we have better healthcare, but we are also sick in new ways that are unique to this era through the air, our water, and our food. We are forced into a fast-paced lifestyle for which we are not biologically designed, all because of power and greed. It could be better. And you sound like you are too comfortable with your bias and socialization as a man, and that any different opinion is a threat to your ego that you must defend at any cost.

Why is women’s labor inside the home not valued? She often does this at the expense of self-actualizing and developing her career. She creates life and nurtures it, she cooks and cleans and makes a nice atmosphere in the home. She makes all the arrangements related to the home and family. This is the most important job, and she does it along with her day job. Spending time with the kids is great, but this is a difficult and unpaid job. In total, she works more hours than a man but accumulates less money. Her pension will be smaller, even though she worked hard in both paid and unpaid labor. The man earns money, accumulates wealth, builds himself in his career, and actualizes himself, then returns home to rest and have leisure time. Men on average have more leisure time than women. This is called the leisure gap.

Beautiful ❤️

If men held other men more accountable and authorities punished rape more seriously, then I believe it would be quickly reduced. Rape is more a crime of misogyny and violence than uncontrolled lust. But authorities are not willing to punish rapists more seriously because many of them are rapists too haha. The fact that no one implicated in the Epstein files is in jail, and that the president of the US is a rapist, is a huge indicator of how society protects rapists. Feminism at least is a watchdog for these crimes otherwise, things would have been the same or even worse without feminism. This is why there is so much hate for feminism.

Yes, but they also never question patriarchy, which assigned that role to them, and are the biggest supporters of nuclear families and capitalism. In the past, pre-patriarchal communities and pre-industrial societies, labor was distributed among many people. But many men see this as something too feminine and communist.

In modern life nuclear family, most men cannot financially sustain their families alone, so obviously it is reasonable for women to take part in providing for their families, and women do that. Women do that in addition to doing unpaid domestic labor and childcare. Men need to step in and help women more in domastic labor and childcare. And ideally, they need a community.

People make mistakes; men also chase baddies and then suffer, so what? Intuition is something that can be developed and is a great tool for filtering people. Women are often told to give a chance to men just because they are a bit shy or nice, even though their intuition says otherwise, and then they get involved with those guys, and they end up being abused because, guess what? Just because a man is shy or nice doesn’t mean he is not abusive. Just because someone appears to be non harmful on the surface doesn’t mean that they are emotionally safe people. And regarding open-hearted and ethical men, they are unicorns and they do have success with women. So I don’t know what you are talking about.

Still women do unpaid domestic labor and childcare. Those things take a lot of time from women and are undervalued and underpaid. Women do their paid work and then go home and do the unpaid work. Society judges men for not being providers, and being sexually successful is tied to patriarchal expectations of men, which most men support and uphold. You want a system in which you have control over women’s bodies and power, but you don’t want to work for it or be accountable. You want it to be given to you on a plate and never be punished for your behavior. And yes watching porn is predatory. You watch women in a vulnerable position in life, who are there because of systemic oppression of women, and get pleasure from it without consequences.

Yes, but as I said, sex is not the same for a woman as it is for a man. For men, sex is proof of their desirability and manhood. For women, romantic relationships and being “picked” for marriage are proof of desirability and womanhood. Below-average-looking men have higher chances of getting sex and a loving romantic relationship if their character and social skills are good. Below-average-looking women may have more chances to get sex, but it is more likely to be degrading and humiliating (this is well portrayed in the show Girls in the way Adam treats Hannah. There are explicit sexual scenes, and it is based on the writer’s life experience), while their chances of having a loving romantic relationship are very low regardless of their social skills or character.

Women expecting financial support or protection from men in a society that judges unmarried women harshly, where women often have to work twice as hard for less pay, and where they are more vulnerable to gender-based violence and abuse, is reasonable under this opression. On the other hand men brag about how many women they’ve slept with, how easily they were able to get them into bed, how they were able to manipulate them into sleeping with them and complaining about women not wanting to sleep with them, harrasing and raping women including underaged girls, watching porn of women being degraded and humilated is predatory and super entitled.

These studies apply to some women, not all. Some of those women may even have dark triad traits themselves, even if they are covert or were raised by parents with dark triad traits. This is not something the average woman is attracted to. Using science to justify rape culture and the abuse of women is sick.

Women don’t feel entitled to men’s time, money, resources, or labor in the same way that men often feel entitled to women’s.

Women don’t value sex and physical attractiveness in men the same way men value them in women. Men often project onto women what they themselves desire, but women don’t necessarily prioritize those things. Women tend to value romantic relationships more than sex. Most men are medicore/bad at sex anyway, and it is also much riskier for women, so having sex doesn’t feel worth it for them as romantic relationships. Society often places a high value on women’s looks, and women are judged harshly based on appearance. Since girlhood. For a woman who is considered below average-looking, this can be fatal regardless of her character. Her chances of finding a man, even a below-average-looking man, who genuinely loves her and treats her like a human being are very low. If it can be difficult for a conventionally attractive woman to find a genuinely loving partner, it is even harder for a woman who is not seen as conventionally attractive.

The same goes for women with below-average looks. Just read posts from these women on Reddit, the way men treat them is heartbreaking. Most of them have never been approached by a man, have been harassed about their looks, or have never been seen as a romantic interest. For some of them, men pretended to be romantically interested only to sleep with them and then block them or mock them with their friends. The difference between men and women in these groups is a sense of entitlement. Men often feel entitled to women’s bodies, attention, and time because this is how they were socialized. Misogyny is the deeper issue because it is deeply ingrained in the system. Not only men with below-average looks hate women, men can be very good-looking, successful with women and still hate women.

https://lovettejallow.substack.com/p/when-men-fail-in-a-world-optimized When Men Fail in a World Optimized for Them, They Don’t Blame Patriarchy—They Blame Women The Incel Mindset, Male Entitlement, and the Weaponization of Resentment Men Want Women, But Despise Everything Women Represent Men struggling to connect with women isn’t surprising when society teaches them to reject anything associated with us. Yet, paradoxically, they still desire relationships with women. So how do you reconcile wanting something you’ve been conditioned to despise, devalue, or feel entitled to? You don’t. Instead, you project. And when failure feels unbearable, men don’t blame the system that created this dysfunction—they blame women, the victims of that same system. This is not a personal failure. This is a structural issue. How Patriarchy Conditions Men to Self-Destruct I’ve always maintained that patriarchy—like white supremacy—doesn’t truly benefit anyone, least of all those it claims to uplift. Men are raised with the idea that masculinity equals dominance, control, and emotional suppression. From an early age, they internalize: Women are beneath them Emotional intelligence is weakness Relationships should serve their needs first But here’s the problem: those are the exact skills needed for love, partnership, and human connection. Men are set up to fail at intimacy—but instead of questioning why, they double down and blame the women who reject them. ETC’s Investigation: When Rejection Becomes Radicalization The incel ideology has moved from self-pity to violent resentment, and it thrives on one thing: blaming women for male dissatisfaction. ETC’s report on Swedish incels revealed how rejection mutates into rage, fueling lone-wolf attacks and extremist communities. One man, Paul, a 28-year-old self-identified incel, embodies this cycle of despair and entitlement: "I have not been able to choose my life." "I hate women. I really hate them." "I want to do what everyone else does. Go on vacation with someone. Take walks. Maybe have kids. That was my dream. But it won’t happen." "Maybe I am dangerous. That’s for others to decide." Paul, like many incels, didn’t just see himself as unlucky—he saw himself as robbed. His frustration wasn’t just about sex, but about status—the belief that men deserve access to women and the comfort of a relationship. When that didn’t happen, he saw women as the enemy. This is the core of incel ideology—men convinced they are victims, refusing to acknowledge that their own beliefs about women are why they can’t connect with them. The Data: Incels and Rising Violence in Sweden and Beyond Sweden is no exception to the growing trend of incel-driven violence worldwide. 2014: Elliot Rodger (USA) – Killed six people, wounded 14, left a manifesto blaming women for rejecting him. 2018: Alek Minassian (Canada) – Drove a van into pedestrians, killing 11. Declared it an "incel rebellion." 2022: Malmö School attack (Sweden) – Researched incel violence before carrying out an attack with an Ax. 2015: Trollhättan School Attack (Sweden) – Anton Lundin Pettersson consumed incel and far-right content before targeting students. Swedish intelligence agency Säpo has now classified incels as a national terror threat—on par with Islamist extremism. This is not just a subculture. It is a growing, radicalized movement fueled by resentment, misogyny, and white supremacy. Women Adapt to Survive—Men Refuse to Evolve If marginalized people and women—who face the same societal conditioning—can upgrade their tools to survive, then men can too. Yet, while women are told to self-improve, men externalize their failures. Women must navigate unsafe dating environments, workplace discrimination, and social expectations, but they still find ways to thrive. Men claim they are "failing," despite living in a world optimized for their success. If they can build entire incel communities out of resentment, they surely have the energy to engage with therapy, self-reflection, and unlearning. But one requires accountability. The other avoids it. Men Aren’t Failing Because of Women—They’re Failing Because of Patriarchy Men claim society has failed them, but who built it? ETC’s investigation makes it clear: the men who feel most abandoned are the ones clinging hardest to the system that isolates them. Patriarchy teaches them that their worth is in dominance, control, and emotional suppression. When they fail to meet those expectations, instead of questioning the system, they turn their anger on women. This is why we see: Men radicalizing when they feel unwanted Men demanding access to women rather than building emotional intelligence Men resenting women for their loneliness, rather than examining their role in it This is not a women’s issue—this is a masculinity crisis. Instead of questioning the system, men turn their anger on women. And women? We’re done carrying it. Thanks for reading The Lovette Jallow Perspective! This post is public so feel free to share it. Women Cannot Keep Doing This Work for You Men have built entire online communities dedicated to resentment, yet refuse to engage with healing, self-reflection, or real accountability. Instead, they expect women to do that work for them—while continuing to receive their disdain. I have said it before: women are not your emotional rehab centers. We cannot be in friendships, relationships, or even casual social spaces with men without taking on the emotional labor of managing their feelings, soothing their egos, or explaining the most basic realities of gendered existence. Yet when men struggle—when they feel lost, rejected, or stuck in systems they themselves uphold—who do they blame? Men Are Failing in a System Built for Them—Yet Blaming Women The irony is glaring. Society is structured for men. Patriarchy rewards male dominance and punishes anything associated with femininity. Yet when men realize that this model makes them lonely, disconnected, and emotionally stunted, they don’t turn against patriarchy—they turn against women. Instead of self-reflection, they choose: ❌ Bitterness ❌ Resentment ❌ Entitlement Instead of learning emotional intelligence, they call women "shallow" for rejecting them. Instead of rethinking masculinity, they demand that women lower their standards. This is why women are opting out. The Unspoken Truth: Women Are Tired We are tired of being the default therapists for men who refuse to do their own inner work. We are tired of being expected to coddle egos, manage emotions, and soften realities while receiving nothing in return. We are tired of men who: Want intimacy but refuse to unlearn harmful beliefs Demand love but resent everything women represent Expect patience but offer none for our realities At what point do men take responsibility for themselves? Women Have Already Done the Work—Men Need to Catch Up Many women have spent decades unlearning internalized misogyny, rethinking relationships, and building emotional intelligence. We have gone to therapy. We have read the books. We have broken generational cycles. And men? They have built entire incel networks, rage forums, and misogynistic ideologies, all to justify avoiding the same self-work that women have done. If women can evolve despite a system working against us, why can’t men evolve in a system built for them? No One Can Heal You But You Men, if you feel lost, start asking the real questions: Why do I struggle to connect with others? What narratives about masculinity have shaped me? How do I build self-awareness and accountability? Stop expecting women to fill the emotional gaps that patriarchy has left in you. Stop demanding love from the very people you refuse to respect. Because the truth is: we are no longer waiting for you to catch up. This is not about women rejecting men—it’s about men rejecting the work needed to unlearn what makes them so entitled to resentment in the first place. It’s Time for Men to Take Accountability The police must investigate incel connections in crimes like Örebro. Society must stop excusing misogyny as “loneliness” when it breeds violence. Men must unlearn their entitlement before it manifests as harm. If women can deconstruct centuries of oppression to build something new, men can too. Because the only way forward is unlearning. And that is something men have to do themselves. Women will not do it for you.

This is horrible. Women are not safe with men, even if they are “happily” married or seem like “nice guys.” So many men take an active part in this rape culture. Women need to have very high standards, be radically picky, and trust their instincts and intuition before ever settling down with a man. Most men don’t see women as human beings worthy of consideration, they put their ego and lust before our well-being and safety.

A good read about when incel and red pill content is covertly promoted by influencers who appear to be "conscious", "balanced" and “objective": https://substack.com/inbox/post/186623062 The Diary Of A(n Undercover Incel) CEO You know how we’re always wary of those podcasts or speakers that are unambiguously misogynistic? Like A**rew T*te, the guys on Whatever Podcast, Fresh and Fit. The ones that are blatantly, loudly and proudly hateful. I don’t know about you but I would NEVER have a friendship or even an acquaintanceship if I can help it with anyone who listens to and follows those guys. They’re violently disrespectful and they don’t hide their disdain for women’s autonomy and ways of thinking. I wouldn’t even deign to pay attention to someone who says ‘but they make great points sometimes.’ What great points? Please run away from them. But what happens when there’s one that is hiding in plain sight? Enter Diary of A CEO, hosted by Steven Bartlett. It launched in 2017 and on paper, the podcast looks harmless. It features conversations with “successful people” about hardship, growth and resilience. Sounds reasonable, and the type of thing a TikTok page called Goated Quotes would post multiple clips of (I kid you not there is a page named exactly that and they post clips of the podcast constantly). But underneath the motivational and seemingly profound front is a recurring logic pattern that isn’t just about self-improvement. It subtly reflects ideas about gender, purpose and societal structures that align with right-wing, reactionary and red-pill narratives, packaged as “brutal truths” for men. It’s also known for misinformation, especially on health. If you’d like to know more you can read here, but my main focus is on why it’s been called a ‘Trojan Horse for the manosphere’ and why that description is terrifyingly accurate. What makes Diary of a CEO dangerous isn’t that it’s openly hateful. It’s that it isn’t. The men who listen to Andrew Tate know exactly what they’re signing up for. The misogyny is loud, aggressive and obvious. You can spot it from a mile away and decide, very quickly, that you want no parts. Not this guy. Steven Bartlett speaks softly and uses language and tone that sounds like self-reflection, vulnerability, growth. His guests talk about genuine self-improvement in a way that sounds profound or even compassionate. That’s exactly how it sneaks in incel and bioessentialist propaganda without you knowing. For example, the recurring fixation on “men’s loss of purpose” or the perceived “mating crisis.” I watched some podcast episodes so you don’t have to and I will never do it again but here’s the gist: Steven had Dr. Alok Kanojia, or Dr. K as he’s mostly known, on his show in July last year. In that episode, the conversation starts with statistics that sound neutral and alarming in equal measure: rising sexual inactivity among young men, men accounting for nearly 80% of suicides, increasing reports of hopelessness and lack of purpose. All of these are real, verifiable issues. That’s part of what makes what comes next so sinister. Dr. K frames the situation as something close to an evolutionary crisis. Young men, he suggests, are being left behind by modern dating dynamics, economic shifts and social changes. Women, he notes, no longer need men in the way they once did; they can earn their own money, choose not to marry and even have children without male partners. This, according to him, creates what he repeatedly describes as an “extinction event”: a cohort of men who will never find partners, never reproduce and effectively “die out” of the gene pool. He ends up floating the idea that society should intervene to make sure men can pass on their genes, as if sexual access is a public utility like water or electricity. And, get this, he compares a man’s inability to find a partner to cancer, a deadly virus and genocide. I know damn well- Now, to his credit, Dr. K is careful to say that no one is entitled to sex, relationships, or reproduction. He acknowledges consent. He explicitly rejects coercion. But by casting male loneliness in evolutionary and biological terms like natural selection, genetic dead ends, extinction, it turns social alienation into destiny. He’s essentially suggesting that resentment and aggression towards women are not choices, but inevitable responses to being biologically sidelined. This mirrors almost exactly how incel and black-pill communities already talk about themselves, and the podcast instantly becomes a recruitment tool for the most radicalized corners of the incel movement. By suggesting that society has a responsibility to “course-correct” the fact that some men aren’t chosen as partners, Dr. K validates the dangerous idea that men are biologically owed the bodies of women. The same logic appears in Steven’s conversation with clinical social worker Erica Komisar. When asked about the “plight of young men” and rising suicide rates among them, Komisar argues that men have lost their purpose because society has dismantled their traditional roles as providers and protectors. Yes, she actually said that. I was baffled too. According to her, while “raising women up” had positive outcomes, it also involved “denigrating men.” She goes further, describing modern feminism as having taken on something “vengeful,” no longer about balance but about diminishing men, pushing them out and taking over. What’s next is she points to the fact that women now make up over 60% of university students and graduate school attendees, and cites studies suggesting that men tend to marry across or down educationally, while women marry across or up. The conclusion of all she’s saying is that women’s educational and professional advancement has effectively stripped men of their purpose, leaving them discouraged, diminished, and lost. What’s so funny here is not that she’s concerned for men, but the assumption beneath it: that men’s purpose is fundamentally external and relies on women’s dependence. When women no longer need men to survive economically or socially, men are said to lose meaning. That is not a feminist argument, it is a deeply patriarchal one that has been quietly repackaged as sympathy for men. Instead of encouraging men to find new, more empathetic ways of being, the podcast encourages them to look back at a patriarchal past with a sense of stolen entitlement. This pattern becomes even clearer in Steven’s interviews with former Love Islander Chris Williamson, and the language moves from therapy speak to market logic. Dating here is called a “mating market” so now, we’re talking about relationships in a transactional manner. Sounds awfully familiar… Chris describes women as hypergamous, inclined to date “up” in education, income and status. According to him, as women achieve parity or outpace men in education and early-career earnings, the pool of “eligible” men shrinks. The result is a large group of men rendered invisible, while a small group of “high-value” men accumulate options and avoid commitment. He called this the “tall girl problem.” Hmm. You mean the tall poppy syndrome? Here again, women’s independence is treated as the destabilising variable. By focusing on reliable contraception and socioeconomic autonomy as the “disruptors” of dating, he is essentially saying that women were easier to deal with when they had fewer choices. Structural issues like economic instability, job insecurity, housing crises, the collapse of community spaces suddenly fade into the background. The problem becomes women’s standards, women’s choices and women’s fear. Over and over again. Even MeToo is folded into this logic (of course it is). Chris acknowledged it as necessary to hold powerful men accountable for their crimes and misconduct against women, then he makes a hard right and describes it as having gone “too far,” leaving men afraid to approach women and women afraid of men, which therefore produces an epidemic of loneliness and sexlessness. He flattens fear of violence and fear of being accused into moral equivalents, so the asymmetry of power disappears. What’s left is the suggestion that women’s safety and boundaries have produced unintended “externalities” for men. Taken individually, any one of these conversations might sound like a clumsy but well-meaning attempt to understand modern relationships. Taken together, they form a consistent worldview: men are suffering because women have too much autonomy; equality has created imbalance; and social progress has left a generation of men behind. The problem is not that Diary Of A CEO talks about men’s pain. Ultimately, it functions as a bridge. It meets young men where they are; looking for health tips, business advice, or a sense of direction, and then slowly leads them toward a worldview where women’s autonomy is the root of their misery. Over and over again, the podcast returns to the same conclusions: men are purposeless because women no longer need them; men are invisible because women “date up”; men are angry because feminism went too far; men are lonely because women are afraid; men are being selected out of the gene pool because society has changed too fast. The villain is never collapsing social infrastructure, or the monetisation of dating, or the hollowing out of community, or an economic system that strips people of dignity and stability. It is, consistently, women’s autonomy. That is red-pill rhetoric. What’s missing from these conversations is the reality of femicide. The fact that men’s feelings of entitlement to access do not exist in a vacuum is rarely ever discussed. Women exist in a world where we are killed, stalked, assaulted and harassed by men who believe they have been wronged. What makes this especially dangerous is the tone. Steven Bartlett is not shouting or calling anyone a h*e or B-word. He is nodding and empathising. He is letting his guests spin narratives about extinction events, hypergamy and vengeful feminism with minimal pushback. While he has released a statement saying he doesn’t necessarily hold the same views as his guests, I call bullshit. He platforms these people, give hums of approval when they speak and eggs them on. He only released said statement because it was becoming obvious what was happening. So no, Diary of a CEO is not harmless self-help. It is not neutral, and it is certainly not just “motivational content.” It’s time we stop treating Steven Bartlett as a harmless motivational figure and start seeing him for what he is: the manosphere’s most effective public relations officer. That podcast is a pipeline that feeds young men a story where the social progress of women is the reason for their pain.