Lila9

This is a good map for understanding your emotions, by the way.

This is what I see as well. Men judge women for being emotional, but men are emotional too. Being human is being emotional. This is why the version of manhood within patriarchy is false and doesn't match men's behavior in reality. And yes, huge shadow work is required.

Human sexuality is neither monogamous or polyamorous. It's both. For both sexes.

I certainly will. I also made a tiny addition to your original post:

I definitely will.

Not, it hasn't been debankued. What you shared called a criticism. Scholars always argue and criticize each other's papers. The point of gender labor flexibility still stands. If survival require certain skills, it doesn't matter what you have between your legs.

This is why gender roles are a social construct. Sex is a biological fact but gender roles are flexible. https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/aman.13914 "The Paleo-fantasy of a deep history to a sexual division of labor, often described as “Man the Hunter and Woman the Gatherer,” continues to dominate the literature. We see it used as the default hypothesis in anatomical and physiological reconstructions of the past as well as studies of modern people evoking evolutionary explanations. However, the idea of a strict sexual labor division in the Paleolithic is an assumption with little supporting evidence, which reflects a failure to question how modern gender roles color our reconstructions of the past. Here we present examples to support women's roles as hunters in the past as well as challenge oft-cited interpretations of the material culture. Such evidence includes stone tool function, diet, art, anatomy and paleopathology, and burials. By pulling together the current state of the archaeological evidence along with the modern human physiology presented in the accompanying paper (Ocobock and Lacy, this issue), we argue that not only are women well-suited to endurance activities like hunting, but there is little evidence to support that they were not hunting in the Paleolithic. Going forward, paleoanthropology should embrace the idea that all sexes contributed equally to life in the past, including via hunting activities"

Intresting. Prompt: Is there an evidence of women fighting in wars in pre patriarchal socities? Response: Yes — there is evidence. But it’s often misunderstood because we tend to project later patriarchal war models onto much older societies. Across archaeology, anthropology, and ethnography, we have multiple independent lines of evidence showing that in many egalitarian, pre-state, and likely pre-patriarchal societies, women did participate in warfare, raids, and defense. Importantly: they were not exceptions, “disguised as men,” or symbolic figures. In some cultures, it was normal. Archaeological evidence (graves with weapons) Andean highland burial near Wilamaya Patjxa (9,000 years ago) A burial of a young woman with a full big-game hunting toolkit: projectile points, knives, scraping tools. Analysis of many similar burials in the region showed 30–50% of big-game hunters were women. In these societies, big-game hunting and warfare skills overlap (projectiles, tracking, group tactics). This strongly suggests women were trained in the same combat/hunting skills as men. Birka grave Bj 581 (Viking Age) A high-status warrior grave with sword, axe, arrows, shield, horses, and a war strategy board game. Long assumed to be a male warrior. DNA (2017) proved the skeleton is biologically female. Not just a fighter — likely a military leader/strategist. This overturned a century of assumptions about “male-only” Viking warfare. Ethnographic evidence (tribes observed in recent centuries) Dahomey Amazons (West Africa) An all-female military regiment for centuries. Elite shock troops of the kingdom. European observers documented their combat effectiveness in detail. A surviving example of a much older tradition of women as formal warriors. Scythians (Eurasian Steppe) Multiple female burials with bows, arrows, horse gear, and battle injuries. Greek accounts of “Amazons” likely came from encounters with these steppe cultures. Women rode horses, hunted, and fought like men. Anthropological observations of egalitarian tribes In several egalitarian forager groups recorded in the 19–20th centuries: Women joined defensive raids Women used bows, spears, and clubs Warfare was seen as community protection, not male domination Skill mattered more than sex Examples documented in classic ethnographies include: Agta — women hunt with bows and join raids. Mbuti — collective defense; no strict male monopoly on violence. Inuit — women trained in weapons for survival and defense. What changed with patriarchy and states As societies shifted to: Property Lineage control Standing armies Territorial conquest Warfare became: Professionalized Male-dominated Hierarchical About domination, not protection Women were excluded, not because they couldn’t fight — but because war became tied to male political power. Key takeaway In many pre-patriarchal / egalitarian societies: Fighting was a human skill, not a male role. Women hunted. Women defended. Women fought. The idea that “war has always been men’s domain” is historically recent.

All or at least most of the societies you describe started as egalitarian/mterlineal/matriarchal. Then they transformed to be more patriarchal a few thousands years ago. Egalitarian and matriarchal societies also understood the the reality and of war, please check the links I shared. But rather seeing war as a tool for control and dominantion of others they saw it as a nessecaty and a protective tool if attacked or in danger, which also was ritualized.

Yes but here you describe the transition from purple to red, at the dawn of patriarchy, not solid purple in which humans lived for hundreds of thousands of years. Purple had its harsh survival reality, but men weren’t the absolute masters of women. Though many tribes today have some patriarchal influence, there are still some old tribes that remain egalitarian or matriarchal. Mosuo: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosuo minangkabau: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minangkabau_people Khasi: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khasi_people Akan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akan_people Iroquois/Haudenosaunee: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iroquois Bribri: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bribri_people Tuareg: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuareg_people

This failure of a man had the nerve to take a life of a child, to kill her daughter. He deserves it. I understand her. This is a valid rage. This motherly protective rage can be seen in nature as well. I like this comment: "She died the day her daughter died. She didn’t care, she did what she had to do"

From my understanding and research, I think that there were always men (and maybe women too) in every tribe who were toxic (what we may call today psychopaths or narcissists), but they were controlled and got exiled and died alone if they were antisocial, because tribes with harsh survival conditions couldn't afford to tolerate such people. Humans always cooperated and lived in packs, which gave them protection and fulfilled their needs. I believe that the turning point came when there were too many tribes but limited natural resources, so those toxic men actually became valuable in fighting other tribes and killing them, and this is how the stage red emerged. Later the agriculture and the domestication of animals and plants began, and the concept of possession started, as well as nuclear families and patriarchy. Manhood suddenly became about control and power rather than cooperation and protection.

"We can't be in our full, mature woman power and still be a damsel in distress." Totally, the system wants women to be submissive and weak, which has nothing to do with the divine feminine. Patriarchy wants women to dismantle their power, and even smart women buy this lie that femininity equals weakness. For me, as a feminist, it is painful to see women with internalized patriarchy and misogyny who hate feminists (and compete and compare themselves with other women) just to get approval and protection from men and patriarchy. They don't understand that patriarchy is trying to sperate and isolate us women so we would be more easy to control and police. They don't understand that no woman is protected from patriarchy, not even them. In fact, the more a woman is supportive of patriarchy, the more vulnerable she is to harm.

I think that masculinity, in its origin, is more balanced with the feminine and more connected to life, intuition, protection, and cooperation, rather than the predatory version of masculinity in patriarchy, which is basically imbalanced masculinity (toxic masculinity).

Birds ❤️ They are such tiny little dinosaurs 🦖

Definitely. I am amazed that Leo doesn’t see it. The one who talks about deception doesn’t realize how patriarchy and colonialism have been so integrated into our perception of reality that we don’t notice them and confuse them with nature. The truth cannot be found within the limited and false paradigm of white supremacy and patriarchy. One has to deconstruct both. This is why I don’t believe that spirituality is separate from politics. People think that they can be spiritual without true concern about politics and political paradigms. But we are all intertwined and connected rather than separated and isolated islands. This has to be taken into account.

Thank you for the recommendations. Those women are so on point. Women do have a “witch wound.” We have been socialized and forced to suppress our intuition, rage, instincts, wisdom, our psychic ability, and the full scale of our emotions (except the emotions that patriarchy is comfortable with, like being nice, pleasing, nurturing, and accommodating). We are penalized for it and labeled as “difficult women,” but this is exactly our spiritual path as women: to break the illusions of patriarchy and to reclaim our divine feminine. This is why I believe there is a war on femininity, not on masculinity. Rage in women is so demonized, but as you mentioned, we are in need of sacred rage, the rage that actually moves and transforms things. Divine rage out of deep love and pain, like Kali. She uses her rage to destroy falsehood and illusions because she is so aware of the truth, loves it deeply, and loves her children enough to liberate them from the falshhood. Men also need to integrate the divine feminine their intuition, emotions, and wisdom, psychic abilities. There is also a wild man archetype (not to be confused with a savage man) or the sage. We lack these kinds of men. We are all, men and women in need of integrating the feminine (because it connects us to life and human nature) due to thousands of years of repression due to patriarchy, colonialism, and imperialism. And I agree that true conservative men value the feminine. We all started from stage purple, this is our real foundation as species. At that stage, men worshipped feminine motherhood and acknowledged the divine feminine. There are statues and various paintings worldwide from purple and pagan traditions depicting women, not in an erotic or pornographic way as people today project, but as a symbol of respect and admiration for the divine feminine. And what you said about kinship of animals is amazing. It ironically reminds us of our human nature. They lead an instinctual life so close to their needs. We can reclaim it by studying them, definitely.

This article applies to young men from 18–20 to 35–40. They are called "boys" because society sees them as boys; it infantilizes them and does not hold them accountable. The point is that young women also go through isolation and even more (oppression, discrimination, violence) and still do not behave like those men, which implies specific indoctrination in those men to hate, devalue, and objectify women. Actual boys and girls (children, underage) are obviously vulnerable and do not have the mental capacity to think critically about it. But young adults do.

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.

This is so important to integrate healthy Blue and the foundational stages, this is the basis. We need a strong basis. It is like with chakras.

Haha I like the parody. This is so good. I definitely believe that there are different ways to access truth, and the feminine way can suit some people while the masculine way suits others. Actually, in Hinduism, there is a goddess called Kali Ma, and she represents the feminine, truth-seeking aspect. She cuts through illusion with her sword. She does it out of love because she wants us to awaken. She represents radical compassion. In Slavic folklore, there is Baba Yaga, who represents the Wild Mother archetype. She teaches humans to "kill" the illusions of society and its expectations and to trust their instincts and intuition.

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.