Emerald

Yes, the royal "they". It's an easy scapegoat to invoke to make people feel like they're fighting and evil and elite force together. And all of that "scheming overlords" talk usually gets projected onto Jewish people.

If it were something longterm and abiding like enslavement, there would be a generation or two of backlash and then a tacit normalization and acceptance as "just the way things are". But the loss of the right to vote would probably be normalized by the majority of the populace in a few years because it isn't something that affects people every day. And when people would protest about it, people would be weaving the dissident Neo-Suffragettes as the newest edition of the "woke mob."

But most people who are clamoring to go back to Blue are not Stage Blue either. They're just lonely Orange, Green, and Yellow people. And it's mostly Stage Orange men who are clamoring to go back to stage Blue because they think it will be better for them. But they will find Stage Blue to be too constricting because they are past that phase of development. When my first child was a toddler, one of my former professors came to visit me at my house. And I was nursing my daughter, and asked her a question about how her kids handled the weening process. She mentioned that she'd weened her son at age 2. And when he was 3, he got really upset and insisted that he wanted to nurse again. So, instead of denying him, she let him nurse. And he did for a minute and got bored. Then, he was over it because he didn't get what he wanted out of it. It wasn't that interesting to him. If Stage Blue wins the values war (which they might) and we go back to a monocultural patriarchal theocratic values like the days of old, the majority of the people who think they want it now will quickly be clamoring for lost progress. Like the first grader who believes they want to go back to kindergarten... one day into kindergarten they will realize the magic is gone and that they can't wait for the 2nd grade.

I'm sure that the amount of sexual success men have with women (or lack thereof) doesn't lead to misogyny. I just tend to think of misogynists as being more socially awkward around women because of the hatred patterns. So, my claim is the inverse of what that study is studying. It's not that awkward guys who have little success with women become misogynists. I know plenty of guys that this describes who are lovely guys. It's more that misogynists become awkward guys who have little success with women because of their misogyny. But of course, this could be a vocal minority. But I personally suspect that it's not a minority but the majority based on my experiences.

I didn't realize that she'd lost support among women. I thought her numbers with women stayed the same. But it's probably women focusing on the economy and looking for a change. I suppose it's just that the loss of rights becomes easily normalized in the wider populace. If women had the right to vote taken from them, they might be upset for a few months. But then it would probably would become quickly normalized by the populace and just the way things are done.

I disagree with that. People really only care about getting their needs met. They don't care very much how they get it... as long as they get it. It's like, "Do you want the water in the green cup or the blue cup?" If you're thirsty, you'll take the water in whichever cup is available to you. But the collective has already had a lot of collective experience drinking from blue cups. We have a history of blue cup drinking. And we have lots of idealized stories about how blue cup drinking is that draws in people who are in Orange, Green, and Yellow. So, there is a desire to regress to Blue (even with people who are not themselves Blue) because they cannot yet conceptualize drinking from a green cup. But they don't realize consciously that connection is what they're searching for. They have a vague notion of being for the old ways, but what they really want is belonging in a tight-knit community. If right now, there was some Stage Green cult where people could come together in a community... it would attract a lot of the people who are currently in resistance to Green because the reason why they're currently in resistance to Green is because they perceive that opening up to the Green stage in development will get in the way of their needs.

I would give young people a little bit more credit than that, even though their views can be more socially malleable than the average adult. I know I held some very strong views at the time that were contrary to what many of my peers were thinking, which are still part of my internal compass. And I've worked with kids who also have their own nuanced views about the world derived from their own thinking. But to your point, young people are more malleable and influenceable... especially by peers. For example, it's clear that young men are skewing more conservative because of peer pressure and the right wing media environment that's geared towards young men. And this is in spite of previous the previous generations of men being more left-leaning than the generations prior. So, it shows that there can be a regression in values based on peer pressure and propaganda geared towards the youth.

WIth Roe v Wade, that's true that women are still angry. And women came out in near identical numbers to the last election. It was left leaning men who mostly stayed home and didn't vote for Kamala... likely because the men were more focused on the economy than on abortion rights because abortion rights feel less relevant to them. But understand that Trump is the face of MAGA. And lots of Republicans are really into Trump. They're not as much into other MAGA people.

That's true. There is a strong backlash against Stage Green and even Stage Orange to some degree. And there's a desire to go back to the small communal element of Blue. Because the populace hasn't developed the Stage Green communal element yet, the last known source of community is in Blue. That said, because elections are so close and people are so partisan because of the media landscape, I have a hard time chalking a loss or a win up to more than just the average under informed swing voter's perceptions about things like the economy.

One reason why the Republicans under-performed in the midterms is because Roe v Wade had just been overturned, and that was still fresh in the minds of the populace and hadn't been normalized yet. Plus, it was mostly election denying Republicans who lost their races. Generic Republicans did quite well comparatively. I think Trump himself excites the base. But I don't think Trumpy generic Republicans in the house and senate excite the base much at all. Trump is pretty much the face of MAGA. And MAGA without Trump is pretty unpopular.

I don't think that was the primary driving force. Across the board a variety of different nations in the first world, the incumbent party lost their election... likely due to inflation. That's even true in the UK where the conservatives have been in power for like 13 years. They lost their election to Labor. In times of economic hardship, people tend to think "Different is better than better" and they flip to the other side of the pillow in hopes of a change.

I don't think Bernie is to blame for Hilary's loss. I think she just ran a bad campaign because her whole slogan was "I'm with her" and was focused on electing the first female president without any promise to constituents about what she'd deliver. That said if elections were fair and it was 1 person/1 vote, Hilary Clinton still clobbered Donald Trump. Plus, so many people (including me) had their political awakening because of Trump and Bernie. Before then, a lot of people were disengaged.

I remember (maybe a year ago) seeing a YT short or TikTok from him after I'd known about him for several years. And in the short, I forget specifically what he was saying. But he seemed to be dog whistling some QANON talking points and the Jewish Question in a way that most people would miss unless they'd done a deep dive into far right rhetorical tactics. I wish I remembered what specifically he'd said that make me go "Uh oh." But I can't say that I'm surprised at him being pro-Trump. Edit: I found the TikTok... https://www.tiktok.com/@aaronabke/video/7239388342800977198?_r=1&_t=8rg0J6FmRUE

It's too short of a period of time to determine what fails and what doesn't fail. Often time, it's the case that short term failures lead to long terms successes. And that the long terms successes require short term failures for the collective to learn lessons.

That's definitely true. Being an aspirational misogynist is lucrative because he is what insecure men believe that a secure man looks like. And they want to watch him and pay him to teach them his misogynistic Jedi tricks.

I know that's true that most men who are "good" with women (in the way pick up artists define it) don't care about women... and many hate them. And having sex with lots of women can tend to exacerbate negative feelings about women in general because it reinforces objectification and disconnection. There's no doubt in my mind that a great many pick up artists are misogynists and/or they have major issues with connecting with women and use sex like a drug, like your friend. And certainly pick up artists are having quite a bit of sex and multiple female partners. And certainly, in the place I grew up in there were tons of emotionally detached men who would use women for sex. And they were misogynistic. None of that is new information to me. I've seen it before, as these are also relatively common phenomena. My claim was more that the average misogynist that I come across seems to be incredibly socially awkward and even afraid of women. Maybe that's a misperception on my part and that that's not as big of a percentage of misogynists as I think. My perception is that that describes 80% of misogynists the I've encountered in my life that they're pretty social awkward. I don't tend to get an image in my mind of an emotionally detached guy when I think about misogynists. I get an image of a fairly desperate and bitter guy. So the types of guys I'm thinking about when I think about the concept of a misogynist is that they are probably having much less success with women than the average guy. I'm sure that's true. But maybe these types of guys account for a lower fraction of misogynists than I had assumed. But I also see that men who are truly detached from women's humanity could potentially see women as mere objects to manipulate. In which case, the social awkwardness may not even be a factor. And that could lead a guy to getting a lot of sex because he could just treat pick up like going to the grocery store. I'm just not sure that that describes the majority of misogynistic guys who seem pretty upset and pressed about women all the time. Now I'm curious what the mean, median, and mode are regarding types of misogynists.

To be clear, my claim is not that having fewer sexual partners is the driving force behind misogyny. Repression of Feminine aspects of the personality, shame, resentment, and scapegoating are the driving forces behind misogyny. And the "women won't have sex with me" is just an Incel's means of feeling like their resentment and scapegoating is justified and to wallow in self-pity, anger, and shame. And when misogynists start getting sex with many women through learning pick up, their hatred tends to intensify rather than getting better. But it is hard for me to imagine that the majority of misogynists are getting more sex than the average non-misogynistic guy. Yet again, perhaps they do seek it more often with pick up and things like that. So, maybe that's the case that they're getting it more because they're seeking it out more. I'm still not sure about that though because the average misogynist seems to be a lot less social than other guys. They come across online as victimy and isolated. I think of the keyboard warrior type of guy who does nothing but play video games all day and complain about women. That's my impression of what the average run-of-the-mill misogynist is like. I rarely think of the hyper-aggressive macho misogynists because that seems to be the exception and not the rule. Perhaps that machismo doesn't translate online, because misogynists all feel pretty catty and bitter. So, what might translate as machismo in person, exudes emotional vulnerability online. Yet again, my impression is still that most misogynistic guys I've encountered in real life and online are fairly vulnerable guys who don't possess a lot of machismo. Maybe the study selected for guys that fit the "misogynistic macho guy" mold and that less masculine misogynists weren't included in the study. I'll have to see how the sampling was done in the study.

This can also happen when a person is able to cope well with their shame by polarizing into superiority to avoid falling into feelings of inferiority. And many can be fooled that this person comes across as a confident person. But more often than not, misogynistic guys aren't as good at coping and hiding their insecurities. It's just like if someone feels shame, and polarizes into achievement to temporarily bolster their sense of self-efficacy to feel superior instead of inferior. Some people can keep that up and keep running on the floating log of achievement. But far more often than not, people fail to stay afloat on the floating log and end up in the waters of shame and inferiority.... and they can't motivate themselves at all.

Yes, women tend to be more socially aware than men on average. We are better at socializing as an aggregate... partially due to nature and partially due to nurture. But just because men aren't as good at meeting their social needs compared to women, doesn't mean they need them less. In fact, they might potentially need them more BECAUSE they aren't as good at socializing. It's kind of like if humanity evolved into a form where people needed to be constantly lifting really heavy weights to get by, women might struggle to adapt to such a society quite a bit more than men. And they may require more outside assistance. The same thing is true with connection and men. Connection is a heavier weight for men to lift. And it's evident to me that men are struggling to adapt to hyper-individualistic society far more than women are... precisely because women on the whole have greater levels of talent with regard to social connection. I know a great many people that I've met as friends and as clients in my role as a coach. And 8 times out of 10, it is the men who are struggling the most with loneliness and connection. And there was a study that came out of older men and women whose spouses passed away. And when the women's husbands died, the women were still able to keep themselves together and live full social lives. The men, on the other hand, really fell apart and became isolated and struggled to care for themselves and their homes when their wives passed away. Now, this could be because they were studying a populace that had a clear delineation in the man's and woman's roles. And women had learned to socialize, cook, clean, and all that other stuff that's necessary to maintain a quality of life. While men had learned more individualistic achievement-oriented skills like working and making money, which became less relevant upon old age and retirement. But when we think of socializing only as something women need and we don't teach men how to connect and the importance of finding community, it is men that end up suffering for that misconception.

Men's survival also requires it. No human being is exempt from our collectivist nomadic wiring. And the bottom three rungs of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs (which your channel is named for) have always been met through existing within a community. Men did not evolve in different circumstances than women. To say that women need social connection and that men don't, is like saying women need food and men don't. Every single man (prior to a couple hundred years ago) who survived and went on to reproduce lived a life that was deeply intertwined with a community of people. And the more socially adapted a man was, the more likely he was to reproduce. Men today are less social because they have more of a capacity to ignore their needs and disconnect because men are encouraged to be stoic and disconnect from their feelings and needs, while women are more generally more in touch with the goings-on of our nervous system and sensitized to their feelings. And my conjecture is that men tend to have more of this emotional disconnection capacity because men who tended to be the ones that would need to kill animals and other people to provide and go to war for the community. So, there is a built-in capacity for emotional numbing when circumstances call for it. But just because a man has that built in Novocaine to help him go unconscious to his emotions and needs, doesn't mean he doesn't have those emotions and needs. He can just go selectively unaware of his emotions and needs for short periods of time if the situation calls for it. It's the same way that, if you numbed your hand and stuck it down on a hot stove... you may not feel the pain but the harm is still being done. The issue with the way things are is that men tend to be fed with ideas about how to be Masculine that focuses on rugged individualism and personal achievement. And in a more individualistically oriented society where there is the possibility of getting our physical needs met without social connection, men might have less of a tendency to seek out connection because of these hyper-individualistic achievement-oriented tendencies that are enforced by the culture. But it's really clear if you look around the men are collectively hurting a lot more than women are by a hyper-individualistic society... precisely because they don't feel their hand resting on the hot stove as much as women do.

Men's survival requires it just as much as women's. Men often just don't realize it and go numb to these needs because of certain contemporary narratives around individualism, self-sufficiency, and being the lone wolf. But these narratives aren't that old. For 97.5% of the run-time of our species, we lived in small nomadic groups that relied on each other for survival. And 2.5% of the run-time of our species, we lived in tight-knit agrarian communities that relied on each other for survival and had shared community and rituals for everything. And even now (over the past couple hundred years) in industrial and post-industrial times, we still rely on others for survival. We're just more spread out and socialize less often. And we don't cultivate the community element very well. There's never been a time where a large number of solitary men have gone out in the wilderness to hack it on their own. And so, men have never evolved the wiring to exist and survive outside of a social context. Our wiring is still nomadic and communal. It's only pop cultural narratives and myths that make that seem like being a lone wolf without a social circle is viable option for men. And it's a dangerous narrative as well that leads to men to isolating themselves and not acknowledging their needs for connection and community. And then we end up with the political mess we're in right now because all of that male pain and sadness has to go somewhere.

Yes, they repress and push their Feminine side away from themselves as much as possible because they hate and are ashamed of their Feminine side. And then, they feel this lack and this craving for wholeness and integration with the Feminine. And they put the blame and responsibility onto women to operate as their own Feminine side to fix their own lack of integration and wholeness. And they feel powerless to women because they feel that only women can validate them and save their from their own shame. And when women can't/won't fill that role of making up for their own repressed Feminine, they feel resentful towards women. They feel like women have all this power to fill this void for them and validate their existence to reprieve them of shame, but that women just refuse to because they're being evil man-haters and/or have been brainwashed by Feminists. So, every encounter with an attractive woman becomes this intense projection of a mythos of Shadow boxing with their own repressed Feminine side that they want desperately to integrate with to feel whole... but also hate and feel ashamed of and try to marginalize within their own being. But they do not realize the call is coming from inside of the house. And then, all these feelings are there that most men are totally overwhelmed by. But some men who are very disconnected from their emotions may lose the awareness of these vulnerabilities from their conscious mind despite still operating off of them unconsciously.

Perhaps that's true for Andrew Tate in particular because he's a famous fighter and he can put on an aggressive show that some women would find interesting. And there are quite a few guys like him that exist. I've encountered quite a few. In the little redneck town I grew up in, there would be these emotionally blunted mildly attractive trashy guys with macho vibes. Maybe 1 or 2 out of every 20 guys were like that. And they'd usually have a few average to slightly above average looking trashy women getting into cat fights (and sometimes fist fights) over them because these types of guys are always cheating. Andrew Tate kind of reminds of the Platonic Ideal of that type of local yokel. He's what that type of person thinks they are and are trying very hard to be. And certainly these guys are misogynistic. And they get laid pretty often because their social circle is still partially in Stage Red and values what they are. And many trashy women are looking for a Stage Red petty warlord to turn into a Stage Blue trad hubby with the power of her love and body... which of course is a fool's errand. But these guys only account for a fraction of misogynists that are out there. And they only get saved from the awkwardness around women because small redneck towns are very social. And working class people are more communal in their ways of operating. And because they are somewhat proximal to the Masculine beauty standard, especially compared to others in the same environment, they can garner some popularity in that environment. So, he gets saved from the awkward social isolation and manifesto writing because he's a Stage Red/Blue guy in a Stage Blue communal setting where there are other Red/Blue men and women who see him like the villagers in Beauty and the Beast see Gaston. But I understand that, even men who are becoming emotionally stunted and unable to interact normally with women because of watching people like Andrew Tate, believe they're benefiting. And they believe he's helping them and that the misogynistic view of women will eventually pay off and they'll be getting tons of sex once they pull it off. It's what happens when people believe that the poison is the cure and that the cure is the poison. Here's an example of a (really accurate) parody of the type of guy that I'm talking about who does get laid more because he's misogynistic...

1) That's true. It's more about their perception. 2) I somewhat doubt that misogynistic guys (on the whole) get more sex than guys who aren't. My observation has been that guys who are more misogynistic than average tend to be obsessed with women and put women up on a pedestal, which is why they put so much energy into hating women and trying to tear us down from that pedestal. And my guess from what I've observed about misogynists and been on the receiving end of is that 90% of the time, that leads to lots of insecurity and difficulty approaching and communicating with women. The more hatred, the more obsession. The more obsession, the more desperation. The more desperation the more social avoidance and awkwardness. The more misogynistic a guy gets, the more he loses the ability to have a normal human interaction with women. It's only like 10% of misogynistic guys who go out and do pick up and can pull off the misogynistic macho man vibe that might get him laid here and there. And this is only possible if a guy is able to gain the respect of other men for his machoness. The rest just seethe in their room about alpha males fucking all the women and write manifestos. Like, look around on this forum (or other places on the internet where men tend to congregate) and you'll find plenty examples of your truly average middle-of-the-road misogynist. And these guys usually give me inexperienced awkward nerdy vibes. But I'm sure Andrew Tate himself is getting a lot of sex. But he's got a lot of aggression and the ability to block out all of his insecurities through emotional disconnection. So, even if it's clear to the trained eye that he's got tons of vulnerabilities, I can see a woman who hasn't developed that radar to fall for his macho man act. But that's why he's famous. He's an exceptional misogynist... an aspirational misogynist. Most misogynists are usually just guys with no social skills who believe like women hold the power to validate or invalidate the value of their existence. And they get resentful and catty about that.

These are generalizations based off of what I've observed. My perception is that men tend to be more lonely because they're less likely to develop social connections with the broader community in general and more likely to think of themselves as independent/loners. And there's this belief that men should be strong and not need anyone. And men might be less likely to reach out to others fro support. So, I think it may be the case that women are more likely to feel their loneliness and acknowledge it. But men may not acknowledge or share because they believe they shouldn't feel lonely or need anyone.