The Manosphere Isn't About Men. Or Women

[enchanted]

1 hour ago, Lila9 said:

1 No I don't agree with him and I honestly don't trust him, and his soft voice sounds not genuine.

2  This is clear to anyone who has eyes and ears.

3 There are homeless women (even with children) too.

 

1 You don't trust him because his voice?  Imagine I said I don't trust a female doctor because of her voice? 

2 It's isn't clear that's why there's debate on it. 

3 Yes but there are way more homeless men than women. So by that metric women are better off. 

Edited 19 hours ago by enchanted

[Lila9]

2 hours ago, enchanted said:

Well if the narrative that men control everything is true then everything around you - both good and bad- is created by men. But Farrel disagrees with this theory and suggestions women and the average man play a much more significant role in society than current narratives suggest. This demonstrates his background in feminism. 

Men don't control everything, but men have more power. I genuinely want to know what are the advantages of this system? Who it benefits?

2 hours ago, enchanted said:

Regarding your other points and arguments, they are one sided towards the female perspective. To truly get a grasp of this topic - which you are clearly very passionate about- I encourage you to explore the male perspective a little. If you think the male perspective is not worth exploring then that's your first clue you are missing a huge piece of the puzzle. 

Yes there's work to be done to improve the lives of people. Women are the only surpressed group that hold a majority at the polls. The next election women could change everything. 

From what I see, the male perspective is often very entitled and misogynistic.

They often view things in a such distorted and selfish way. 

Yet, I see men as human beings more than they see me as a human being.

My level of compassion toward men and all living beings is something that most men will never grasp or feel about women.

[enchanted]

2 minutes ago, Lila9 said:

From what I see, the male perspective is often very entitled and misogynistic.

They often view things in a such distorted and selfish way. 

Yet, I see men as human beings more than they see me as a human being.

My level of compassion toward men and all living beings is something that most men will never grasp or feel about women.

Well there you go.  Here's your huge blindspot and an opportunity for you to grow. 

Edited 17 hours ago by enchanted

[Lila9]

2 hours ago, enchanted said:

1 You don't trust him because his voice?  Imagine I said I don't trust a female doctor because of her voice? 

2 It's isn't clear that's why there's debate on it. 

3 Yes but there are way more homeless men than women. So by that metric women are better off. 

This is about the manipulative way he uses this soft, spiritual voice. It feels forced, and I sense a lack of genuineness.

Who is at fault of homelessness? Why there is homelessness?

[Lila9]

6 minutes ago, enchanted said:

Well there you go.  Here's your huge blindspot and an opportunity for you to grow. 

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

[enchanted]

2 hours ago, Lila9 said:

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

It shows you don't have a proper understanding of the other side of the debate. Men don't see their perspective as distorted, selfish, entitled, and misogynistic. Until you can articulate the other side of the argument as they see it, you don't have a complete understanding of the topic. 

Edited 15 hours ago by enchanted

[enchanted]

32 minutes ago, Lila9 said:

1 This is about the manipulative way he uses this soft, spiritual voice. It feels forced, and I sense a lack of genuineness.

2 Who is at fault of homelessness? Why there is homelessness?

1 what we "sense" isn't always correct.

2 It's a class struggle. There are cities without homelessness (e.g. Helsinki) but I bet you would still call them a patriarchy. 

[enchanted]

53 minutes ago, Lila9 said:

I genuinely want to know what are the advantages of this system? Who it benefits?

 

You can't think of anything good in the world? That's another blindspot

Edited 16 hours ago by enchanted

[Natasha Tori Maru]

2 hours ago, Lila9 said:

This is about the manipulative way he uses this soft, spiritual voice. It feels forced, and I sense a lack of genuineness.

It is a great tool to be able to separate how we feel about a delivery, from the actual facts, information and words used.

If our perception of facts/information + tone/delivery are jumbled together, it often leads us to defer to our feelings, over the truth.

[Lila9]

8 hours ago, enchanted said:

It shows you don't have a proper understanding of the other side of the debate. Men don't see their perspective as distorted, selfish, entitled, and misogynistic. Until you can articulate the other side of the argument as they see it, you don't have a complete understanding of the topic. 

You asked me what I think about this interview. I answered that I don't agree with him that women and men are equally powerful, and I explained why.

This doesn't mean that I don't acknowledge men's suffering.

Both can be true: they suffer and are oppressors. If you can't see it, I don't know how to help you. And no, I didn't give my consent for debate. I just shared my opinion. 

7 hours ago, enchanted said:

1 what we "sense" isn't always correct.

2 It's a class struggle. There are cities without homelessness (e.g. Helsinki) but I bet you would still call them a patriarchy. 

Class and patriarchy are interwoven. Why are there poor people to begin with when there is such abundance on earth? Because there is a system built on hoarding wealth and power (mostly by men) at the expense of everyone else.

But as long as it gives you the tiniest privilege over women, you will blindly support it and never question it. Men made a bargain with the devil. The same goes for women who uphold the patriarchy.

7 hours ago, enchanted said:

You can't think of anything good in the world? That's another blindspot

The world is not the unnatural, human-made civilization.

I can think of many good things about life and existence.

But I need your help to understand what is good in patriarchal and neoliberal civilization. If you believe I have a blind spot, then please enlighten me. Why can’t you say anything good about it yourself?

[Lila9]

5 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

It is a great tool to be able to separate how we feel about a delivery, from the actual facts, information and words used.

If our perception of facts/information + tone/delivery are jumbled together, it often leads us to defer to our feelings, over the truth.

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

[Rafael Thundercat]

On 14/04/2026 at 7:42 AM, gettoefl said:

Woman means not-man in Hebrew

Where is the proof that this this the true origin of the word Woman??

[Rafael Thundercat]

Will we ever arrive in a full explanation of this manosphere, respill  misoginy gender wars thing. Because while we dont solve this shit a lot of people are suffering and even getting killed Because if it. In Brasil for example the feminicide is rising a lot. 

[Spiral]

@Rafael Thundercat This isn’t the sort of thing one just solves. It goes away on its own. Give it 25 years 

[Basman]

I thought the word woman comes from womb-man. 

[Lila9]

Men don’t understand that feminists are not fighting against men.

They are fighting for your soul, because society is trying to break it.

Men are not inherently aggressive. This is a myth. Research shows that infant boys are often more emotionally reactive and sensitive than girls. Patriarchy works very hard to “harden” men.

(Book recommendation: Why Patriarchy Persists by Naomi Snyder which explores how boys and girls are socialized under patriarchy and how those forces shape relationships, behavior, and identity).

Patriarchy promised men a throne and told them that being a man means dominating, possessing, and being “alpha.” But at what cost? Isolation, higher suicide rates, and detachment from the soul and the community.

Men feel unloved because the system wants their labor, while the community once wanted their soul. Only within a community are men valued for who they are.

For most of human history, men were not lone wolves but deeply integrated into their communities.

They were protectors of the tribe, not submissive soldiers of hierarchy.

The patriarchal and capitalistic system stole their village and gave them a mortgage.

This is not their fault, but it is their problem. Patriarchy and capitalism benefit when men are lonely and starving for power. Lonelier men are easier to control and easier to send to war. 

The lone wolf idea is a capitalist fantasy. In nature, a lone wolf is often a wolf that is close to death. Real wolves, like real humans, thrive in packs. Alone, you are easier to break.

When communities were destroyed, boys lost their mentors. They were left in a system that values only what they can produce, not who they are. This is why so many men feel empty and unloved inside.

When feminists and women speak about feminism in a passionate, even provocative way, it is meant to shake men awake, so they can see that what patriarchy presents as their “best interests” are actually the worst interests for their hearts and souls.

When feminists speak about matriarchy, they do not mean a reverse patriarchy.

They mean bringing men back into the fold. A circle where you do not have to be “alpha” in order to feel safe. You have a pack that has your back.

I don’t want young boys to grow up and inherit a world in which they must “conquer” in order to be seen, or be “alpha” in order to be treated as human.

I want them to inherit a village, a community where their sensitivity is their greatest strength.

Sensitivity is human. Being able to read the room, feel empathy, be intuitive, and connect with other human beings is what fulfilled men before patriarchy took over.

We are taught that testosterone is the “aggression hormone” that makes men naturally want to fight and dominate. But this is an oversimplified and patriarchal version of science, often used to justify oppression.

In communal societies, testosterone functions differently. It is not only for fighting, but for seeking status through contribution. In a healthy group, a man gains status by being helpful, generous, and a good protector.

When a man becomes a father and is deeply involved in childcare, his testosterone may actually decrease to make room for oxytocin the “bonding hormone.” His biology can shift to prioritize nurturing over competing.

Patriarchy takes that protective energy and distorts it. It tells men that the only way to protect is to own and control. It turns men’s biological strength into a weapon.

Before the Industrial Revolution, men worked in guilds, tribes, and communal groups. They had deep emotional bonds with other men.

They were not lonely, they had a village of brothers and sisters.

Capitalism needed men to be efficient units. It broke those communal bonds and turned men into competitors for a paycheck. It forces men into a lonely, nonstop grind where rest feels like weakness.

Are you exhausted? Of course you are exhausted.

There is also the patriarchal nuclear family trap, which can become a pressure cooker for men. They were told they must be the sole providers, which is an impossible and unnatural burden to carry alone.

The nonstop pace of modern life governed by the solar rhythm of 24/7 ignores the human need for cycles of rest (wintering) and renewal. This constant “on” state leads to high cortisol and chronic stress (and more aggression as a result).

Men’s bodies long for rhythms of rest and restoration (moon rhythm) just as much as women’s bodies do.

[NewKidOnTheBlock]

40 minutes ago, Lila9 said:

Before the Industrial Revolution, men worked in guilds, tribes, and communal groups. They had deep emotional bonds with other men.

LMFAO before the Industrial Revolution, there were Medieval Ages and the Roman Empire (arguably the most patriarchal society ever). I understand that you wokies don't really care about history and twist it the way that suits yall so I don't care to argue, but I'm just finding this part of your post funny LOOOL Literaly couldn't be more wrong. And the irony about this whole thing, is that it was most likely Industrial Revolution that actually allowed actualization of all these wokie worldviews. Much moreso than some increase of empathy and psychological development (although that is also important). In reality, your empathy is only as good as your survival options

[Elliott]

Most men have no problem with feminists, it's just incels and incel adjacent.

[Elliott]

16 minutes ago, NewKidOnTheBlock said:

LMFAO before the Industrial Revolution, there were Medieval Ages and the Roman Empire (arguably the most patriarchal society ever). I understand that you wokies don't really care about history and twist it the way that suits yall so I don't care to argue, but I'm just finding this part of your post funny LOOOL Literaly couldn't be more wrong. And the irony about this whole thing, is that it was most likely Industrial Revolution that actually allowed actualization of all these wokie worldviews. Much moreso than some increase of empathy and psychological development (although that is also important). In reality, your empathy is only as good as your survival options

 You don't understand what is meant by patriarchy. Rome did not control everyone's way of life, they mostly just taxed people, nor was the Roman empire as pervasive in everyone's lives for as long as it may seem, most of Europe were tribes during the period.

Irene of Athens (797–802 AD): Sole ruler of the Eastern Roman Empire; she ruled as Emperor, not Empress.

Theodora (c. 500–548 AD): Wife of Justinian I, often considered a co-ruler who significantly influenced law and women's rights.

Livia Drusilla (58 BC – AD 29): Wife of Augustus, often considered the first de facto empress with massive influence.

 

"Women in ancient Rome played a significant, often overlooked role in agriculture, particularly among the lower classes. Rural women engaged in farming family plots, shepherding, and tending crops,"

"Ancient Celtic women held significant, high-status positions, acting as warriors, rulers, and Druidesses with legal rights to property and divorce that far exceeded their Mediterranean counterparts. Historical figures like Queen Boudica, who led a massive uprising against Rome, and archaeological evidence of female warriors in Iron Age Britain indicate a society where women exerted, at times, equal power to men. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]"

 

The Queen of Sheba, named Bilqis in Arabic and Makeda in Geʽez, is a figure first mentioned in the Hebrew Bible. In the original story, she brings a caravan

 

Cleopatra

Queen of the Ptolemaic Kingdom of Egypt from 51 to 30 BC, and the last active Hellenistic pharaoh

 

Ancient Egypt is a prominent example, where women could own property, sign contracts, initiate divorce

 — Women in the Achaemenid Empire, Parthia, and the Sassanian Empire were allowed to serve in the military, conduct business as equals with men,

Edited just now by Elliott