mr_engineer

@Hardkill Because you need a political leader to lead this movement. And, who will do it? That's the real question. Who will be that sacrificial lamb, going against all of the elites and against the very things securing their positions?! In principle, everyone agrees that this is a problem. In practice, however, no one wants to bell this cat. It requires too much courage.

That is correct. I agree with that. However, the big challenge here is that women often-times aren't straight-forward when it comes to what they want. So, it can get hard to find credible female sources on what women want. But, of course, it can be done. And, I do agree that this fact shouldn't be blamed for their failure to understand what women want. Having said that, I do have sympathy for men stuck in those rabbit-holes for this reason. And, if they screw up their narrative of how things work, I can understand that. It can take years of research to figure out who's credible and who's not. Again, not blaming women for this. Just saying that women are not powerless to changing this situation. This is true. Which is why there is a very dire need for role-models for both men and women. Especially men. I have ideas for changes in the education-system in order to have a better future on this front. I will test them out. Let's see what happens! Alright. Something very fundamental to understand about men is that men are identified with what they do. By themselves and by others. Which is why, men need role-models. The point of this is to teach men to embody masculinity. Only self-actualized men can do this. Women cannot. And, men have genuine love and respect for these role-models. It's not just transactional or fear-based. And, another fundamental thing to understand about men is that men are givers. Or providers. Men have been wired like this because a pregnant woman cannot fend for herself. So, the father has to provide. Now, here's my claim - it is this impulse to give and to be significant that's behind men's drive to chase status. And, it is because of men's identification with what they do and this need for a role-model to look upto, that men accept being lower-status for now, with the hope that they will get status in the future. I agree with your assessment of how the system works. However, the blue-pilled men (for lack of better word) don't see it like this, because they are hyper-identified with their roles. The problem with this system that you're describing is that because humanity has been unconscious, men have had too small of a circle of concern. Which is what led to all of the war and genocide and oppression in history. It expanded as humanity developed more and more. But, I do not agree with your solution to this situation. Because, it would not be fair to purely demonize the men up above. They run the system and they can do this because they have competence. Young, ambitious men recognize that they have a lot to learn from them. Now, the system may suck, and they may have huge shadows. So, here's the solution - learn from the best right now, get better at what you do, then create a new system and outcompete them. If women could recognize this and align themselves with the right causes, that would be helpful. It would definitely be helpful for women, because they will have a place in the new system. And their femininity will be respected. 100%.

How do they liberate themselves from the victim's narrative? Men need to be given a practical alternative. 'Equality' is good in theory but in practice, someone has to be in charge. Who is it going to be? It's fine to say that the single-family home is not the 'end-all-be-all'. I agree. Having said that, how would you rather have society be structured? What should the building-block of society be, if not the single-family home? And the first step of this solution, on your part, is to recognize the kernel of truth in the old-school prescriptions. If you dismiss them as 'false', you will never get anywhere with them. Do keep in mind that men were not, in fact, subjugated into their masculine expression, unlike women. Men chose it. And for a reason. I think it would be interesting for you to figure out that reason. In good faith. So, do you mean, doing solo-approaching out of authentic desire instead of approaching to impress their friends or as a part of a group of boys? Because in the group one, I notice a lot of misinterpretation of the social reality that's biased by the bro-culture. But, when you're on your own, you see what's what.

I'm getting mental-masturbation vibes from this thread. If this is the problem, what's the solution? Are you trying to figure that out or is this more pointless male-bashing?

Yeah, when you fire your photons at her, she'll release electrons. That's what Einstein thinks.

@Jannes Yes, it is worth a shot. May the photons be with you!

In fact, if you ask women who are the most aware of men's problems, they will say that 'men should have mentoring and 'rites of passage' that have nothing to do with women'. Because they consider a man 'ready for relationship' only after he has 'grown up'.

Maybe you can make a case for stigmas. (Although, they do foment a culture of conditional love, which I'm not a big fan of) But, double-standards are a sign of low integrity, morally. And, these specific double-standards have been designed to appeal to the male ego first and foremost. The point of having a 'high-value man' be the guy who gets laid the most, is to justify having as much sex as they want. And, the point of having a 'high-value woman' be the virgins, is to be 100% sure that she's not carrying another man's child. I'm not arguing for 'equality' here. In the other thread, I went to great lengths to argue for acknowledging the differences. My issue here is that when we define 'high-value man' and 'high-value woman' based on sexual history and we have these specific standards, the agendas of both sides go at odds with each other. This is a problem, because in order to make a relationship work, both sides have to set aside their egos and focus on the relationship first, which is a system. And this system must be designed to meet the needs of all parties involved in a sustainable way. No hard feelings here either. ?

@Roy If I were a woman reading what you wrote, I would not be happy seeing you think that 'getting laid is a rite of passage'. It would make me feel objectified. It's a conquest-mindset and women are the trophy in your 'rite of passage'. Most women want this stigma of male virginity gone. Because they are aware that it is responsible for guys' bitterness and resentfulness for not having gotten laid early. Especially when there is such a huge double-standard of men with a higher body-count seen as 'higher-value' and women with a higher body-count seen as 'lower-value'. This is also responsible for the female stigma of 'sluttiness' and it causes the average guy a lot of problems in getting laid, because women don't want to look like sluts in front of their friends. This value-metric/status-metric is not sustainable precisely because it puts the agendas of both sides at odds with each other. I would argue that having a past of casual sex is detrimental to your ability to have a long-term relationship even if you're a guy. Because it brings about negative patterns in your ways of getting laid, that may or may not apply in long-term relationship. A lot of PUAs are simply using casual sex as an escape from attachment-style problems. They're avoidant and they just want sex, so they learn some game first and then hop from one woman to the next. Is this sustainable in relationship, if they do fall in love one day?! Nope. And, the first step to recognizing this is to take away the stigma of male virginity.

Day 1, lesson 1 of approaching - state is everything. And, you want to be in a masculine state. Here's what worked for me.

Here's the thing, though. When someone resists me being in his masculine, my red-flag antennas go up and I start looking for what's wrong with them. And then, what I do isn't 'giving advice'. It's having expectations! To treat me with respect. I'm staying humble about femininity. I'd suggest you stay humble about masculinity too. Cuz I have noticed a lot of ignorance about masculinity on your side too. Yeah, but when you go against my self-interest and then say that 'staying in your lane means that you don't have this expectation', you're asking me to be selfless. You have every right to want what you want. Perfectly fine. The problem starts when you have a certain self-biased definition of 'safe man' that you project onto everyone else. Other women don't agree with your definition of 'safe man'. I'm not giving a prescription of 'femininity'. I'm voicing my expectations of respectful treatment as a man. Feminists are the ones trying to come up with an 'objective definition' of sexism. My attitude, from the very beginning, has been 'to each their own'. If you have a son, I'd suspect he'd disagree with you on this. But, he won't tell you to your face, of course. Again, this is what may be right for you. I'd suggest you don't project your preferences onto everyone else. Here's where I disagree with you. I'd suggest you don't tell men how to embody their masculine. Because you don't know how to respect men. Men will not and should not listen to you about this. 'Chivalry is benevolent sexism'. When you make an integral part of masculinity in the context of relationship 'sexism' and you fight it, you are, in fact, stopping men from embodying their masculine.

@Emerald I respect your opinion on femininity. I don't think today's men will know that much about femininity, cuz they're not women. So, if you want to talk about woman-problems, I guess having a 'women's circle', so to speak, is the best for that...? I very much have selfish reasons for leading women to their feminine expression. So, first of all, if you have a problem with that, that's an unrealistic expectation of 'selflessness'. Real men are not selfless with women. The ones who are, become the 'nice guys'. This is my 'game', but in a conscious way. I see too much manipulation going on in the pick-up community and this is my solution to that problem. The thing is that for this to work, co-operation from women will be needed. Cuz if they don't, they'll keep getting manipulated by men who are actually sexist. I don't care how feminist they become, they'll still lose to the patriarchy. For this reason. When I say 'leading a woman to her feminine expression', I mean, in the context of relationship. My goal here is to have a good relationship and to make things work with women. It is a selfish goal. But, to my credit, I'm also looking out for their long-term best-interests here. Because the 'strong, independent woman' lifestyle is not sustainable. Ask any modern mother. This is why I'm spending all of this time debating this out and figuring out how to lead women to their feminine expression, in a respectful way. This is why I'm spending all of this time researching the meaning of 'sexism'. This is not fun for me either! But, I recognize that women have been traumatized by the patriarchy. I have a faster solution than 2-3 more waves of feminism. That is, to allow men to embody their authentic masculine expression (in relation to women, before you tell me that 'you shouldn't need female support for this'), to experience the benefits of that and to get the opposite experience of being fucked over by patriarchal, sexist men. This will resolve the root-traumas behind feminism. The wider society may go the way you're saying, which we can't do anything about. But, if individuals recognize this, we can get to where we want to get to much faster.

@Emerald First of all, it's not just 'my agenda'. I see feminine potential in these women getting wasted because of this stupid ideology of 'equality'. And I feel like helping them because of that. And, I'm not coming from a space of scarcity, I have plenty of abundance of good women in my life. So, I have no incentive to 'control them'. Secondly, this is called 'leadership'. I know, you don't know what it looks like for a good man to lead a woman to her authentic feminine expression. So, you dismiss all male leadership and chivalry as 'sexism'. It's alright, you're not there yet. I'd advise you to stay humble and keep your mind open.

I have had 'strong, independent women' defend the way they are. And I have been called sexist a bunch of times because I expected them to behave in feminine ways. For their own benefit, by the way. If they wake up to their feminine power, they'll be the ones who benefit the most. But, they didn't want to do that and their excuse was 'you're being sexist'. Now, I know what to make of that. I used the term 'blue-haired SJW' cuz it's a culturally relevant metaphor.

@Roy The reason I hyper-focused on your results is that first of all, you're a mod. So, you are a credible counter-example. And secondly, this test was made my academics. And they have to know what they're doing, they have to clearly define their ideas in the process of doing this. If I can beat their reasoning, I can beat the reasoning of some random blue-haired SJW who's yelling in my face.

@Emerald I'd say it is masculine. I looked into the test, despite my resistance to it. So, that's bravery. I figured out what academics think feminism is and what sexism is. That's research from credible sources, valuing facts over feelings. I applied it to reality and found a bunch of counter-examples. That's critical thinking. I was able to demonstrate credible counter-examples here. That's assertiveness. (Got warning-points for that, which says something) I came to practically applicable conclusions and started acting accordingly. That's action on what I learned. I was able to rationally counter resistance to what I was doing. That's level-headed leadership. And then, I was vulnerable about my motivations. That's emotional consciousness. And finally, I showed you what you have to gain from this. That's being purpose-driven. BOOM! There you go.

Good blogging-practice! Thanks for the opportunity.

It's not this trauma that led to my negative opinion of feminism. It's the way the feminist conditioning hurt me. And this conditioning doesn't just come from the family, it comes from the culture. And people you meet everywhere. Like saying that 'chivalry is benevolent sexism'. Not even from what anti-feminists say, from what feminists say! So, before you point out to me that the root-cause of my trauma is not feminism, you're right. The point of me talking about my traumas is to tell you why I care about this. I'm not forming irrational opinions based on trauma. And, if you come looking for trauma, you will find trauma. I could do the same with you. Correlation does not imply causality. I daresay that taking what I say seriously could benefit you. I urge you to question your feminist conditioning, where you have to be 'equal' to women. Where you have to abandon your masculinity and 'become more feminine'. It is this desire to contribute something positive to both men and women that's motivating me. I'm not pointlessly ranting here. And, I can only feel sorry for people who think that I'm 'playing victim because of trauma'. You're saying that because you're lost in the conditioning!! And there is no biological/psychological basis for it. We are physically different, epistemically different (the masculine epistemology is facts-first and the feminine epistemology is feelings-first, which is why men respond better than women to stress/pressure) and psychologically different (men are hardwired to protect, women are hardwired to seek protection). And feminism says that all of this is BS.

Doesn't make me wrong. And it's not 'anti-SJW content'. It's real life.

If I'm going to be very honest, the reason I made the thread of 'What does it mean to respect women?' was that my feminist conditioning was confusing me about this. Because I didn't know what 'sexism' even meant. But now, on this thread, when I took the test, things are making a lot more sense now. I don't know about you people, but my conclusion from all of this work, has been that feminist conditioning has been what's getting in my way when it comes to embodying my masculinity. And, the traumatic experience I mentioned previously was thanks to feminism as well. And, to top it all, feminism is the reason my mom got the bright idea of being a 'strong, independent woman', which is why I was raised only by one parent. If not for this toxic anti-male ideology, she would've remarried and I would've had some masculine role-modelling. So, I know what I'm talking about.

You keep jumping to these conclusions, that 'it is an unhealthy way of viewing the world'. And you have no proof for that. Look at @Roy's results and how they relate to his life. Then tell me what's healthy and what's unhealthy. I know, you want a negative sob-story of 'trauma' and 'suffering' that's behind my views. The reality is that I've also had positive experiences with women and that has taught me a lot about their psychology. And they've told me that feminism destroys their ability to be feminine. Because it shames them for wanting to be feminine. It also happens to shame men for being masculine!! As said previously, chivalry is benevolent sexism. Interesting. Maybe it's not our masculinity and femininity that's the problem here, but the woke ideology that's scapegoating it. I will not open my mind to outright lies like 'chivalry is benevolent sexism'. This is very disrespectful and offensive to a lot of good, decent men. Because chivalry is the natural way that men show respect to women. Open-mindedness doesn't mean that you open your mind to any nonsense. What's BS, is BS. End of story.

I took the sexism-test, I studied it inside-out. I know what I'm talking about. And that's what's being defended here. The trauma happened because feminism is conceptually antithetical to the idea of gender. To 'equalize' men and women, means to destroy the male and female identities. They want to say 'I don't see gender'. (Analogous to 'I don't see color'.) Daddy-issues. That's why they're passionate. It's not complicated! They hate men, they hate women who act like women, who act feminine, so they want to destroy both identities. And they call that 'equality'. You're saying that the people driven by anti-feminist ideology are driven by 'trauma'. And, I'm presuming that you're saying that that's evil, that creates 'evil sexist men'. I'm saying that feminists are driven by trauma. So, by your logic, that's also evil, right?! You can't un-indoctrinate lived experiences. You can't un-indoctrinate a genuine experience of masculine and feminine energy and how they work well together. And how feminism gets in the way of that.

To all the feminists worried about my dating-life because of my 'bias' - don't worry. I'll be fine. @Sincerity, I stand by what I said. Feminists are the biased ones. And their bias is anti-male. And you will have to prove this wrong. I have proof for what I said. The logic and proof is in front of you. Now, you will have to counter that with logic and proof. Not ad--hominems.

@Emerald I've already shown the middle-finger to feminists on the topic of dating. I don't need your condescension on this front anymore, thanks.

You didn't answer the question. What is your opinion on this?!