mr_engineer

@Emerald Real men, the kind of men you want. How they react to the embodiment of these 'good' qualities vs the lack of embodiment of them. People are so unconscious these days that I have to use the language of manipulation, honestly. This is how you 'manipulate us' into being better, so to speak. You want me to tell you exactly what to do?! I won't do that, that would be too 'tyrannical'. Also, I'm not a woman. Competent women can guide you on that front. I talk about what the principle would be for a 'good woman' to embody, then I talk about a prevalent problem where it can be applied and I talk about a payoff to embody that principle. Now, how you go about doing that, is on you. And your unique creative-abilities. And your individual identity. I want to create an equal opportunity for women to improve! Men have that, on that thread. There have to be stakes, right?! The point of doing this is to show you the stakes and why it's important for you to be doing this. On that thread, he encouraged female opinions. Here, I'm encouraging male opinions. Women can reply too! It's not like I'm blocking you from replying anyways... Listen, I understand, you have been traumatized by the patriarchy of unconscious men telling you 'how to be a good woman'. If you don't like men telling you that, this thread is not for you. And, if you have the discernment between men saying nonsense about 'beauty-standards' and 'rigid gender-roles' vs men talking about truly embodying important feminine qualities, read the posts and see how you can apply them!

By soliciting the ones I find credible. If someone is trying to indoctrinate me with a bad self-concept without me soliciting it, I become suspicious of their intentions and reasons for doing that to me. It's not that I can't take an ego-hit, it's the issue of credibility and intent.

As a man, being respected means - to be received, to be given a fair chance to perform. Being disrespected means - being given unsolicited criticism. I tend to not take that well, I tend to deflect it back. I only receive criticism well when I solicit it.

Yeah, but who's going to battle the assholes for us?! Women?! Children?! No. We have to do it.

Here's how my logic went - men are not given respect on a silver platter. We have to earn the respect. Every single bit of it. Why should women be entitled to respect on a silver platter?

Here's what I think - To give respect to women is to be a giver, to give them something. And, to disrespect them, is to be a taker. This is what it means to show respect to the part of them that is 'receptive'. And, should it be given freely, or should it be earned - it should be earned. (Not the thing that you're giving in and of itself, that'll make it 'transactional'. And that, counter-intuitively, will be perceived as 'disrespect'.) The respect for the part of them that's receptive should be earned.

@NoSelfSelf Yeah, that's how it would work for an actual asshole. The way I saw it, I let it self-destruct because I saw that the return was not worth it. Here I am, being inauthentic, being the asshole in the group, creating issues with my friends for this girl I've just met and what I got, was her being nice to me to 'fix' me. I found that disrespectful. This basically made it so I never envy assholes who get laid a lot ever again in my life. They take the hit to their image for some pussy. This destroys their prospects of finding a long-term relationship in that circle, because they build that fuckboy reputation. And, even if they do get a girlfriend, it will be a toxic relationship. As it should be! I saw a pattern of mutual manipulation and got out of it immediately. And, I urge the guys who believe this 'nice guy and asshole' myth to do this experiment and see this for themselves.

@koyadr3 When I was in your shoes, I tried being an asshole. And, it kinda worked, but not in a good way. Let me explain how I did that. I participated in a chess-tournament with my friends. There, we performed well. All of us won some cash prize or the other. My prize was the biggest. And, we met a girl there, she became our friend. She wanted to hang with us after the tournament, cuz we were supposed to be partying after winning a cash-prize, right?! We went to a restaurant. And, they gave a treat, but I didn't give a treat. I decided 'I don't want to waste my money partying, I want to be smart with my money'. It was non-conformism to people being nice, in a relatively low-stakes situation. And, it was an asshole-thing to do, let's just be honest. And, I saw the effect that had on the girl. She started being really nice and kind to me, in order to placate me and 'fix' me! But, the problem with this is that I felt disrespected. That's when I started feeling fatigued because of the inauthenticity of what I was doing. Because, let's face facts - I did want to give the treat. Who wouldn't?! And, because of my fatigue, my frame self-destructed. I didn't do or say much, I acted kinda petty. I don't regret this too much, cuz the stakes weren't too high. I wasn't really into this girl, she was just the first female-interaction I'd had in a long while and I took my opportunity to try out something I thought would work. And, I didn't do something really horrible to her. It was just a little step towards being mean. And this was the reaction it had. (What this also did for me is that it killed off any future impulse I could've had to be a simp.) I'd suggest you do something similar. If you think that 'being nice doesn't work', fine. Be the asshole and see what happens!

Yeah. That's why I'm not really a fan of that thread. Cuz it's not truly solution-oriented relative to specific issues we see. The point of the forum, honestly, is to go into specifics of how to embody these principles. If you want a list of ideals, you can google 'femininity' or 'qualities of femininity'.

The point of doing this is to elaborate more on how the positive can be embodied, and in contrast, what the lack of embodying the positive looks like. I could make it a trite little list of 'a good woman is supportive, has good boundaries, blah blah blah' but we all know that, we've all seen it everywhere. And yet here we are, still having this discussion. So, I have to preface it by talking about why we're having it.

@Myioko Let's stay on topic here, if you don't mind. If you want to talk about men, here's your thread.

Someone who has brains, who can communicate properly. Women can talk a lot of nonsense at times. If you're smart and what you're saying makes sense, that's useful and it'll earn you respect. Someone who has a fundamentally positive mindset, who is solution-oriented. A problem-oriented woman is a drag on your shoulders. Solution-orientedness, however, can actually be empowering for the woman within the relationship! If you have a compatible team-dynamic. Someone who you can be vulnerable with. If you can't be vulnerable with her, I don't see a reason to seriously commit to her. If you want kids, someone you can't be vulnerable with, probably won't be a good mother anyways. It's very important that you have a woman who won't beat your kid when they cry. (Literally or metaphorically) Someone who has a clear-cut role for you in her life. In the patriarchy, men did this work for women cuz women weren't that empowered. Now that women have empowerment, as they say, with great power, comes great responsibility. Take the reins of figuring out which person belongs where in your life, especially men. Cuz men are very purpose-driven. And receptivity is a core feature of femininity. (If you don't do this, you will attract tyrannical men who tell you where to go, where to not go, whom to be with, whom to not be with, etc. So, I strongly urge women to take this responsibility.) Someone who understands the importance of interdependence. It is a core facet of female well-being. Women have to depend on others, especially men, to do things for them. 'Independence' is a myth. For everyone. Especially women and children. Someone who has clear-cut sexual-boundaries. If you don't do that, you will inadvertently use sex as a manipulation-tactic. And you'll do the mixed-signals thing. This is a problem with women who don't have clear sexual boundaries. An analogous problem is men who use money/power as a manipulation-tactic, the MeToo situation. Someone who has a concrete, rationally formed vision for how they want society to look. Women, understandably, have a lot of problems with how society works. But, very few of them have solutions. (I have a ton of respect for the ones who do, by the way.) This is the point about problem-orientedness vs solution-orientedness, but on a grand scale. This really overwhelms men, collectively. Not because we can't create that society, because we can't read your mind about how you'd rather have things be. (This one is my bias) Someone who is supportive. If you want to be a rebel, masculine men are going to want to turn away from that. They tend to be very efficient and they tend to not have time for it. They tend to want supportive women. Feel free to add to this list!

You're welcome.

You didn't. I just tend to want to check whether women who talk the big talk are walking their talk or not. Nothing personal. Also, on the one hand, you say that 'submission means to forcefully self-diminish to fit into a rigid role'. And, on the other hand, you say that 'a tyrant is born out of insecurity'. Wouldn't an insecure person in a position of power, or 'tyrant', be moving the line of what the other person's role is, to then disempower the other person? Because, with a role, comes power. So, wouldn't the fluidity of a role actually serve and enable a tyrant? For example, in a traditional patriarchy, if a woman's role is to cook, she has the 'power over the kitchen', in a certain sense. The man has to eat whatever she cooks. Now, if he doesn't have clear boundaries in what he likes and doesn't like, this will make him 'insecure'. And, this will make it so he moves the line with what she should cook and that'll become 'controlling and tyrannical', so to speak. (Apply the same logic to sex, if you want) But, if he has clear boundaries as to what he likes, she'll know how to be secure with him and things will run smoothly, even though the roles are 'rigid'. Right?!

@Emerald Oh! Okay, you're not totally full of shit, you actually have some positive things to say about men. Good to see that. This is the only point I don't fully agree with. From a feminine perspective, submissiveness doesn't have to be self-diminishing. Because, receptivity is a part of feminine power. Would you say that rejecting the 'insecure men' is a fear-based decision? You may call it 'pragmatism' or 'safety'. Is 'insecurity' in a man associated with 'unsafety'?

What are those women who aren't feeling powerless to men doing right? Ma'am, you don't know one thing about what it's like to be a man, so I'd suggest you stay out of shit-talking men.

This is the projection. The truth is the other way around. Women try to make men feel powerless, because they feel powerless to men! Stop playing these power-games and everything will be fine. Men will figure themselves out. Don't get in the way. And, as far as your power is concerned - you don't have to fight men for it. There is this thing called 'feminine power' that you can step into! Learn more about it.

He hasn't released his video on conscious relationships yet. He plans to. I think this picture is being painted of him right now, simply because he talked about 'How to get laid' first.

Dude, my uncle said it's real. These people have incentives to push a political agenda. I'm not denying that this is a problem in the US. My point is that free healthcare isn't going to fix this. I live in India. And here, if you live in a city, such long wait-times are unheard of. There are enough cardiologists, neurologists, gynaecologists, nephrologists here to cater to a huge population. Because the college here is cheap. I'm telling you, that's the solution. The government-facilities are absolute trash. (Not projecting that onto US or Canada) But, if you pay, you get the good stuff on time. No, you don't. If you did, the prices wouldn't be so over-inflated. The quality is very good, but the quantity isn't enough.

@Emerald Don't worry, he's teaching men how to go for women who actually have femininity. Not women who make everything about power and who enter power-struggles with men for no reason. Cuz, guess what - you can't lead a woman who is fighting you for power. He teaches men to lead women properly and ethically. The whole power-thing is a projection.

@Hardkill I don't know about the West but here, in India, time-efficiency is everything because of the population. You avoid wait-times like the plague here! Cuz the queues are insanely long. I have an uncle in Canada and when he said that 'I have to wait 6 weeks to get a doctor's appointment' or 'I have to wait 2 months to get bloodwork done', that painted a really ugly picture for me. It's unheard of here or even in the US. In the second video, he said 'doctors make decisions based on their best judgement'. Right, but logistic decisions aren't made by a doctor. They're made by the government! 'People aren't dying in wait-lines. The wait-lines are only for those who are moderately sick! You have to wait until you get more serious. Then, we'll take you seriously!' And, money is a factor that you control. You control how much you make, you choose your socio-economic class in life. You choose the health-decisions too. And, I think that people should have the freedom to take preventative measures, get their check-ups on time, rather than having things escalate and needing cure-measures for the system to take you more seriously. I can totally picture an athletically built Canadian saying 'Why do I have to wait 2 months for my bloodwork, because some obese, broke person didn't take care of their health?! Why are resources that I have the means to pay for and that I value a lot, getting redistributed to the weaker people of my society?!' Because you need a lot more resources to have both. If you're struggling with an inflation of prices in the US or wait-times in Canada, the solution is to pick one of the two systems that's more productive/resourceful in the long-term.

Do you see Canada's healthcare system as a success or a failure? I think progressives and conservatives don't agree on the answer to this question. But, if you want to know the systemically sound way to get free healthcare, here's how it goes - you cheapen college and you incentivize more students to go into medicine. This will create a bubble in the job-market for doctors, it won't be as lucrative anymore. (Similar to the tech-bubble) Then, you create a free healthcare system on a grand scale, where you make it accessible to all and you run it efficiently. Give doctors a better paycheck than what capitalism gives them and set up more facilities for people to access.

Here's how the conservative argument will go. They will point to UK and Canada, at the lines and wait-times for a doctor's appointment. And they'll say 'they have 'free health-care. Yet, it's not readily available when we need it. Why shouldn't I be able to get immediate health-care if I have the means to pay for it, if I have an insurance?! Poor people are lazy anyways, so let them wait in the lines! Let me get access.' Here's my systems-thinking on this - as long as there is a scarcity of resources, doctors, hospitals, there will be competition for it. This is the point of capitalism, essentially - to determine who wins and who loses. Now, what is the solution to the problem of scarcity?! More capitalism! More productivity. More building of medical facilities. Hold your politicians accountable for these premature political agendas. If they're leftists, they will say anything to get the support of far-left extremists like communists. They will not want to piss off extremists who benefit them. Nothing, absolutely nothing is free in this world. Be mindful of the true price of what you're asking for. Healthcare services are so essential that any change in them will occur only if the industry itself initiates it. Through development of new technology and better systems. You can't threaten this industry with bans. You can't say 'Make this change, or else, we ban you for a year'. There have to be people in the industry with a conscience, who initiate positive change in it.

If you want to form a utopian world, form an Osho-style commune, gather in a circle and sing Kumbaya. Perfectly fine. Don't needlessly fight people who are not on your level. And, if you want to stop their injustices, outcompete them in a fair competition. Don't engage in moral condemnation, because it will get deflected onto you, one way or another. Don't let corrupt politicians divide and rule you. Lying is the job-description of a politician anyways. So, don't get swayed by them.