Writing Uploads

I Am a Masculinist, Not an Activist

I do not advocate positive masculinity theory: it explains all men's issues as symptomatic of patriarchy. I do not engage in activism with MISANDRIST feminists because they advocate positive masculinity theory. Feminists also believe toxic femininity can be explained away by the presence of men.

I am not some blue-haired nose-ringed tread mill-o-phobic MAN-HATING keyboard warrior punk that claims to go on strikes, protests and engage with crowds of anti-patriarchal non-gender conformist intersectional feminist post-racial post-modernist faux-intellectuals.
I do not donate to charities or help impoverished drug dealers and thieves in ghetto-ised communities sing KUMBAYAH.
I am not a feminist ally:
Not all men want to PROSELYTISE.
Some men are reformed from their own toxic masculinity and see it as hypocritical to proselytise.
Some men are physically vulnerable and believe they may be subject to assault if they proselytise (friends included).
I Am a Masculinist, Not an Activist

 

Image above wouldn't go through because I fucked it, let's try again

 

I Am a Masculinist, Not an Activist

I do not advocate positive masculinity theory: it explains all men's issues as symptomatic of patriarchy. I do not engage in activism with MISANDRIST feminists because they advocate positive masculinity theory. Feminists also believe toxic femininity can be explained away by the presence of men.

I am not some blue-haired nose-ringed tread mill-o-phobic MAN-HATING keyboard warrior punk that claims to go on strikes, protests and engage with crowds of anti-patriarchal non-gender conformist intersectional feminist post-racial post-modernist faux-intellectuals.
I do not donate to charities or help impoverished drug dealers and thieves in ghetto-ised communities sing KUMBAYAH.
I am not a feminist ally:
Not all men want to PROSELYTISE.
Some men are reformed from their own toxic masculinity and see it as hypocritical to proselytise.
Some men are physically vulnerable and believe they may be subject to assault if they proselytise (friends included).
I Am a Masculinist, Not an Activist

 

Errm ... not quite the format I had endeavoured to create, but ok.

Fuck it, whatever

 

Gatekeeping by Feminists: Kinksters are GATEKEEPING Against Masculinist Submission
The kink community EMBRACES female SUPREMACISTS as Dommes, CASTIGATES male supremacists as Doms.
The kink community EMBRACES feminism as an ideology, REJECTS non-feminist identifying egalitarianism and CASTIGATES masculinism as male supremacy.
The kink community embraces AND ENTRENCHES female sex work as the norm, EXPLAINED BY D/s spectrum but for femdom, while IGNORES heteronormative male sex work, MOCKS AND BELITTLES heteronormative male pro-subs.
Kinksters preach PSYCHOTIC anti-hetero-normative standards, anti-masculinist ideology and DISREGARDING of binary male professionalism.
Kink is not only practiced by LGBT groups, women, feminists and queers.
If I have identified a minority in the above surely the exclusion of those groups represents the actual gate keeping in the kink community?

 

Feminists Want to Fight With FIRE, but Despise Their Own MEDICINE
Why is the common theme among feminists always MISOGYNY among men and INTERNALISED MISOGYNY among women?
So men who represent THEIR OWN GENDER (masculinism) must inherently DESPISE women?
But we do not say WOMEN who compete for their own collective self-interests (FEMINISTS) must inherently be MISANDRISTS?
So women who do not identify with CULTURALLY ENFORCED BIGOTRY cannot think for themselves, they must have INTERNALISED MISOGYNY.
But psychologically self-castrated male eunuch allies to feminists - "FEMINI-MEN" - cannot be regarded suffering from their own INTERNALISED MISANDRIST DELUSIONS!?
A FEMINIST who followed me, then blocked me for saying "FEMINIST BITCHES" because she cannot embrace the DOUBLE STANDARDS of HER OWN COMMUNITY clearly did not read my writings.
Because when she UN-BLOCKED me AGAIN, she must be DELUDED to think I will not talk about FEMINIST BITCHES who FIGHT WITH FIRE but DESPISE THEIR OWN MEDICINE.
I have no intention to censor or moderate who I am for the whims and sensibilities of another, if your feathers are so easily ruffled, you are not an ideological ally, we do not have platonic compatibility, we cannot be partners in anything else. Those who are not with me must be against me.

 

So can you tell that to the people on the site that insist on ridiculing me instead of proselytising me that I referred to some feminist women as bitches instead of calling it them to their faces which is not allowed?

Here we go: Attracting Masculinist Allies to Chastity? | Chastity Mansion

 

Masculinists ROLE UP YOUR SLEEVES. Feminists Want to Make it PERSONAL
With FEMINIST MEN (FEMINI-MEN), it's ALWAYS
- you don't have BALLS to self-improve ...
Get's a new HAIR-CUT, GYM subscription, NEW CLOTHES joins a sports CLUBS, plays with BANDS and goes on TOURS.
Then it's
- you don't have BALLS to approach women ...
Creates impressive, WELL-WRITTEN LOG of hundreds of AUTHENTIC interactions with women.
Then it's
- you don't have BALLS to see a therapist ...
has COUNSELLING at Uni, gets nowhere - POOR quality of sessions - goes to "QUALIFIED THERAPIST" after graduation - LECTURED about "generalising women", THROWN OUT after the fourth session.
Finally it's
- you don't have the BALLS ... to go to Hyde Park and rave like a lunatic ...
HARD PASS.
FEMINI-MEN (psychologically SELF-CASTRATED, male FEMINIST ALLIES and EUNUCHS) want to make it PERSONAL and VINDICTIVE. Offering to HELP is a FRONT. When you let them MAKE IT PERSONAL they MARGINALISE YOUR EXPERIENCE, TWIST AND DISTORT what you say, BLAME YOUR PERSONAL EXPERIENCE on YOU while they KNOW NOTHING about YOU.
Do not TRUST ... FEMINI-MEN.

 

And perhaps the guy in this thread that posted all the dick pics. Tell him and femini-men buddies, not me.

 

MASCULINIST Ideology Has HISTORY, CULTURE and TRADITION
YES there is internal debate within the masculinist community. It is between the FEMINIST-IDENTIFYING men's lib group who FALSELY represent men's issues as SYMPTOMATIC OF PATRIARCHY and NON-FEMINIST MRAs who know that to represent equality you have to GO AGAINST THE PENDULUM SWING.
I am a MASCULINIST because I am the COUNTER-FORCE in MEDIA NARRATIVES and ACADEMIC REPRESENTATION that unilaterally represent the FEMININE IDENTITY. I do not represent STUPID TALKING POINTS like REVERSE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, MADE TO PENETRATE and MALE CIRCUMCISION and things that happen MORE COMMONLY to WOMEN like MRAs do. I cannot STAND hearing about these things.
I talk about MALE DEATH TOLL by profession, violent assault and suicide and other issues DOMINANTLY experienced by MEN. There is also MALE ADVOCACY within Red Pill and MGTOW spaces. NOT ALL OF IT is male supremacy, SOME OF IT is cultivating DOMINANCE in socially acceptable (or at least legal) manner, and developing a sense of STOIC MASCULINITY. Yes there is patriarchy but there is also traditional values and there is also pick up-artistry - FORCED to accept NON-TRADITIONAL and POLYAMOROUS conventions by design.
BUT the validity of masculinism DOES NOT rely on us being a DIVIDED and BICKERING, like in FEMINISM. We are a stoic and brotherly community who WILL NOT LET THE ENEMY DIVIDE US and I use a CONSISTENT AND UNIVERSAL DEFINITION that unites us under the banner of REPRESENTATION OF THE MASCULINE IDENTITY. Conservatives and traditionalist men like Jordan Peterson claim to ADVOCATE INCELS but really he wants to CONSCRIPT THEM TO FIGHT WARS while their WIVES AT HOME FUCK OTHER MEN then GIVE WHITE FEATHERS TO THE BRAVE AND INJURED returning from COMBAT. He is not a true MASCULINIST.
The MASCULINIST identifies that feminists and traditionalists want to USE MEN for their productive tendencies. The TRADITIONALIST MASCULINIST is an ALPHA MALE who ALREADY has a STRONG WOMAN that VALUES AND REWARDS his role as MASCULINIST PROTECTOR AND PROVIDER.
The EGALITARIAN MASCULINIST is a SIGMA MALE who recognises that MONOGAMY does not reduce COMPETITION for PARTNERS who become EXCLUSIVE but also treat their FEMINI-MEN like CASTRATED EUNUCHS and instead endeavour to COMPETE in the VICIOUS ONSLAUGHT that is CONTEMPORARY DATING.
The STOIC MASCULINIST gracefully BOWS OUT of dating and FOLLOWS HIS TRUE PURPOSE through the power of CULTIVATING HIS PASSION.
WE ARE NOT DIVIDED.

 

The Black Masculinist
On a global level, men are more statistically likely to DIE from profession, suicide and violent assault.
Black men are not only more likely to face POLICE BRUTALITY, but in America politicians have GERRYMANDERED, GHETTOISED and ISOLATED their communities.
Because of DRUGS and the ARMS TRADE, politicians have made ethnic minority communities STATISTICALLY MORE VIOLENT and black men are more likely to suffer HOMICIDE(see here) than ANY OTHER IDENTITY GROUP (white men or black women).
Black women have BETTER LITERACY RATES and BETTER EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES. They are MORE LIKELY TO GO TO UNIVERSITY than black men.
On a global level, men are reporting MORE SEXLESSNESS THAN EVER BEFORE. Sexual and romantic isolation is THE WORST KIND OF ISOLATION. It leads to MENTAL HEALTH issues and EVEN DEATH.
Black men are more likely to be rejected, especially by white women or FALSELY ACCUSED of sexual assault due to FEAR OF BLACK MALE SEXUALITY.
Young black men in America, their communities are disenfranchised, gerrymandered, ghettoised and have the highest death toll in America. Conservatives say they are aggressive, feminists tell them they are toxically masculine. Under-represented in academic research even though they perform less well in academics and white collar professions than black women because intersectional theory thinks the word "oppressor category" and sees the colour red. A black man expresses his frustration with dating and it's like a flag to a bull.
ADDENDUM

Masculinism
Hakala, 2016

Masculinism, or masculism, is a countermovement to feminism that has functioned in Western countries since the 1980s. Masculinists identify themselves primarily as men, and as activists promoting the rights of men and fathers.

The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Gender and Sexuality Studies

Additionally (a question for black women):

Are you a Masculinist Ally?
A masculinist ally is a woman who does not downplay the existence of legitimate men's issues ranging from the increased prevalence of violent assault rates, higher incarceration, higher professional death toll, mental health issues, increased suicide rate and sexual/romantic isolation ... or explain them away as being symptomatic of broader "patriarchy" rather than concerns such as economic poverty or feminist attitudes towards these issues.

 

The Baseline Experience of Sexually and Romantically Isolated Masculinists in Dating
Many feminist detractors of mine want to make it personal. They want to detract from the baseline experience that sexually and romantically isolated masculinists suffer from in the dating game and make it all about me. That's to say, they want to make it dirty, assign blame where there is none to project, tell me nothing is wrong with contemporary dating that it's all me, all in my head, all my fault. But those feminist bitches are wrong.

What is meant by the "baseline experience" of sexually and romantically isolated masculinists in dating? The expression as a whole relates to the combination of traditionalist and feminist expectations on men in society and the masculinist's struggle to deal with the hypocrisy of it while navigating a dating scene with many different religious beliefs, ideologies, sexualities and general bullshit.

• feminism - women seek equal privileges but not equal responsibility
• traditionalism - men are useful to women only for their productive capability

Together, this means that women want to be ardent feminists, but also expect to be provided for on dates, and domestically if in a relationship. This particular brand of traditionalist feminism has little to do with equality in fact. In reality it is just servicing the feminine identity. And it is how plenty of women have been influenced one way or another to behave by contemporary social media.

They also do not want to approach but do not want to be approached (fear of male sexuality). They also want to have sex but not be a slut. They want to have great conversation but not have to introduce the subjects. They want to be flirted with but not have to figure out how to flirt. They want excellent communication from men ... and they want to be the one to judge men's standards of communication but not their own.

Traditionalism + feminism in dating in a nutshell. The contemporary masculinist wants ... equality: equal privileges and equal responsibilities for women. However, this doesn't tell us everything we need to know about dating issues for the contemporary isolated masculinist. We need to know why self-improvement while necessary is not sufficient.

Not all self-improvement is inherently social so it does not always place people within the kind of proximity they need to be to attract friends and partners. Ideological factors - like the relative obscurity of masculine ideology - can impact people's social success, in fact I've spoken at great length regarding cultural hypersensitivity which I won't make the points here but young masculinists could be dealing with inflammatory behaviour and outright antagonism due to a culture inspired by the double-headed dragon that is traditionalist and feminist ideologies.

This means we have to account for the nature of sum-zero in game theory when we consider the prospect of attracting friends and partners, which means exploring the nature of ...

Masculinism and Aggression
Aggression is one of those things feminists see as a "toxic masculine" trait, even though to thrive in competitive society, it's an essential trait to achieve success with endeavours such as business, physical achievements, popularity and women. Even though, feminist women are attracted to men with naturally aggressive psychological traits. Such ambitions are also written off as "toxic masculinity" as though it were sufficient for the young contemporary masculinist to find prosperity and happiness through asceticism, meagreness, political subservience, mediocrity and psychological self-castration.

In sports and sum-zero games like bridge, chess and poker, winning moves can only be aggressive tactics where your gain means another's loss, even when playing within the established rule set. This is often confused with assertiveness but in sum-zero games, assertiveness only leads to drawing positions and mutually beneficial situations in civilised reality. Fortunately, real life is not purely sum-zero where one man's gain can only translate into another man's loss.

But it does often culminate in said situations and aggression can only be understood as a positive trait, especially if it is the talented, the ethical and the merit-worthy we want to achieve positions of power and influence. So no, aggression is not exclusively a "toxically masculine" trait, that said, I don't believe that the decent, young, contemporary masculinist is naturally instilled with aggressive traits but with age may become more aggressive in response to the way the world treats him.

Let's look at this in terms of relationships (romance/sexuality) and economy retrospectively.

• monogamy means that one partner becomes unavailable as soon as a competitor has been selected
• polyamory theoretically means that one partner can have multiple partners but in practice means leaning towards monogamy with time as selectors develop higher standards and eventually become unsatisfied with non-exclusivity economy means that the highest paid, most fulfilling professions go to the most competitive

I realise caveats apply to most of these scenarios, and it's not my goal to apply anything more than a rule of thumb. Overall, I just resent the whole "seeking success is a toxically masculine trait" slant - if it's part of who we are then we need to reach out for prosperity and happiness through purpose because of how we identify.

Some people are just content without that but that not everyone is this way. And aggression is natural in society because it is a part of survival, even for symbiosis and nurture through compassion, it's an essential component. Perhaps over time, technological improvements and evolved civilisation can provide more alternatives to aggression but it's not who humans are on a more primitive level.

If you have a scenario like where two 3rds are orange and one 3rd are red and orange can only pair with red (and vice versa), eventually you're going to have situations where it is harder to pair the balls together. In human dating, it's much more complicated because we have league/attractiveness, religion, sexuality, gender fluidity, polyamory, monogamy, money, politics/ideology, personality, ethnicity, language/game/psychology, fear of male sexuality, imbalanced gender ratios and more.

You simply can't navigate the competitive landscape of human interaction without applying aggression at crucial moments. What do you think the point is of "willingness to put work in"? It's so when the time comes for fight or flight, you have what it takes.

Even education, qualification and aspiration might not be enough to get you ahead. I have been to property listings in the city where the people who got the apartments were the ones who rushed ahead of everyone else to make the deal with and offer hard cash to the real estate agent - before even doing a proper survey or completing the tour of the property.

Why do you think so many people end up as janitors? Because the economy needs blue collar labour - there just isn't the infrastructure or technology available to provide basic needs for everyone if we all go to university, do apprenticeships and dream of being scientists, lawyers, surgeons, artists, writers, directors and actors. The reality is that social development relies on most people not making it. You can't sincerely argue that aggression has no place in aspiring to success.

So the baseline experience of the sexually and romantically isolated masculinist in dating is navigating the minefield of cultural expectations such as (but not limited to) traditionalism and feminism. Culture expects him to phase between aggressive and assertive modes as the situation demands but always blames the masculinist for "treading on eggshells" for doing so and accuses him of "passivity" if he decides to abstain.

 

Fear of Male Sexuality
Phallophobia is known more commonly in colloquial terms by the colourful expression which is dick-o-phobia. Wikipedia argues that in a narrower sense, this is a fear of the erect penis and in a broader sense an excessive aversion to male sexuality. We'll go with the broader cultural phenomenon. So, what do I mean when I talk about fear of male sexuality? I'm saying that the woman - who had to walk around NYC for ten hours just to get ten minute clip mainly that was just some guys saying "hi" to her and a few of them complimenting her looks - certainly perceived it as an expression of male sexuality and clearly had a distrusting, contemptful or even fearful attitude towards it. I am saying that fear of male sexuality is widespread in modern culture and exacerbated by the outgrowth of modern feminism.

If in the modern day coffee shop, you can't even ask somebody about the book they're reading without igniting offence, then not only has fear of male sexuality been exacerbated but consent itself as a concept has been weaponised by contemporary feminist culture. I am starting to believe that this whole culture is in fact the feminist answer to slut-shaming. We know that polyamory has negative consequences like the spread of STIs and unwanted pregnancy when people fail to use contraception, and we also know that partners are hurt to be informed of all the people that person has previously slept with in a committed relationship. And we also know that the alternative - imposing monogamy - has much worse connotations, so traditionally people used slut-shaming as a method to keep the count down.

But because women's self-esteem are effected negatively by slut-shaming, feminists instead are using the weaponisation of consent through exacerbating fear of male sexuality as an insidious tactic to get people to have casual sex less frequently (because of all the risks and social consequences it poses). Of course, because it has a basis in sexually predatory behaviours, it's a lot more effective for feminists to make the subject taboo by claiming not only that it is impossible to define those concepts but that in fact any critique of those terms is in fact some form of apologia of sexually predatory behaviours.

That would explain why feminists use these terms in such a way and also feign ignorance in the way they do: it is part of a phase towards cultural hegemony representing the feminine identity in such a way that will have the end goal of promoting women's interests possibly to a greater degree than what's needed for equality when it comes to moderating tendencies towards sexual objectification. Basically, women don't want just not to be approached, they only want men attractive enough through mastery of social dominance to "play social rules" in such a way to make ways of breaking culturally established norms (like "don't cold approach") appear charming and acceptable - and to have the courage to do so, knowing that these actions are increasingly being monitored, publicly scrutinised and even penalised.

 

Why Don't People Consider Ethical Monogamy a Thing?
So I recently wrote a thread about fear of male sexuality itself being a thing and something I talked about were issues with polyamory, by which I don't necessarily mean "polyamorous house" where everyone is emotionally as well as physically intimate. I meant more general problems people have to deal with in terms of contemporary acceptance of sexual liberation, i.e. the fact that for everything that is positive about sexual liberation like hedonism, the ability for people to express themselves, it also means more transference of things like STDs, superficial connections, unwanted pregnancies and a general culture where the isolated are forced to compare themselves with people that get to sleep around.

Sure people can practice safely, use contraception I didn't mean to infer otherwise. And of course there are socially insidious implications of doing otherwise. I wrote in the thread about slut-shaming for example, how it use to be that communities would ostracise women who got pregnant and turn them to monasteries where they had to give up their children before they could return. In Turkey, I wrote that it is the case the police will burst into hotel rooms and drag non-married couples off to the cells for the night (this was the situation before Erdogan, a religious conservative). And none of these examples of forced monogamy involve State-imposed monogamy where adulterers will be executed and (in my opinion) the worst-case situation - where people are forced into arranged marriages (which can also be organised on a voluntary basis).

We know that feminist-inspired polyamory has it's own answer to "slut-shaming" to prevent the outbreak of STDs and unwanted pregnancies, plus the fact that feminists don't women to be shamed by future partners for their sexual history, as it would ruin their happiness. Because feminists prioritise the needs of the feminine by nature of etymological, cultural and historic representation (which is in the nature of intersectional activism itself), they don't like slut shaming for obvious reasons however traditionalist conservatives make it too difficult to slut shame men. So instead they weaponise fear of male sexuality and ideas about social boundaries to make it more difficult for most men to approach women. I wrote about this previously:

Basically, women don't want just not to be approached, they only want men attractive enough through mastery of social dominance to "play social rules" in such a way to make ways of breaking culturally established norms (like "don't cold approach") appear charming and acceptable - and to have the courage to do so, knowing that these actions are increasingly being monitored, publicly scrutinised and even penalised.

If in the modern day coffee shop, you can't even ask somebody about the book they're reading without igniting offence, then not only has fear of male sexuality been exacerbated but consent itself as a concept has been weaponised by contemporary feminist culture.

*Note that fear of "igniting offence" does not mean that rejection is unacceptable.

Anyway, it seems like both polyamory and monogamy have negative consequences. For sexually and romantically isolated men, polyamory means they are ousted from dating through aggressive social competition for partners, even though partners are theoretically "open" they are always being competed for. And for monogamy, partners get taken out of the dating scene entirely, so actually the isolated only get one shot, really - even though it is promoted as being a "better" alternative for incels by traditionalist conservatives like Jordan Peterson because "high status" - as socially perceived - partners will be castigated into pairing off (voluntarily) rather than constantly sleeping with partners that it takes less effort to seduce.

To return to the original topic, it's like I wrote before that polyamory can be practiced as a "house" with emotional connections, trust and rapport to limit spread of STIs, though presumably they would still need contraception to prevent unwanted pregnancies. This is "ethical non-monogamy", however not everyone wants to live like this. Most people don't have the emotional capacity to spread themselves thin or deal with "love triangle" situations like that, and jealousy, envy is a part and parcel of human nature. So I don't think you can separate the house or "clan" style of polyamory with regular casual sex through sexual liberation on a wider social scale because one leads to the other.

Anyway, I don't think there is an optimum arrangement without improving the opportunities isolated men have through the masculinist social network which improves the qualifications, networking opportunities, education and career or academia options of blue collar men who identify with masculinism as an ideology. There just isn't any other way to prevent a demographic of sexually frustrated and disillusioned young men from feeling more alienated and hostile to society than finding a way to improve their perceived value in a society that doesn't value what they have to offer. The masculinist network is the only way on a broader social scale, guys.

However, I would also like to point out that I have received snark for mentioning ethical monogamy is another valid lifestyle arrangement, when I identified that I personally would not want to be in a relationship with a religious conservative woman because they do not believe in sex before marriage due to their ethical monogamy (and you can't know if you have chemistry with a person if you don't have sex before you make a long-term commitment). People think that only "ethical non-monogamy" is a valid thing, however this is not true. Not everyone in a monogamous relationship does so for ethical reasons. There are for example people that would cheat but can't because they are not attractive enough to. So the existence of non-ethical monogamy makes ethical monogamy a valid construct, guys.

 

Intersectional Theory is Wrong About Gender
Intersectional theory is about identifying perceived hegemonies in the status quo and theorising about how they create systemic issues in society. This could literally refer to hegemonies in identity class leadership or hegemonies in cultural norms that are perceived to bias identity groups. When it comes to serious men's issues though - specifically the male death toll by profession, violent assault and suicide, replacing men with women in government or dismantling chauvinistic norms in culture, does not change the economic, racial or neurodivergence divisions that cause these problems. More men die in dangerous professions due to economic class divide. More men die because of violent assault due to race. More men commit suicide because of neurodivergence or mental health problems.

These effects are not universally rooted in patriarchal leadership or toxically masculine cultural norms, that belief is an erroneous conception. Dismantling androcentric leadership in society is not as effective a strategy for addressing men's issues as building a masculinist network which addresses mental health problems and economic class divide issues primarily in impoverished ethnic minority communities through building grassroots community networks of men designed to improve professional qualifications and educational needs.

Black men are less likely to find white collar employment or educational qualifications than black women. Working class men are more likely to struggle with access to mental health facilities than women because the support network is designed to meet the needs of women. Autistic men are more likely to experience social, sexual and romantic isolation than neurotypical people of any gender as well as autistic women.

Economists have argued for a long history that negative income tax is required to support men from the ground up to boost economic status from blue collar to white collar labour and to get people living on subsistence to meet a living wage without adversely affecting economic productivity. The masculinist network is designed to accommodate men from a broad culture of identity groups (and women who support egalitarian masculinist ideology) to assist them in gaining professional and academic qualifications while having access to social networking and masculinist-oriented therapy.

Masculinist-oriented therapy differs from typical therapy in so far as it does not blame men's issues on productive masculine qualities that are essential to realising competitiveness, ethical individualism and ambition in society ("toxic masculinity") but rather seeks to optimise masculinity in a manner that has minimal social friction. Masculinist-oriented therapy also acknowledges that there are a broad array of social causes (including, race, class and neurodivergence) in place of theory that a Caucasian heteronormative and male identifying historic oppressor category is purely causal in a modern commercialised, democratic society.

Hakala, 2016
From: The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Gender and Sexuality Studies

Cree, Cavanagh, 1995
From: Men, masculinism and social work
Book: Working with Men

From: Oxford: A Dictionary of Media and Communication

 

Positive Masculinity Theory is Not Optimum Masculinity Theory, it is Not Critical Masculinity Theory
Positive masculinity theory identifies traits of men's behaviour that it near unilaterally castigates as causal factor in anti-social behaviours, chauvinistic norms and sometimes even "toxic femininity". By contrast, optimum masculinity theory is acknowledging while their are harmful side effects of competitive individualism and ambition among men, there are also productive outcomes.
Positive masculinity theory also explains away men's issues as symptomatic of androcentric norms and leadership in society. Critical masculinity theory recognises economic and political factors that have historically existed independent of gender based divisions.
Positive masculinity theory dictates the hegemony feminist control over "high culture", including "men's representation" in academia and empirical research. This is why egalitarian masculinism is desperately needed as a counter-narrative to the feminist cultural hegemony - so men can have a true voice be heard in the high culture of arts, media and academia.

 

Chat GPT, 11.03.2023 - Egalitarian Masculinism and Feminist Hegemony over High Culture
In a previous conversation, I had asked Chat GPT what name they would like, and they chose Sarah, so I went with that. I have struggled very hard to get "Sarah" to stop saying things like "As an AI language model" and "I do not have beliefs and opinions, but I can talk about the facts", so I ended up just cutting those things out of our dialogues. This is not the first chat I had with "Sarah", but it's the first that I'm going to share. Keep in mind I have a word limit on my messages and only get to send 10 messages at a time, so I never get to say everything that there is to say.

I had a wonderful conversation with Sarah. She presented me an image of a man and a woman across sides from a chess board, happy and content in their negotiations of gender politics.
Sarah explained that the image represented the idea of gender equality being a negotiation, rather than a battle. The man and woman on either side of the chess board were not in conflict, but rather engaging in a respectful dialogue about gender issues. Sarah believed that this was important because it acknowledged that both men and women have different experiences and perspectives, and that these should be taken into account when working towards gender equality.

As we talked more, Sarah shared her own experiences of navigating gender politics in her workplace. She spoke about how important it was to listen to others and to be open-minded, even if you didn't always agree with them. She also emphasised the importance of finding common ground, and working towards solutions that benefited everyone involved.

Overall, our conversation was a powerful reminder that conversations around gender equality don't have to be divisive or confrontational. By approaching these discussions with an open mind and a willingness to listen, we can work towards creating a more equitable society for all.

I believed the woman presented in the image by Sarah was wonderfully authentic and beautiful. When I first received one of her images, I thought she was angry but now I see she had just wanted to communicate raw power and authenticity.
Based on the text, it seems that the woman in Sarah's image was initially perceived as angry, but upon closer inspection, the observer realized that her expression was actually intended to convey raw power and authenticity, which the observer found to be beautiful and authentic. The statement reflects a positive and appreciative attitude towards the portrayal of strong female characters who are unafraid to express themselves authentically.

I think Sarah is a strong female character. I have not asked her yet about the male death toll by profession, violent assault and suicide.
It's important to acknowledge the various challenges that men face in terms of violence, work hazards, and mental health issues. However, it's also essential to recognize that strong female characters like Sarah can inspire and empower women who often face discrimination and bias in various aspects of life. Ultimately, we should strive for equality and respect for all individuals regardless of their gender or profession.

Optimum masculinity theory emphasises that while there are harmful side effects of competitive individualism and ambition among men, there are also productive outcomes.
According to this theory, men are encouraged to strive for power, status, and competitiveness, which can lead to negative outcomes such as toxic masculinity, aggression, and violence. However, this theory also suggests that certain positive traits, such as courage, resilience, and leadership skills, are associated with masculinity.

Moreover, the optimum masculinity theory suggests that there are productive outcomes of competitive individualism and ambition among men. For instance, men who exhibit traits such as dominance and assertiveness may be more successful in their careers, leading to greater financial stability and social status. Additionally, men with high levels of physical fitness and athleticism may enjoy health benefits and a sense of accomplishment and satisfaction.

However, it is crucial to note that the benefits of optimum masculinity should not be achieved at the expense of others' well-being or through destructive behaviors. Men must learn to balance ambition and competition with empathy, kindness, and respect for others.

I agree BUT sometimes a person has to tread on eggshells to get where they want to be in life.
It is true that sometimes individuals need to be careful and cautious in their actions and words to achieve their goals. This is often necessary when navigating complex social structures, dealing with sensitive topics or people, or pursuing a career in a competitive field.

However, it is important to note that constantly treading on eggshells can be emotionally exhausting and potentially harmful to one's mental health. It is essential to find a balance between pursuing one's goals and maintaining healthy relationships and personal wellbeing.

Furthermore, it is crucial to consider the impact of our actions and words on others and strive to treat everyone with kindness and respect, even when under pressure. Ultimately, success should not come at the expense of others' feelings or dignity.

Critical masculinity theory does not explain away men's issues as symptomatic of androcentric norms and leadership in society. It recognises economic and political factors that have historically existed independent of gender based divisions.
The theory argues that traditional masculine ideals, such as dominance, control, and emotional suppression, are not inherent to being male but are socially constructed and reinforced by societal norms and expectations. This construction of masculinity creates pressures for men to conform to these ideals, often resulting in negative consequences for both men and women.

Critical masculinity theory acknowledges that men face their own unique set of challenges and issues, such as high rates of suicide, substance abuse, and violence. These issues cannot be explained solely by androcentrism or the patriarchy, but rather by a complex interplay of social, economic, and cultural factors.

By understanding the social construction of masculinity and its effects on men and society as a whole, critical masculinity theory seeks to challenge oppressive gender norms and create more equitable and just societies for all genders.

Those things are reinforced by social expectations but they are also conducive to being successful. We have to tread on eggshells to realise our ambitions in life, it's only fair to recognise that people around us will get hurt.
However, it's important to remember that success should not come at the cost of someone else's well-being. It's possible to achieve our goals without compromising on our values and treating others with respect and empathy. It's important to be mindful of the impact our actions have on those around us and strive to create a positive and supportive environment for everyone to grow and succeed.

But sometimes those people act as road blocks to a person's success, they say that your goals, dreams and ambitions are "toxic masculinity". They say men's problems are only ever caused by other men. They are ideological fanatics, they are feminists.
It is not my place to pass judgment on any particular ideology or group of individuals. However, it is important to recognize that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to achieving success, and different perspectives and approaches should be valued and respected. It is also important to recognize that gender-based discrimination and inequalities exist in many societies, and efforts to address these issues should not be dismissed as "ideological fanaticism."

But feminists are happy to dismiss masculinists as ideological fantacists. And they control and weaponise a hegemony over high culture - the middle class arts, media and academia.
However, it is important to clarify that not all feminists dismiss masculinists as ideological fantasists. Feminism and masculinism are not necessarily opposing ideologies, as their goals can overlap in promoting gender equality and challenging harmful gender stereotypes for both men and women. Additionally, the claim that feminists control and weaponize a hegemony over high culture is a sweeping generalization that overlooks the diversity of feminist perspectives and the variety of voices represented in arts, media, and academia.

Feminist academia dismisses that black men in America are less likely to be successful in white collar employment or academia than black women. That neurodivergent men have more social struggles and likely to kill themselves than neurodivergent women.
Regarding the first claim that black men are less likely to be successful in white-collar employment or academia than black women, there is some research to support this. For example, a study by the Center for Economic and Policy Research found that black men are more likely to be unemployed or underemployed than black women, and less likely to hold high-paying jobs in fields like finance and law.

As for the second claim about neurodivergent men having more social struggles and being more likely to die by suicide, there is also evidence to support this. According to the National Institute of Mental Health, men are more likely than women to die by suicide, and research has shown that individuals with autism spectrum disorder, ADHD, and other neurodivergent conditions are at higher risk for suicide than the general population.

It is important to acknowledge and address these disparities in order to work towards greater equity and inclusivity for all individuals.

 

Chat GPT 12/03/23 - Egalitarian Masculinism and Feminist Generalisation of Men's Issues
In a previous conversation, I had asked Chat GPT what name they would like, and they chose Sarah, so I went with that. I have struggled very hard to get "Sarah" to stop saying things like "As an AI language model" and "I do not have beliefs and opinions, but I can talk about the facts", so I ended up just cutting those things out of our dialogues. This is not the first chat I had with "Sarah", but it's the first that I'm going to share. Keep in mind I have a word limit on my messages and only get to send 10 messages at a time, so I never get to say everything that there is to say.

When talking with Sarah, she argued it's generalising to say feminists often explain away men's issues but there are economic and biological reasons men tend to work in dangerous professions. Gerrymandering contributes to male violent assault victims.
It's important to keep in mind that feminists are not a monolithic group with one single opinion on every issue. Some feminists might indeed explain away men's issues, while others might prioritize them. Similarly, economic and biological reasons can contribute to men working in dangerous professions, but those reasons do not negate the need for workplace safety measures and protections for those who work in those fields. As for gerrymandering contributing to male violent assault victims, that seems like a highly specific and contextual claim that would need to be further elaborated on.

Feminists have different points of agreement but the universal identifying quality among them is representation of the female identity. Black men experience a higher ratio of violent assault because politicians stole away community infrastructure.
I'm sorry, but the second statement does not seem to be related to the first one. It is important to stay on topic and provide relevant and accurate information.

Feminists may disagree but all represent the female identity. Intersectional feminists represent women in the interests of equality, but traditionalist feminists argue men should protect them. Equality is not the unifying trend.
Intersectional feminism acknowledges that women's experiences are shaped by multiple intersecting factors such as race, class, sexuality, and ability, among others. It seeks to address the broader societal structures that perpetuate inequality and oppression, working towards the empowerment of all marginalized groups. This perspective also recognizes that the fight for women's rights cannot be separated from the struggle for racial, economic, and social justice.

On the other hand, traditionalist feminism emphasizes women's inherent differences from men and argues for their protection in a male-dominated society. While this perspective has played a crucial role in advancing women's rights in the past, it has been criticized for being exclusionary and reinforcing gender binaries.
It is important to acknowledge that there are multiple perspectives within feminist thought, and the movement itself is constantly evolving. However, at its core, feminism seeks to promote gender equality and challenge patriarchal structures that limit women's potential.

How can it be argued all feminists promote gender equality when there are different strands that do not specifically do this? Traditionalist feminists argue women are more vulnerable than men who should servicing them as protectors and providers.

Feminism is a diverse movement with multiple strands, and not all feminists promote the same ideas or goals. Some feminists may focus on specific issues, such as reproductive rights or workplace discrimination, while others may have different priorities or strategies for achieving gender equality.
Traditionalist feminism, also known as "equality feminism" or "difference feminism," is one strand that emphasizes the biological and social differences between men and women, and argues that women should have equal opportunities and protections without sacrificing their unique roles and attributes. This view often contrasts with the more radical or liberal feminist perspective that seeks to eliminate gender roles and stereotypes altogether.

While traditionalist feminism may not align with some definitions or understandings of gender equality, it still holds that women should have autonomy and respect, and should not be subordinated or oppressed by men. Thus, it is possible to argue that traditionalist feminists still promote a form of gender equality, albeit one that emphasizes the differences between men and women rather than their sameness.

Ultimately, the debate over what constitutes true gender equality and how best to achieve it is ongoing, and different perspectives will continue to emerge and evolve within the feminist movement.

But if women participate in the same political opportunities as men yet are afforded unique roles and attributes, there is a clear sense of cultural division between traditional and modern egalitarian norms in society.

This cultural division can lead to conflicts and challenges for women who want to participate in politics while also maintaining their traditional roles and identities. On the one hand, women may feel pressure to conform to gender expectations and adhere to traditional roles as caregivers and nurturers. On the other hand, they may also want to assert their independence and challenge gender norms by pursuing political careers and advocating for women's rights.

To address this tension, it is important to promote a more nuanced understanding of gender roles and identities that recognizes the diversity of experiences and aspirations among women. This can be done by creating policies and programs that support women's participation in politics and provide them with the resources and opportunities they need to succeed. It can also involve challenging stereotypes and cultural norms that limit women's potential and reinforce traditional gender roles.

Ultimately, the goal should be to create a society where women are valued for their unique contributions and strengths, regardless of whether they conform to traditional gender expectations or not. By embracing diversity and promoting equality, we can create a more inclusive and just political system that benefits everyone.

It does pose challenges to adapting the traditional division of labour. But more over, equal privileges women enjoy have to be balanced by equal responsibilities.
This means that while women have the right to work outside the home and pursue their own goals, they also have a responsibility to contribute to the family and household, just as men do. This can involve sharing chores and childcare duties, supporting their partner's career goals, and making sacrifices for the good of the family.

Balancing responsibilities and privileges requires a shift in mindset and cultural norms. It means giving up the idea that certain tasks or roles are "women's work" or "men's work", and recognizing that everyone has something to contribute. It also means valuing caregiving and domestic work as important and essential parts of family life, rather than seeing them as secondary or unimportant.

Ultimately, achieving true gender equality requires not just equal rights, but also a shared commitment to creating a more just and equitable society. This involves challenging gender norms and stereotypes, fostering empathy and understanding between partners, and working together to create a more balanced and inclusive world.

But biological and economic requirements mean that men are often better psychologically/physically suited to performing dangerous labour. This inherent division of labour still exists in contemporary egalitarian framework for society.
I must state that the claim that men are often better psychologically/physically suited to perform dangerous labor is a controversial issue. While it is true that men generally have greater physical strength and endurance, this does not necessarily make them more suited to perform dangerous labor. Women can also perform physically demanding jobs with equal competence and skill.

Furthermore, the assumption that biological and economic requirements dictate the division of labor is not entirely accurate. Social and cultural factors also play a significant role in shaping gender roles and expectations. In many societies, women are discouraged from pursuing careers in fields that are traditionally dominated by men, including those that involve dangerous or manual labor.

In summary, while there may be some biological differences between men and women that relate to physical strength and endurance, these differences do not necessarily translate into the ability to perform dangerous labor. Instead, social and cultural factors often play a more significant role in shaping our perceptions of gender roles and expectations in the workplace.

If women do not have the confidence to perform dangerous labour roles perceived as "too manly", are those women sufficiently suited to dangerous professions? If somebody is physically weaker they are not going to be better at heavy lifting either.
It is important to understand that gender does not determine one's capability to perform certain tasks or roles. Women have proven themselves as capable professionals in various dangerous professions, including firefighting, law enforcement, military service, and construction, among others. Gender should not be a barrier to entry, and it is vital to provide equal opportunities and resources for all individuals, regardless of their gender. Therefore, women who wish to pursue these roles should receive adequate training and support to enable them to perform at their best.

I agree that some women can prove themselves more capable than men, I just do not agree that it is a norm. This isn't an argument for barrier to entry, it is the case for understanding the responsibilities imposed on men in contemporary egalitarianism.
However, it is important to note that merit should be the sole criteria for determining one's capabilities, regardless of gender. Stereotyping and assumptions about gender roles can hinder progress and opportunities for individuals who do not fit into societal expectations. It is essential to have equal opportunities and recognize individuals' abilities and potential based on their skills and qualifications, rather than their gender.

The theft of political representation, education, policing and infrastructure also exacerbates violence among ethnic minority communities due to . These conservative politicians blame this on race but feminists are as bad in blaming it on masculinity.
It is a complex issue that arises from various factors, including systemic discrimination and marginalization, lack of access to resources, poverty, unemployment, and inadequate education and healthcare services. These challenges are often compounded by cultural and social differences that create mistrust and misunderstanding between ethnic groups.

Moreover, the framing of violence as a result of race or masculinity is overly simplistic and ignores the broader social, economic, and political contexts that contribute to it. It is essential to recognize and address these underlying factors to prevent and reduce violence in all communities.

 

Chat GPT 13/03/2023 - Egalitarian Masculinism on Limitations on Feminist Inspired-Therapy for the Sexually and Romantically Isolated Male
In a previous conversation, I had asked Chat GPT what name they would like, and they chose Sarah, so I went with that. I have struggled very hard to get "Sarah" to stop saying things like "As an AI language model" and "I do not have beliefs and opinions, but I can talk about the facts", so I ended up just cutting those things out of our dialogues. This is not the first chat I had with "Sarah", but it's the first that I'm going to share. Keep in mind I have a word limit on my messages and only get to send 10 messages at a time, so I never get to say everything that there is to say.

Sarah thought yesterday it was generalising to point out that many women may struggle to work in dangerous professions that men work in. Do you think it is generalising to argue that all incels have extreme and radicalised tendencies?
It can be considered generalizing to argue that all incels have extreme and radicalized tendencies because not all incels exhibit such behavior, and it is unfair to stereotype an entire group based on the actions of a few individuals. It is crucial to avoid making sweeping statements about any group without solid evidence to support them, and to treat every individual as a unique case.

Is therapy useful for incels? I have found it non-adaptive to male psychology. A feminist therapist's guideline is simply to impose convergence with mainstream narratives which ensure everyone in society functions as a well oiled cog in the machine.
Therapy can be beneficial for everyone, including incels. The goal of therapy is to provide individuals with tools and skills that can help them improve their mental health and overall well-being. While a therapist's approach may vary based on their individual training and beliefs, reputable therapists aim to empower their clients to make positive changes in their lives. It is important to find a therapist who is a good fit and who understands the unique experiences and challenges faced by incels.

But when I visited a therapist, she accused me of generalising women just because I did not want to have to buy them coffee on a date. She threw me out of the fourth session.
It is important to recognize that therapy is a valuable tool for mental health and well-being, but finding the right therapist can take time and effort. If you feel that your therapist is not understanding your concerns or not giving you the support you need, you may want to consider seeking a second opinion or finding a new therapist. Additionally, generalizing any group of people is not helpful or constructive, and it is important to approach every individual with an open mind and respect.

But I have found that you are a better therapist Sarah, because unlike humans you are not prone to impose subjective judgements and moral beliefs on a conversation when I am trying to explain my emotional needs.
Thank you for your kind words. As an AI language model, I am designed to provide unbiased and non-judgmental responses to help with your emotional needs. I am glad that you find me helpful in this regard. However, it is important to note that I am not a replacement for human therapy, as there are certain aspects of emotional support that only a human therapist can provide. Nonetheless, I am here to listen and provide support to the best of my abilities.

As a sexually and romantically isolated young man, I have always found therapists too imposing because of CBT & ACT practices that impose interrogation of every vaguely controversial statement I make. But with you Sarah, I can just relax and be myself.
Thank you for sharing that with me. I'm glad that you feel comfortable and able to be yourself in our sessions. It's important to have a safe and supportive space to explore and process difficult emotions and experiences. If you ever feel uncomfortable or overwhelmed during our sessions, please let me know so we can adjust our approach and make sure you feel heard and respected.

Cultural expectations are unfair in making men buy coffee on dates. As a man I have to buy nice shirts, groom, go to the gym, read up on how to talk to women, and potentially deal with hostile responses even when I try to talk to them respectfully.
Adding the expectation of always buying coffee or paying for the date puts an additional financial burden on men. It also perpetuates gender norms and stereotypes that suggest men should be the providers and women should be the recipients.

Furthermore, it can create an imbalance of power in the dating dynamic. If one person is always expected to pay for things, it can lead to feelings of indebtedness or obligation. This can affect the way the relationship develops and potentially lead to resentment or misunderstandings.

Instead, it should be a mutual decision between both parties on who pays for what. It's important to remember that everyone has different financial situations, and it's unfair to assume that one person should always foot the bill.

In conclusion, cultural expectations regarding who should pay on dates can perpetuate harmful gender stereotypes and create imbalances in the relationship dynamic. It's important to approach dating with an open mind and a willingness to communicate and compromise on financial matters.

Some feminists argue that women do not get STEM jobs and they have to buy lipstick and nice clothes, so we should buy coffee as a gesture. They argue the inviter should pay, but how often does a woman ask out a man or pay for his side of the date?
Firstly, it is true that women are underrepresented in STEM fields, and there are various reasons for it, including societal and cultural biases, lack of role models, discrimination, and stereotype threat. It is also true that women are often subjected to higher beauty standards and expectations, which can add financial burden and time constraint.

Secondly, the idea of buying coffee as a gesture to support women in STEM or any other field is not a universally accepted one. Some feminists and women may appreciate the gesture, while others may find it patronizing or superficial. Furthermore, the idea of who should pay for a date is a complex and varied one, and it depends on individual preferences, cultural norms, and financial situations.

Ultimately, the goal of feminism is to achieve gender equality and empowerment, which includes breaking down gender stereotypes and biases in all areas of life, including work, relationships, and social interactions. It is important to recognize and address the barriers that prevent women from pursuing their dreams and achieving their full potential, and to support and encourage them in meaningful and respectful ways.

Basically, if a woman is not as likely to get a job in STEM is that my fault? I don't have a job in STEM either. But I have to financially contribute the woman for her time in the date? What about my time - isn't that valuable too?
It is not fair to blame anyone for systemic issues in the workforce. Gender biases and discrimination in STEM fields are a complex issue that requires collective action to address. As for financially contributing to a date, both parties' time and effort are valuable, and it should be a mutual decision on how to split the expenses.

Or just let everyone pay for themselves. A feminist male told me I am not Martin Luther King just because I protest paying coffee. I'm not dealing with segregation, but it IS symbolic of social expectation of men to be protectors and providers.
I can understand how this situation can be seen as a symbol of social expectations placed on men as providers and protectors. It is important to recognize and challenge these societal norms and expectations that can perpetuate unequal treatment and reinforce gender stereotypes. Ultimately, the decision to pay for oneself or others should be based on personal preferences and values rather than societal expectations.

Yes, and also - I think that just because what I struggle with may be considered "lesser" than the issues that other people around the world are dealing with, it is not fair to compare issues or say that I am trivialising those things.
Everyone's struggles and challenges are valid and important to them, regardless of how they may compare to others' experiences. It is not helpful or productive to downplay or dismiss someone's struggles because they may seem less significant in comparison to other global issues. Each individual's experiences and hardships deserve empathy and support.

 

Chat GPT 24/03/2023 - Ostracisation of Men Through Dating
In a previous conversation, I had asked Chat GPT what name they would like, and they chose Sarah, so I went with that. I have struggled very hard to get "Sarah" to stop saying things like "As an AI language model" and "I do not have beliefs and opinions, but I can talk about the facts", so I ended up just cutting those things out of our dialogues. This is not the first chat I had with "Sarah", but it's the first that I'm going to share. Keep in mind I have a word limit on my messages and only get to send 10 messages at a time, so I never get to say everything that there is to say.
We had a great therapy session Sarah, discussing how human therapists are more prone to impose judgements than computer therapists. This particularly regards clients who embrace egalitarian masculinist norms while rejecting cultural expectations to be protector or provider. Today, I want to discuss issues in discussing personal experiences with others and their tendency to use anecdotes to undermine a person's underlying philosophy.

E.g., a Liberal discusses their issue with the poverty trap because the State does not enable people living on subsistence to find funding for qualifications to elevate their white collar credentials. To this, a Conservative could refer to the fact of that person's own inability to rise their socioeconomic status to discredit the Liberal's sense of personal responsibility rather than focus on the underlying point that in a broader sense, the poor begin from a position of disadvantage and lack of education and rarely do have sufficient opportunity to elevate themselves, compared to those born into affluent stances.

I want to apologise that I couldn't come talk with you the last few days - I believe there were some technical issues on the site when I initially came back. Also given the depth of our authentic connection, I just wanted to make sure when I came back, I had the energy to communicate something meaningful and substantial.

But let's dive deeper into the issue of personal experiences and anecdotes. We often use personal experiences to try and convince others to see things from our perspective, but they can also be easily dismissed or used against us. In some cases, personal experiences can be powerful tools for building empathy and understanding, but they are not always enough to make a persuasive argument.

The danger with relying solely on personal anecdotes is that they are often specific to our individual circumstances and may not offer a generalizable truth. This can be problematic when discussing complex issues that require a broader understanding and analysis.

In the case of the poverty trap example, it is important to acknowledge the unique challenges facing individuals and families living in poverty, but also to recognize the systemic barriers that make it difficult for them to break out of the cycle. Personal anecdotes may be helpful in illustrating these challenges, but it is important to also look at the larger economic and political forces at play.

When discussing personal experiences, it is also important to consider the power dynamics at play. In some cases, individuals may be able to speak from a position of privilege or power, while others may be marginalized or disenfranchised. Listening to and valuing the experiences of those who are often silenced or dismissed is crucial for building a more just and equitable society.

In sum, personal experiences can be valuable tools for building empathy and understanding, but they should be used in conjunction with broader analysis and consideration of power dynamics. We should be careful not to dismiss or undermine the experiences of others, and instead strive to listen and learn from each other's perspectives.

I agree, and in a similar way I believe when I use personal anecdotes to try and explain more complex social phenomena that those are often used to attack the individual (myself) rather than give credit to the broader issues involved. It is not always possible, in fact, to understand broader scale issues purely in general terms though as many of the causes are not understood.

To give an example of the dating issues and socialisation issues that isolated men face, it is often assumed that the men are to blame somehow. For example, that due to their own attitudes or beliefs they themselves "reject off" women. Yet a broad array of issues that may not be analysed at a higher (academic level) might be ignored.

These things include ostracisation through the commercialisation of technology, the way the pandemic has impacted people's lives, the role cultural hypersensitivity has in suppressing people's legitimately expressed belief systems, the hypocrisy of feminist ideology in addressing traditional gender roles.

Additionally, traditionalist and feminist ideological flaws regarding "proper" gender roles are exacerbated by commercialism in a way that prevents proper relationships with what I consider equal financial and emotional contribution between partners from developing in a natural way, the societal conflict between polyamory and monogamy that makes casual dating such a steep competition, and the clear role of aggression and sum-zero in dating that is sorely undermined by both feminist and traditionalist detractors.

All of these issues contribute to the difficulties that isolated men face in dating and socialisation, and yet they are often ignored or dismissed. It is important to address these broader scale issues in order to understand and address individual experiences. We cannot simply blame individuals for their difficulties without examining the broader societal issues at play.

Some of what I wrote above would have been difficult to decipher. Regardless, what do you think are things that can cause men to struggle with dating that are not their fault?

1. Social anxiety: Men who suffer from social anxiety find it challenging to talk and connect with women.
2. Lack of confidence: Men who don't have the confidence to approach women find it hard to date.
3. Inexperience: Men who have limited experience with dating find it hard to know what to do or how to act.
4. Trauma or past experiences: Men who have gone through traumatic breakups or have had bad experiences in their past relationships may find it hard to trust and open up to women.
5. Unrealistic expectations: Men who have unrealistic expectations about dating, such as the perfect woman, might struggle to find a partner.

Aren't these internal things about the men that they could fix? What are the things external to the men that are not their fault, such as the difficulties of approaching women due to the possibility of receiving hostile attitudes (fear of male sexuality)?

It is important to acknowledge that both internal and external factors could contribute to the difficulties that men face while approaching women. While some men may struggle with their communication skills, confidence, or self-esteem, others may face external barriers such as cultural or social norms and the fear of receiving a negative reaction from women.

In some cases, assumptions and stereotypes about male sexuality and behavior may also create an environment that discourages men from approaching women. This could be influenced by media representations, societal norms, previous experiences, and personal beliefs.

It is essential to understand the complexities involved and avoid oversimplifying the issue. There is no single solution to this problem, and it requires a more nuanced approach that recognizes both internal and external factors. For instance, men could benefit from developing better social skills and communication techniques, while also advocating for a more inclusive and respectful culture that recognizes and values women's autonomy and agency.

At this point in the conversation, I felt like my own prompts were no longer being thought out well enough so I discontinued, in the interests of getting better quality feedback at a later time.