This was pretty wild. Veers deeply into broad generalizations that have the potential to be dangerous in some way I cannot name - but if you stop and consider each archetype as a vector along which you can accidentally trap yourself, its a thought provoking read at least. Unfortunately its also a list of undesirable damaged characters followed by some model of a "whole man" that is somehow infinitely attractive and stable. That's a lot of malarkey in my opinion. We're on a many-dimensional journey and all of us are some degree of lost. Some good guide markers in here though.

I think it does boil down to "try things a lot," especially creating real connections with other people, even though you will painfully fail many times. Drive yourself to have real conversations. Protect your health and keep yourself strong physically and mentally. That's a powerful base to be standing on. Then go find a blend of interest, purpose and duty - building a sense of dharma helps you wake up in the morning and move through the world feeling a little less "lost."

Just find someone you usually enjoy being around and can ultimately start a family with, and who would be loyal. Too many people are over-thinking this stuff.

so uh

how do I avoid dating women like this one

fright night

This has quite a few issues with framing bias. It sets up this dichotomy between “polite society’s” vague, restrictive rules for men and the "manosphere’s" toxic but concrete guidance. Then she talks about only the men she has dated and kind of ignores the rest of male dating experience. All in all it just reads like a emotional attempt to persuade us to.. something.. but no real evidence. I don't think we can generalize men of the bay area, or men in general around these experience of one person.

Lost in in the discourse of of toxic masculinity and deconstruction of male gender identies is the truth that there are traditionally masculine traits that women are biologically hard wired to find attractive.

Women across all cultures are drawn to status and, for lack of a more precise term, stoicism.

Status can take many forms in different societies or even sub cultures, but striving for status of some sort seems to be a universally attractive trait for males.

Women verbalize they want men who are emotionally available, but I've been compared to Spock in demeanor quite frequently and it seems to be quite popular with women.

The prescriptive feminist talking points about what makes a man are poorly justified, and as such more likely to be taken as political agenda than well-meaning advice for self-actualization. But I don’t think this post deserves to be flagged, it’s bringing up a discussion relevant to the current political landscape.

Human populations independently progressed so much culturally and otherwise beyond being hunter-gatherers, and the fact that the discourse neglects all those lines of human cultural evolution when it talks about “monkey brain”, “brain made for eating berries in a cave”, or “you gather, me hunt” is both thoughtless and incomplete.

Let’s consider this first point in particular,

> Your authentic self should not be: dominant, highly interested in sex, competitive, emotionally reserved, prone to risk-taking, bad at reading emotions, stoic, or interested in power.

Coupled with the rest of the points, it appears to be describing the mental state of a Eunuch, which goes against the advice to not be stoic, so I find that inconsistent. Secondly, I don’t think it’s fair to demand that one shouldn’t expect good behavior from others—that’s the very basis of social contracts. But let’s stay on point.

There are many inventions which have created cultural paradigm shifts, and I think the invention of guns/drones are similar in that they have equalized men and women in terms of strength and capability. FFS, please don’t read this as me inciting any kind of hatred against one type of people or another. Instead note that physical strength is not the differentiating factor that it once used to be.

I think it’s necessary now to think of the potential that that cultural shift presents. To me, I think there’s an opportunity here to truly design a gender-neutral cultural framework because what matters now is what’s in your mind, that is your character, desires, and personal expression.

Instead I offer this version of what it takes to be a man or woman or as-you-wish: think of mirroring God (note: I am not religious, but I think of god as a philosophical framework).

So women, men and whoever: as God’s mirror, you’re a creator, you’re magnanimous, you’re wise, you’re just, you wield your wrath in a just manner, etc. etc. You are the embodiment of noblesse oblige. But you are mortal. So you must take care to protect yourself, both physically and mentally from people with parasitic or narcissistic traits. Encourage self-reliance and independent thinking, the basis of exercising free will.

The above isn’t exactly completely thought out on my part, so I am sure there are gaps to be addressed. But I don’t think that kind of philosophical framework precludes sex or relationships, or demands heteronormativity. You could have multiple partners, but that just means do it in some gracious and respectful manner, for example. I don’t know, it depends. A lot of people with money don’t have class.

I also don’t think it’s fair to expect men to do all the hard work of trying to fix these cultural issues by programming themselves to be one thing or another, but not expect that of everyone else. Everyone is terrible, in their own unique and special way.

But most of all, everyone needs to realize that there are huge capability gaps between themselves and other people, and one may never be able to close such gaps for any number of reasons. The best you can do is educate and move on.