Why does biology justify traditional obligations despite conflicting cultural realities? #biology #traditional

You’re not advocating individual freedom. You’re arguing that people’s value should be determined by how useful they are to society under your rules. And your claim that childless women are economic parasites ignores the fact that people contribute through work, taxes, caregiving, and countless other ways. Having children isn’t the only way to contribute to society. You keep calling this evolutionary biology, but describing reproductive patterns in nature doesn’t prove society should enforce traditional gender roles. Biology describes what happens; it doesn’t automatically dictate what people owe society.

Men can contribute to society without marrying, having children, becoming providers, or being warriors. And women who don’t have children aren’t parasites simply because they don’t reproduce. That’s your ideology, not an established fact of evolutionary biology. Nobody is arguing for benefits without contributions. I’m arguing that contribution should be a choice, not a prescribed gender role enforced by social pressure or law. You talk about men being free to reject traditionalism, but then call them useless, lazy, and parasites if they do. That’s not freedom. It’s conditional respect: men are valued only when they serve society on your terms. I want men to have the freedom to define their own lives, not just the freedom to choose which traditional obligations they’ll fulfill.

Your “solution” to men’s problems is to take away women’s voting rights, criminalize female adultery, restore traditional gender roles, and force men back into being providers and warriors. You’re not liberating men. You’re replacing one set of gender expectations with another. You claim traditionalism benefits men, yet your definition of being a man requires men to sacrifice, provide, fight, and earn their status. Where’s the freedom for men who don’t want that life? Or do men only deserve respect when they fulfill their obligations to everyone else? And saying men historically controlled society doesn’t prove traditionalism was good for men. Having power over women is not the same thing as being free from unfair obligations, and being expected to die for your country or financially support a family isn’t automatically a male advantage. You also claim women’s voting rights are responsible for men’s problems, but you haven’t demonstrated that revoking those rights would fix them. You’ve simply decided that women having political power is the problem. Men’s rights should mean men have rights as individuals, not that men must return to a prescribed role as providers and warriors. I don’t want men controlled by feminism, and I don’t want men controlled by traditionalism. I want men to have the freedom to choose their own lives without being treated as disposable when society needs their labor, money, or sacrifice. That’s the difference between advocating for men and advocating for a return to male-dominated society. You’re not offering men an escape from the system. You’re offering them a different version of it.

Because recognizing a problem and asking who contributes to it are two different things. If men are treated as disposable, why should we avoid discussing everyone who reinforces that expectation? Nobody is asking women to solve all men’s problems. The question is why men’s problems are so often dismissed when addressing them might require society to change its expectations of women, too.

Nobody said women created the system or are solely to blame for it. But if a system treats men as disposable, shouldn’t we all care about changing it? And if women benefit from certain aspects of that system or reinforce its expectations, why should they be exempt from criticism? You can acknowledge men helped build a system without pretending women have no role in maintaining it today.

Why isn’t LADIES FIRST female supremacy? 🤔 #racism #feminism #racist

Yes, it says “✨Made with AI” right underneath.

What steps, beyond just coping, are being taken as part of “fixing the situation”? 🤔

What makes you think men are gonna suddenly wake up and collectively organize if they haven’t already? What’s the breaking point?

If the reality is that you’re being abused, then coping isn’t a good strategy, you must fix your situation.

“Returning to traditionalism” is not a pro-male stance, it’s an anti-feminist / trad-con position.

You’re confusing equality with being identical. Equal rights don’t mean everyone has the same abilities or deserves the same position. They mean people shouldn’t be denied rights based on their sex. If you believe authority should be based on competence, then judge individuals by their competence. Why should an incompetent man outrank a competent woman simply because he’s male? Meritocracy means judging people by their abilities, not giving men authority over women by default. You can believe in order and hierarchy without abandoning equal rights.

Sounds like nothing more than COPE to me 🤦🏻‍♂️

Men aren’t all equally capable, so why should every man have authority over every woman? You’re using individual differences to justify collective sex-based hierarchy. Equality doesn’t mean everyone is identical. It means people shouldn’t be denied equal rights based on characteristics that don’t determine their individual ability. If your argument is that the most capable should lead, you’re arguing for meritocracy, not male dominance.

How do you fight your oppression when you’re in love with your oppressor? 🤔

The manosphere is a dead end 😵

The problem is that the manosphere often confuses helping men with teaching men how to better conform to a society that disadvantages them. Fitness, discipline, brotherhood and self-improvement are great, but none of those things automatically make a movement pro-male. If you teach men to become more attractive, wealthy and high-status so women will value them, but never question the cultural expectations, legal systems and social norms that create male disadvantages in the first place, are you really liberating men? A movement that challenges feminism but still promotes chivalry, male disposability, provider expectations and the idea that men must earn women’s approval hasn’t escaped the system. It’s just repackaging it. The real question isn’t whether the manosphere helps men cope with their problems. It’s whether it challenges the institutions and beliefs that help create those problems. Men deserve more than self-improvement advice. They deserve fairness, equal treatment, and the freedom to live without being defined by their usefulness to women or society.

Please watch this video and tell me what should be done about it: youtu.be/faTSZYD_zsU?is=GvHX…

I literally cover that exact question in this episode: youtu.be/dGwhcrfSAbU?is=c2xu…