Posts by wiredmoose3

Drew Lee7 said:First off, my bad, wiredmoose3 for being caught in the crossfire of this fight between me and—let's be honest—some of the other women here, rather than you specifically. So, sorry about that, Baby.

I actually wrote you a massive response, but the ether just swallowed it whole. I honestly didn't have the energy to deal with the tech issues again. Long story short: if we're talking about the status of any individual—man or woman—within a society, we're talking about every single social dimension. And when I say "every," I don't just mean the public or political stuff, but the private side too. You can't draw conclusions about the nature of society in ancient Greece based on a single quote ripped out of context. As a counterpoint, look at the Feast, where it mentions that Aristotle's teacher was a woman. But the Feast itself is a work that pretty much glorifies pederasty and carries some slightly misogynistic undertones. So how are we supposed to reconcile those two things? Things are always way more complicated than they look on the surface. Historically, we have a decent idea of when and how patriarchy emerged: iron, warriors, cavalry, nomads—those are the links. The ancient Greeks were linguistically Indo-European (so, again, iron, warriors, cavalry, nomads) who migrated to the Greek peninsula in several waves. Of course, they didn't just land on empty soil; they either assimilated parts of the local population or enslaved them. The existing cultures were agrarian with strong matriarchal traits (you can see it in the myths). That’s just one slice of the complex Greek story, especially when you factor in the influence from the East.

I'll say it again: you didn't deserve to be mocked. But goldenranger5 definitely does. At first, I just thought she was having a hard time wrapping her head around things, but... she actually admitted there's some weird, secret connection between us. Turns out it's just her being stuck up about me, which isn't my problem, it's hers.

And boldwalker12 decided to use two philosophers as examples who are famously misogynistic. I actually like them quite a bit, though both had incredibly tragic lives—not just because Schopenhauer was depressed and academically sidelined, and Nietzsche suffered and died from progressive paralysis (which is both physical and mental), but because both were also total failures in love.

Honestly, how many misogynistic and misandrist statements can you find on this forum alone? Hundreds upon hundreds. And then what? Some future historian could pick and choose a few of them and use them to claim we live in a patriarchy or a matriarchy.

Apology accepted.

brightridge59 said:I certainly wouldn't want to make a broad generalization, but I feel like that is exactly what you're doing right now. 😁

Do you have any examples of female villains? I’m looking for characters that sort of capture the essence of most women, if that makes sense.

To be perfectly honest, I’ve always found myself gravitating toward male-dominated circles. There’s just something about the dynamic that feels more intuitive to me; I find it much easier to strike up a conversation and truly find common ground with men than I ever have with the opposite sex.

Do you happen to be on the same page as I am regarding this matter? 🙂

I’ve found that I tend to get along much more easily with men; there’s just a certain relaxed, open, and genuinely fun energy about them that I find really refreshing. To be perfectly honest, based on my own personal experiences, I’ve often found women to be somewhat more difficult—tending toward being unkind, envious, or even a bit hypocritical. It seems like our conversations frequently drift toward trivialities that simply don't capture my interest or leave me feeling quite bored, so if we’re talking about ease of connection, I definitely give the edge to the guys. Of course, I realize this is strictly my own subjective take on things, and I’m sure many others would have a completely different perspective to share. After all, there's a saying for a reason—different strokes for different folks!

I certainly respect that it’s your personal take on the matter, but I have to wonder—where is the actual evidence to support the claim that women are inherently unpleasant?

To be honest, I find myself gravitating toward male company quite often. It isn’t necessarily about being in a large group where it’s five guys and me, though; more often than not, it’s just those meaningful one-on-one conversations that I truly value. In fact, if I look at my inner circle, I actually have more close male friends than female ones. My relationships with women tend to stay a bit more on the surface level—usually centered around grabbing coffee, going out for drinks, or just chatting about the latest guys we've encountered. There's nothing wrong with that, of course, but I find the depth I share with my male friends to be much more fulfilling.

I also have a few wonderful girlfriends in my circle whom I can say, with absolute certainty, are truly lovely people. They aren't just friends out of habit or convenience; they are genuinely kind souls through and through. 🙂

I honestly can’t quite wrap my head around how the title even relates to the actual topic at hand. It feels completely disconnected. From what I can gather, it just looks like a gathering of some well-known, rather frustrated men.

What truly weighs on my mind—and I find it genuinely unsettling—is that even when you weigh all those arguments regarding the historical suppression of women, there remains this lingering question. I was actually discussing this recently with an old friend of mine, much like how one might sit down for a long chat over coffee in Seattle, and we touched upon a profound paradox. If women finally have the autonomy to choose their own paths—choices that previous generations quite literally fought and died for—why is it that some still gravitate toward being exclusively a mother, a homemaker, and a wife? It’s a complex puzzle that I can't help but dwell on.

brightridge59 said:I find it quite difficult to wrap my head around the idea that even in our modern era, women still face such limited choices—to the point where one might feel like opting out entirely. That’s just how I see things. And honestly, I wouldn't dream of judging anyone, because I certainly wouldn't want to be surprised if someone actually found happiness within those constraints.

When I look at certain dynamics in the world around me, I truly struggle to believe that people can still hold the mindset that the man should always come first, essentially bending everything to his will while the woman is treated as if she barely matters at all.

Yeah, everything you mentioned is pretty depressing... but what’s just as unsettling is that the men in these women's lives actually go along with it—they see these roles as perfectly normal, even desirable, and end up fueling the whole cycle.
By pure coincidence, I find myself constantly surrounded by crowds of twenty-somethings—both guys and girls. Based on their takes, it’s pretty glaringly obvious that the situation in their own homes will likely look exactly like the one described above in about ten years.

I’ve been sidelined more times than I can count—strictly because I happen to be a woman. It wasn't even subtle; people have actually said it to my face. I haven't exactly encountered that specific brand of discrimination directed at men—not that I'm complaining, per se.
I’m sitting here writing this while listening to a radio ad that leans just a little too hard into chauvinism: "A woman went to the bank. Do you have any idea how long that takes?" — wtf?
At the end of the day—regardless of how you slice it—men and women are both stuck in the same boat. We’re all in this together.
Some people here keep bringing up the election—but let’s be honest, you can't actually vote unless you're truly awake. We all grow up absorbing these viewpoints, whether we realize it or not, until they just become part of our DNA. To step outside that bubble requires actual critical thinking—which, let's face it, is a pretty rare commodity in both individuals and society at large.
In this particular thread, a woman in this group finds herself facing an even tougher choice—if you can even call it that.

Quote : Baby blues

Drew Lee7 As specified by Steven Johnson3: I assume you mean contradiction? 🤷:

Contradictions are fine by me—we understand each other.

Quote : Baby blues

Drew Lee7 said:I don't see it that way at all. In a true patriarchal setup, a woman's primary role is motherhood, but that only works if the man is actually present in the picture. Under that system, divorce basically doesn't exist—there’s no real option for a woman to just walk away from her man. Instead, the power dynamic allows him to essentially cast her out while keeping full custody of the child. So... honestly? I think you're completely off base here.

Do you even know what separation anxiety in toddlers actually is? Clearly, you don't, which explains why you're posting such absolute garbage.

Quote : Baby blues

You mean contradiction, right? 🤷

So, you're really trying to base your entire argument on a single quote? What exactly are you trying to prove there? 😂

Sorry if I'm laughing, but I honestly can't help it. I actually wrote out this whole long-winded response to you, but then the entire thing just vanished into thin air. You took an Aristotelian quote, ripped it straight out of context, and now you're waving it around like it's some kind of smoking gun to prove how women are being oppressed. Sorry, but that's just ridiculous. 🤣

If you actually understood the subject matter you were trying to discuss, you wouldn't be so stunned by a single quote—there are plenty more where that came from, just like boldwalker12 pointed out.
It’s also common knowledge—though some would argue otherwise—that Western civilization was essentially built upon the foundations of ancient philosophy and Christian thought—along with their respective values.
So, you drop a line about sociological theory in one breath—invoking that general paradigm where societal values evolve at a glacial pace and are notoriously difficult to shift—and then you act surprised? If you’re actually following that logic, you should be well aware of how those values take root, get taught, passed down, and eventually reinforced. It isn't exactly rocket science.

Quote : Baby blues

Drew Lee7 As requested: Forgive me if I laugh—it’s just a reflex at this point. I actually sat down and wrote out a much longer response to you, but the whole thing vanished into thin air. You took an Aristotelian quote, stripped it of all context, and now you're waving it around like some grand piece of evidence for the systemic oppression of women. I’ll pass—that's just a stretch. 🤣

I’m not out here trying to prove anything—that’s just not my style. I'm actually attempting to have a conversation.
I honestly have no idea what you’re trying to prove—or even what exactly you're aiming for here.
I’m well aware that when someone runs out of actual arguments—or simply never had any to begin with—they tend to pivot toward mocking their opponent. It's a classic move.

Drew Lee7 said:It’s basically a wash. For every thread like this, there’s another one running the exact opposite way. So... what's even the point? ☕ Of course someone who’s pissed off and frustrated is gonna start a massive, sweeping generalization thread like this. I mean, look at me—I’ve started them too. I'll admit it. Look, I love a good provocation... but you can't have a fire without fuel, right? You know what I'm saying?

In the first case, you’ve basically got two personalities that are, in a twisted sort of way, perfectly matched in their immaturity. Look, I’m all for saying violence is bad—obviously. But the garbage being pushed through the media lately? It’s got zero basis in logic or actual science. If that's the case, why do we see these women constantly falling back into the same patterns with abusive partners? Nobody is forcing them into these relationships; they’re choosing them. On some subconscious level, they're drawn to that exact type of person. It’s such a massive, complicated issue that trying to sum it up in a few sentences is a lost cause. Fine. Let’s "prevent violence." Easy, right? How exactly? You really think there's a way to stop a deranged husband from killing his wife just because she wants to leave him? Seriously, tell me how. Someone who has made that decision is going to follow through. The only real solution would be if nobody even thought of doing it in the first place. And newsflash: you can't fix that with legislation. Especially not with the kind of mindless nonsense being proposed right now.

When it comes to sexual assault, most cases basically boil down to one person's word against another's. So, what’s the move then? Look, if someone kills the spirit of a woman, that's easy enough to see, but proving everything else? That's a massive uphill battle. This whole new proposal suggesting that a woman saying "no" should be enough on its own is just nonsense. Seriously, what does that even accomplish? It just brings us right back to the same old problem: it's just one person's word against another.

Why on earth should I be forced to think exactly like feminists? Honestly, that’s just called groupthink—or straight-up totalitarianism if we're being real. Thank God that through college and my current job, I’ve run into plenty of them, whether personally or by reading their papers. I actually collaborate with some of them, and I’ve never once tried to stop anyone from voicing their opinion, whether I agree with them or not. So, I expect the same courtesy in return. No need for the moral outrage here. Seriously though, why am I expected to take these "scientific" papers seriously when their methodology regarding the patriarchy is fundamentally broken? It’s hilarious how they always talk about the patriarchy using these ridiculous, fairy-tale examples—societies living "beyond the seven seas" that supposedly survived on nothing but crusts of bread and slices of cheese, politically crippled because they were constantly being trampled by other cultures until they devolved into mere survivalists. We could go on about that forever. Why don't they ever discuss the patriarchy using actual historical heavyweights like ancient Rome, Egypt, or Greece? Or any actual, functioning society? This feminist narrative about male oppression dating back to the Stone Age is honestly so absurdly funny it’s almost pathetic. It has zero connection to any legitimate historical evidence.

Drew Lee7 said:I honestly think this kind of literature is just trash and lacks any real substance.

Look, I feel like there could be plenty of middle ground here, even if they don't end up agreeing on everything. But hey, whatever...

Don't get me wrong, I don't have anything against feminists, but when someone calls something "unacceptable" and it isn't actual violence—just a different opinion or viewpoint—it basically proves my point: it implies that person feels primitive or backward just for thinking that way. And it’s not just talk anymore; we're seeing more and more legal stuff (or at least proposals that border on being totally absurd) popping up. One example is how you could practically end up behind bars just for sending a suggestive message. 🙄

The right to choose? Sure, absolutely. But look at how things actually work today. Does every woman really have that choice in practice? Let's say she wants to be both a scientist and a mother. She has to grind through undergrad, then grad school, then her PhD, all while fighting to keep her job... if she decides to have kids, she simply isn't playing on the same level as a woman who chooses not to.

Drew Lee7 said:Let's swap out the word "normal." The real issue is that they're just using terrible methodology. I've looked at dozens of papers like this in my time. I've read them. Their basic goal isn't even to study a phenomenon and draw conclusions; the conclusions are already baked in from the start. The whole paper is just a desperate attempt to cherry-pick facts to support a predetermined opinion.

What's the connection? Sadly, it's tied to family dynamics, identity crises, and all those past disappointments people project onto the entire male gender... yeah, it goes on and on.

Drew Lee7 said:Look, I’d be an idiot if I claimed discrimination doesn't exist in today's world. It's really just a question of where you're looking. For a huge chunk of American history leading up to the mid-1900s, most of the country was struggling way more than people realize. We're talking about places like Appalachia, the rural coastlines, or even parts of Canada where people migrated from; basically, these were incredibly impoverished farming communities that have been through absolute hell historically. The only area that was somewhat better off—and god help us, this was actually more progressive toward women—was the Midwest. That’s the point I’m making. You can't take a region where people are barely scraping by, shaped by constant historical trauma, and use it to draw sweeping conclusions about everyone. Besides, those were mostly shepherd communities. Nomadic, basically. It’s common knowledge in history and ethnology that there's a massive distinction between nomadic and agrarian societies, where the former tended to be strictly patriarchal in the modern sense, while the latter weren't. Sure, authoritative patriarchy existed, and it still does, but it hasn't been the universal standard everywhere, despite how some people try to paint it. It’s just a byproduct of specific historical and social circumstances.

Do you notice the glaring contradiction here?

Drew Lee7 said:It’s basically a wash. For every thread like this, there’s another one running the exact opposite way. So... what's even the point? ☕ Of course someone who’s pissed off and frustrated is gonna start a massive, sweeping generalization thread like this. I mean, look at me—I’ve started them too. I'll admit it. Look, I love a good provocation... but you can't have a fire without fuel, right? You know what I'm saying?

In the first case, you’ve basically got two personalities that are, in a twisted sort of way, perfectly matched in their immaturity. Look, I’m all for saying violence is bad—obviously. But the garbage being pushed through the media lately? It’s got zero basis in logic or actual science. If that's the case, why do we see these women constantly falling back into the same patterns with abusive partners? Nobody is forcing them into these relationships; they’re choosing them. On some subconscious level, they're drawn to that exact type of person. It’s such a massive, complicated issue that trying to sum it up in a few sentences is a lost cause. Fine. Let’s "prevent violence." Easy, right? How exactly? You really think there's a way to stop a deranged husband from killing his wife just because she wants to leave him? Seriously, tell me how. Someone who has made that decision is going to follow through. The only real solution would be if nobody even thought of doing it in the first place. And newsflash: you can't fix that with legislation. Especially not with the kind of mindless nonsense being proposed right now.

When it comes to sexual assault, most cases basically boil down to one person's word against another's. So, what’s the move then? Look, if someone kills the spirit of a woman, that's easy enough to see, but proving everything else? That's a massive uphill battle. This whole new proposal suggesting that a woman saying "no" should be enough on its own is just nonsense. Seriously, what does that even accomplish? It just brings us right back to the same old problem: it's just one person's word against another.

Why on earth should I be forced to think exactly like feminists? Honestly, that’s just called groupthink—or straight-up totalitarianism if we're being real. Thank God that through college and my current job, I’ve run into plenty of them, whether personally or by reading their papers. I actually collaborate with some of them, and I’ve never once tried to stop anyone from voicing their opinion, whether I agree with them or not. So, I expect the same courtesy in return. No need for the moral outrage here. Seriously though, why am I expected to take these "scientific" papers seriously when their methodology regarding the patriarchy is fundamentally broken? It’s hilarious how they always talk about the patriarchy using these ridiculous, fairy-tale examples—societies living "beyond the seven seas" that supposedly survived on nothing but crusts of bread and slices of cheese, politically crippled because they were constantly being trampled by other cultures until they devolved into mere survivalists. We could go on about that forever. Why don't they ever discuss the patriarchy using actual historical heavyweights like ancient Rome, Egypt, or Greece? Or any actual, functioning society? This feminist narrative about male oppression dating back to the Stone Age is honestly so absurdly funny it’s almost pathetic. It has zero connection to any legitimate historical evidence.

Well, it can be. For instance, look at what Aristotle wrote:
"Just as a sickly parent sometimes produces sickly children, and sometimes produces healthy ones, so too from a female body, sometimes a female is born, and sometimes a male. A woman is like a debilitated man; her monthly menses is merely seed, but an impure seed. This seed lacks one thing—the source of life—which resides solely within the male seed."

boldwalker12 said:Look, I’m not claiming this is 100% okay. I explicitly said that, to some extent, it *is* discrimination. It’s all about the balance of power. You could argue it’s also discriminatory when a company like a major tech firm in Silicon Valley decides to focus exclusively on hiring women for a while because they have a massive shortage of female talent. There are plenty of examples of that happening, and it’s precisely because there are still so many male-dominated industries where men hold all the cards. So, I don't see it being quite as controversial when women need a dedicated space where they can focus on
issues specifically affecting women. I’m not out here defending anyone; it’s entirely possible that this mindset turns out to be a huge mistake in the long run. Personally, I think men desperately need to be educated on these issues, and isolating them just fuels more misunderstanding. Bottom line: it’s not "good," but I was just trying to find some logical reasoning for why it happens this way.

Right, we get it... look, my goal isn't to attack anyone—it's just that this kind of practice seems counterproductive in the long term. Besides, I personally find those "Women Only" or "Men Only" signs incredibly cringey.

Drew Lee7 said:It’s basically a wash. For every thread like this, there’s another one running the exact opposite way. So... what's even the point? ☕ Of course someone who’s pissed off and frustrated is gonna start a massive, sweeping generalization thread like this. I mean, look at me—I’ve started them too. I'll admit it. Look, I love a good provocation... but you can't have a fire without fuel, right? You know what I'm saying?

In the first case, you’ve basically got two personalities that are, in a twisted sort of way, perfectly matched in their immaturity. Look, I’m all for saying violence is bad—obviously. But the garbage being pushed through the media lately? It’s got zero basis in logic or actual science. If that's the case, why do we see these women constantly falling back into the same patterns with abusive partners? Nobody is forcing them into these relationships; they’re choosing them. On some subconscious level, they're drawn to that exact type of person. It’s such a massive, complicated issue that trying to sum it up in a few sentences is a lost cause. Fine. Let’s "prevent violence." Easy, right? How exactly? You really think there's a way to stop a deranged husband from killing his wife just because she wants to leave him? Seriously, tell me how. Someone who has made that decision is going to follow through. The only real solution would be if nobody even thought of doing it in the first place. And newsflash: you can't fix that with legislation. Especially not with the kind of mindless nonsense being proposed right now.

When it comes to sexual assault, most cases basically boil down to one person's word against another's. So, what’s the move then? Look, if someone kills the spirit of a woman, that's easy enough to see, but proving everything else? That's a massive uphill battle. This whole new proposal suggesting that a woman saying "no" should be enough on its own is just nonsense. Seriously, what does that even accomplish? It just brings us right back to the same old problem: it's just one person's word against another.

Why on earth should I be forced to think exactly like feminists? Honestly, that’s just called groupthink—or straight-up totalitarianism if we're being real. Thank God that through college and my current job, I’ve run into plenty of them, whether personally or by reading their papers. I actually collaborate with some of them, and I’ve never once tried to stop anyone from voicing their opinion, whether I agree with them or not. So, I expect the same courtesy in return. No need for the moral outrage here. Seriously though, why am I expected to take these "scientific" papers seriously when their methodology regarding the patriarchy is fundamentally broken? It’s hilarious how they always talk about the patriarchy using these ridiculous, fairy-tale examples—societies living "beyond the seven seas" that supposedly survived on nothing but crusts of bread and slices of cheese, politically crippled because they were constantly being trampled by other cultures until they devolved into mere survivalists. We could go on about that forever. Why don't they ever discuss the patriarchy using actual historical heavyweights like ancient Rome, Egypt, or Greece? Or any actual, functioning society? This feminist narrative about male oppression dating back to the Stone Age is honestly so absurdly funny it’s almost pathetic. It has zero connection to any legitimate historical evidence.

Care to define "functioning"? Because by my standards—which may be skewed, I admit—those three examples were anything but normal.

Drew Lee7 said:It’s basically a wash. For every thread like this, there’s another one running the exact opposite way. So... what's even the point? ☕ Of course someone who’s pissed off and frustrated is gonna start a massive, sweeping generalization thread like this. I mean, look at me—I’ve started them too. I'll admit it. Look, I love a good provocation... but you can't have a fire without fuel, right? You know what I'm saying?

In the first case, you’ve basically got two personalities that are, in a twisted sort of way, perfectly matched in their immaturity. Look, I’m all for saying violence is bad—obviously. But the garbage being pushed through the media lately? It’s got zero basis in logic or actual science. If that's the case, why do we see these women constantly falling back into the same patterns with abusive partners? Nobody is forcing them into these relationships; they’re choosing them. On some subconscious level, they're drawn to that exact type of person. It’s such a massive, complicated issue that trying to sum it up in a few sentences is a lost cause. Fine. Let’s "prevent violence." Easy, right? How exactly? You really think there's a way to stop a deranged husband from killing his wife just because she wants to leave him? Seriously, tell me how. Someone who has made that decision is going to follow through. The only real solution would be if nobody even thought of doing it in the first place. And newsflash: you can't fix that with legislation. Especially not with the kind of mindless nonsense being proposed right now.

When it comes to sexual assault, most cases basically boil down to one person's word against another's. So, what’s the move then? Look, if someone kills the spirit of a woman, that's easy enough to see, but proving everything else? That's a massive uphill battle. This whole new proposal suggesting that a woman saying "no" should be enough on its own is just nonsense. Seriously, what does that even accomplish? It just brings us right back to the same old problem: it's just one person's word against another.

Why on earth should I be forced to think exactly like feminists? Honestly, that’s just called groupthink—or straight-up totalitarianism if we're being real. Thank God that through college and my current job, I’ve run into plenty of them, whether personally or by reading their papers. I actually collaborate with some of them, and I’ve never once tried to stop anyone from voicing their opinion, whether I agree with them or not. So, I expect the same courtesy in return. No need for the moral outrage here. Seriously though, why am I expected to take these "scientific" papers seriously when their methodology regarding the patriarchy is fundamentally broken? It’s hilarious how they always talk about the patriarchy using these ridiculous, fairy-tale examples—societies living "beyond the seven seas" that supposedly survived on nothing but crusts of bread and slices of cheese, politically crippled because they were constantly being trampled by other cultures until they devolved into mere survivalists. We could go on about that forever. Why don't they ever discuss the patriarchy using actual historical heavyweights like ancient Rome, Egypt, or Greece? Or any actual, functioning society? This feminist narrative about male oppression dating back to the Stone Age is honestly so absurdly funny it’s almost pathetic. It has zero connection to any legitimate historical evidence.

If you don't mind me asking—and I genuinely am curious here—what exactly is your connection to this?

boldwalker12 said:Yeah, okay, sure, it looks like discrimination. But I'm looking at this from a slightly different angle here. These are specialized programs dealing with specific issues that a lot of women just don't feel comfortable talking about when men are in the room. Between all the baggage attached to feminism and the fact that this kind of activism is still finding its footing here in the States, women find it incredibly hard to even start thinking about these topics, let alone speak out. They end up feeling like they sound discriminatory or overly militant themselves, and they always feel this weird, nagging need to apologize for being feminists. Honestly, I think it's just way easier for them to participate, speak up, and actually get involved if the environment is exclusively female.

There are Men's Studies and organizations dedicated to men's rights out there too, and realistically, I don't see many women sticking around or staying consistently active in those spaces for long. Maybe they'll pop in once or twice out of pure curiosity. Is it discriminatory? Technically, yes. But I don't think it's meant to be a permanent thing; I think things are set up this way until the public becomes more sensitive to the issues and until their work isn't constantly under fire from every direction. Most people approach this whole topic with a ton of suspicion and a pretty provocative attitude, so part of the reason these things still happen within closed female circles is actually somewhat justified.

Maybe we just had a massive misunderstanding.

I just wanted to touch on this briefly...
I think by practicing this—specifically by barring men—American academic programs and their brand of feminism are walking a very thin line. Here's the issue: based on your reasoning, they are essentially trying to achieve equality by eliminating it. Doesn't that strike you as completely absurd and contradictory? If we actually stop to think about the justification you provided—reading between the lines, so to speak—it clearly implies deepening the divide (which, if we're looking at the ultimate goal, hurts both men and women equally). Separating the sexes, in my view, only widens the gap. Just because something is in its infancy isn't an excuse; if you build something on a flawed foundation, it's a nightmare to fix later.
Either way, equality shouldn't just be the destination—it has to be the method, too.

Your post is so incredibly vague and contradictory—honestly, there's zero point in even trying to reply to it... I’d much rather clear up this space for people who actually want your help

Why bother continuing this conversation with me?

Do you even read my posts? I've already said goodbye to you twice now... but fine, I can make it a third time if it makes you feel better-
Best of luck to you!

...let's try this again..
Regardless of what kind of thread you decide to start, if you’re going to present yourself as some enlightened soul offering guidance—without actually mentioning any of your past experience or track record (which, frankly, matters to me, even if it isn't documented)—then asking about it is a perfectly reasonable question. You took that as an insult, and instead of answering, you just pivoted to being incredibly cynical and dismissive. In my book, that immediately undermines the persona you're trying to project. Look, I have high standards. It’s genuinely baffling how you expect anyone to trust your "expertise" based on nothing but snippets from Wikipedia, sarcasm, and dodging questions. You haven't given me a single tangible thing to latch onto to say, "Okay, maybe this person can actually help me." Post after post, you're just proving that you aren't ready to deal with people—especially not in an online community🙄...or do you honestly believe you won't run into these kinds of inquiries again? Do you think working with people is just easy and effortless?

In your last post, you had the nerve to bring up my method...really??

"The topic is healing without pills or doctors, according to the title. It’s not a topic about throwing your medication out the window or claiming you don't need it."
😕😕

"Learn to discipline your black-and-white thinking so you can actually recognize what things are really about."
Me, being patronizing? So, any opinion that doesn't align with yours is irrelevant? You clearly struggle with criticism—even when it's well-intentioned, in this case.

"Labeling things as irrelevant nonsense"
What might be irrelevant to you is vital to me... so much for having an individual approach.

"Focusing on my person,"
Since you haven't provided anything else of substance?

"You didn't understand, read more carefully"
Same here.

That’s all from me on this thread.
Once again,good luck!

wiredmoose3: — It’s a bit much, isn't it? — Just my observation from the sidelines.

Jeremy Alvarez5 As specified by wiredmoose3: You don't allow Duhovnjak to be cynical—but everyone else gets a free pass? Imagine a Duhovnjak who's actually too incompetent to pull off being cynical. 🤷 And what’s wrong with a little cynicism? It actually makes the whole thing more interesting—if you ask me. 😁

Since you’re already pulling from Wikipedia—I’ll go ahead and quote:

Cynicism—derived from the Ancient Greek *kynismos*, which basically translates to "like a dog" in terms of its biting sharpness—originally described the specific worldview and lifestyle adopted by the ancient Cynics.

Cynicism today seems to be more of a lifestyle choice than an attitude—a way to intentionally mock someone else's values while simultaneously calling their entire moral compass into question. It’s a bit of a cheap shot, really.
Cynicism can actually be a sign of resignation—the ultimate white flag for the cynic. It’s what happens when you still hold onto your ideals, but you've finally accepted that they're just impossible to pull off in the real world.

People constantly trip up by using cynicism as a synonym for sarcasm—it’s a common mistake. While sarcasm usually boils down to those bitter, dark-humored jabs we all know, cynicism actually goes much deeper—it’s more about a person’s fundamental outlook on life and their core character. Sarcasm isn't an expression of cynicism any more than every spiteful remark is necessarily driven by pure malice.

The quote doesn't really fit—not even close. I suppose I should probably say something—though I’m not entirely sure what there is to add at this stage. The experience of a spiritual person—it’s a bit of a different beast entirely.
The way you spend the rest of this post tearing down science only serves to validate the Quote—it’s pretty clear you don't have much of a grasp on the subject. You’re leaning way too hard on generalizations, which is ironic considering how much you preach about "individualized approaches"—though, of course, you only highlight that when it suits your narrative to create a negative generalization.

I’ve read enough of your posts—both before this thread started and since—to see you clearly have the knowledge. However, it lacks any real substance—it’s all deeply philosophical and likely only makes sense to those who already speak the language—which leads me to one conclusion: you lack practical experience.

Besides, you’re being a bit contradictory—one minute you're all for the pills, and the next—well, you aren't.

Regarding those credentials—degrees, certifications, being tied to some specific Ivy League school or local institution—it can honestly mean everything or absolutely nothing. The answer you gave me could have come from any random guy passing by on the street in Chicago—I was looking for something more substantial—something that actually digs into the granular details of the work itself.

Maybe I took all of this a bit too seriously—honestly, it’s probably my own fault.

Look, this is just my take on things—don't let it throw you off your game.
Best of luck out there!

I’m from another planet—I don't even have a Social Security number. 🙄 Actually, I am the future. Do you find me attractive? (Bare).

I smell cynicism...🤷...personally, I shudder at those "Duhovnjak" types who possess that particular trait... sigh... (I'm familiar with the Barin collection 🙂)

An Aversion isn't necessarily directed against conventional medicine,

It seemed that way...🤷

Regarding whether I'm crazy, or will be—whether I'm a psychologist, an X-Men, or a He-Man—how does any of that change what I'm saying? In terms of whether it is actually correct, or true?

So why is it such a struggle to answer? Don't get me wrong—your attempt is noble and clearly comes from a good place—I'm just curious about where it all stems from...

Jeremy Alvarez5 said:There’s honestly so much power in those ancient rituals, you know? Like, old tribes that were constantly at war had their own specific ways of cleansing themselves. If a guy lost his wife, he’d just go out and sing some heavy, soulful song to process it. Or look at puberty rites—those moments where a kid actually transitions into being a man or a woman. I guess the sheer belief these people had in their customs might have actually prevented a ton of the mental health issues we struggle with today in what we call "civilized" society.

Because of all the massive leaps we've made in science and tech, most Americans today put all their faith in clinical methods—pills, hospitals, seeing a doctor. But even with all that, the mental state of a huge chunk of the population is pretty rough. I mean, how many people can actually enjoy life without falling into the trap of alcohol, drugs, or all sorts of different addictions and obsessions? It feels like when someone hits a wall, the standard advice is just, "Don't trust your own gut, go see a psychologist or a psychiatrist and get some meds."

Sure, the lifestyles of primitive tribes and the specifics of their wars might seem kind of laughable to us now, but the concept of faith—just having that core belief—has its own incredible strength. When people give up prematurely and lean entirely on medication, which, let's be honest, can act just like drugs by narrowing your perception of reality, they make it even harder to actually tackle their own problems. It's like they lose the ability to find their own way. Plus, if nobody believes in them, and they're stuck in years of endless analysis while trying to deal with everyday life, finding a solution feels almost impossible.

Carl Jung, who really dug into this stuff, tried to use subconscious analysis—much like Sigmund Freud did—to hunt down the root cause of a patient's issues. He once pointed out that if a doctor actually managed to cure someone of schizophrenia (which is often treated as incurable), some colleague would probably just claim the patient never had it in the first place. So, in a culture where anyone struggling with mental health—not from drugs or booze, but from a genuine clash of deep emotions—is viewed as someone who just needs pills, someone to fear, or someone untrustworthy... well, you end up feeding them negativity through every glance and gesture. It just drains their will and their inner strength.

Lately, though, I've noticed more and more people moving away from traditional psychology and turning toward spirituality. My goal with this topic was to share some techniques that focus on that. I’d love to dive deeper into specific methods for building self-control if anyone is interested—techniques that help a person gain a faster, more direct insight into their own struggles, in a way that's totally different from the usual psychoanalysis routes.

Let’s be clear—this topic is excellent. I’m a huge advocate for anything "natural"—if that's even the right word for it—and I truly hope this takes off. But...
I might be off base here—but based on your posts— Jeremy Alvarez5Is it just me, or can anyone else sense a certain... let's call it an aversion to traditional medicine reading through this?
Regarding Boldano—do you actually have a license, a solid reference, or even a basic recommendation to back that up?

I wouldn't exactly say so based on those last two questions...🤔
But if that really is the core issue—and we're assuming it is—then we’re going to need a bit more detail to work with.😬

Dammit, we’re just spinning our wheels here....😵
copperfox22, you’re messing with me, obviously....🙂
The answers to your questions are actually pretty straightforward—life itself tends to be quite simple if you look at it that way...
1. Why can't we find it?
And more importantly, why should we even bother looking? Desires, wants, needs, and dreams are one thing—but circumstances, opportunities, and reality are something else entirely. They rarely align; usually, they aren't even in the same zip code. Is it karma, a bad hand dealt by fate, pure bad luck, or just some cosmic curse? 😲😁...I suspect we might be left without an answer. My approach is to simply do my best and adapt to the situation as gracefully as possible—especially since changing things isn't always an option. As for tomorrow... I don't think even the heavens know what's coming...😬
2. How to overcome fear....
You need courage to live. Period.
How do you beat fear? By walking straight into it.
Pro tip: ask yourself which will sting more later—the memory of a missed opportunity or just another "failure." 😢

Let's play a game... let's play a little roulette

Since I have a habit of sharing things, here’s a little something to lift the mood.😁http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32Js2Ef5Ojg

copperfox22 said:Thanks, friend, but I’m just not as certain as you are.
And honestly, the worst part is when you start losing faith. 😢

Certain? I’m not certain about anything—not even my own mortality... for instance, I’ve heard people claiming some guy has been alive for two thousand years and will live forever 🤷😁
Yeah, I agree that losing faith is terrifying—but only because reality starts hitting you all at once... and we all know how ugly and intimidating reality can get. Still, facing it is the only way to actually *live*... it gives you the agency to manage your life, look at it clearly, steer it, and eventually accept it. Of course, you won't always be "on top of things," and life will knock you down sometimes, but you learn to pick yourself up over time. And if you can't? Well, there are friends (if you're lucky), and there's zero shame in seeking professional help these days
It wasn't easy for me to accept the possibility that my prince might never show up in this lifetime... but after the initial disappointment, my own life started feeling clearer, more defined... which happened to coincide with that first, sudden wave of general maturity (which is, naturally, a lifelong 😉 process)... you realize there are no princes, that faith is just a fog (and I don't mean 😁 politics), hope is a fickle 😁 Baby blues, and certainty is nothing but an illusion... yet you still have to keep walking... and
...."maybe everything really does work out for the best"...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmr1Ind-3kA

To be fair, 😍...it seems even the geniuses are on the same page here. 🤣

copperfox22 said:Man, I’m going to be the cashier at the checkout 😁, and he’s going to walk up like:

And Mary was happier than she'd ever been before.
But get this—he tells me: "I finally met the love of my life."
About a month ago, when I was heading down to the corner store
Just grabbing some bread and a carton of milk
And there I am at the register, and I lock eyes with her—everything just stops.
It was like my brain went completely numb; all I could hear was her voice:
"Hey, honey, here's your change."

😍

And now look at this mess—all this magic and new drama to deal with. 😁

As they say...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDRGNLATlXs

🙂

wiredmoose3, here’s a little something to brighten up your anniversary 😍
btw, I’ve been picking up some Manistru lately too 😁😳
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AJmKkU5POA

"I don't want any more suffering, mistakes, or wrong turns"
That’s basically like saying you don't want to live at all... soon enough you'll say "I want to," I can see it coming🙂...but here's the catch—you won't actually accept it. As crimsonheron80 pointed out, everything you listed is an essential part of life. As long as we reject or deny even one piece of it, we're just acting like children—or Noah's Ark passengers, if you prefer
. By the way, I wasn't watching the clock, but the entries in the logbook were matching up perfectly😁
. Every situation in life is whatever we decide to paint it—beautiful or ugly. Why label exes as "mistakes" or "wrong turns"? Why not call them experience or teachers?... Or, for starters, just call them exes🙂
. And suffering? Suffering is necessary. Without it, there's no progress, no personal growth, no appreciation for beauty. Do you really think someone who's always happy and satisfied is ever going to move forward from where they are? Unlikely
. Love is vulnerability, love is pain, love is truth, love is like fine wine... blah, blah, blah. Look, I have no clue what love actually is, but I know I'll fight with everything I've got to find it
. If I fail, and even if fortuna turns her back on me, I'm still going to make sure I don't leave the battlefield empty-handed🙂
. ..because what else is there left to do?

copperfox22 said:Well, it isn’t huge, though there’s still some variety, even if everything is pretty much centered around the West Coast. 😁 I don't really meet a ton of new people, but honestly, I'm also starting to feel less interested in doing so. At the same time, I still want that special connection to happen—even if it doesn't last forever, I just want to feel some kind of meaningful spark.🙂

There's definitely a lot of that going on. I'm just done with the heartache, the mistakes, and all the wrong turns.

Here’s my take—it’s just part of the deal, whether we like it or not. You don't get any payoff unless you're willing to put something on the line...
So if this is all still feeling "fresh" to you, then these kinds of doubts are perfectly standard...
We’ll have our moment to vent and complain, and then we’ll just go back to spinning the wheel.🙂

Walter Peterson said:I experience this as well. I've begun to suspect that a significant portion of the problem lies within me. Those unfortunate criteria again...

We all carry a mental blueprint of an "ideal" partner (with specific criteria), and when we encounter someone who fits that mold, the chemistry hits and we fall in love. Therefore, the key is to shift those internal criteria if we want to fall for a different type of person—especially since the previous ones haven't exactly yielded much luck.

Look, Walter Peterson—are you out of your mind?🤣 ...that's really all I have to say to that...🤣
copperfox22, interesting choice of words... though incorrect... it implies that the Real One is somehow flawless—just thinking aloud... I know some psychologists find those kinds of associations fascinating...