Therapy Culture leading to Barbarism - Why we need to be Repressed


There is, actually, more that we agree on than perhaps you might like to admit. Some nits with which we disagree might be resolved upon further introspection (or they might not, depending on how stubborn we remain):

You do realize, don’t you, that feminism is just a contemporary manifestation of old-fashioned chivalry? Not kinda, not sortof, but absolutely, through-and-through. Our cultures have changed in superficial manifestations, but remain the same as they’ve always been, at the foundation. The failure to acknowledge women’s role in their own “oppression” is to fail to recognize the role that they play in, for example, the indoctrination of their children, requiring men to be the providers that provide for them, and requiring men to fight their wars for them. There is no such thing as unilateral oppression of one gender by another. Never has been, irrespective of how “ignorant” some people might disparage the assertion of such a fundamental truth to be. Far from bolstering the power and authority of the feminine, feminism decimates it. Women wanting to be like men is hardly an affirmation of the power of the feminine.

I agree. I recognize the hatred that homosexuals have been dealt in smash-face sporting culture, particularly that of the anglosphere. But instead of the fashionably victimized forming into flag-waving coalitions to create false definitions and sow further division, how about just respecting one another? Shaming others for past wrongs is not the way to go… not just because it’s “not nice” but more importantly, because it fails to acknowledge everybody’s complicity in Culture-the-Thought. Or to put it another way, sure, there were past wrongs that needed to be fixed, but projecting hatred for the perpetrators of those wrongs, while “fixing” them, does not quell them. In this context, an authentically spiritual christianity, one that resonates with the Hinduism of Mahatma Gandhi must surely have a place. [Consider the notion of “original sin”. I like to think of it in the context of Culture-the-Thought, and we all carry culture’s baggage, regardless of our status as self-imagined victims]

Bottom line, as I see it. Sure, there is much about our occidental cultures that is dysfunctional. But the universe is a big place, and there are many possibilities within it that we can scarcely conceive of. Getting bound up in our parochial, earthbound obsessions and definitions is not a healthy way of responding to the infinite possibility with which we might otherwise wish to connect.


Good choice. And the weather is beautiful at this time of year.


I would say that religion and spirituality are not mutually exclusive. One can be both religious and spiritual, religious without being spiritual, or spiritual without being religious.

I have to admit I only read the first couple of paragraphs of each article before posting. In my view, that Baghavad Gita quote would be both spiritual and religious. Also, religion doesn’t necessarily equate to seperatation between people and a lack of inclusion, and spirituality isn’t necessarily inclusive.

We both agree on this it seems, and I think we’re both talking about different things. What I’m saying is the views many religions have of women and lgbtqia+ people is harmful compared to most of the rest of modern societies, and a big reason for that is they still follow the same books they followed thousands of years ago.

But people are free to practice these religions if they want to. The point is not enforcing people to practice these religions if they don’t want to e.g. parents shouldn’t be able to force their children to go to church in my opinion - this makes sense rather than getting rid of religions that can be harmful to people.

Christianity can also be very helpful for children in other ways, I think. For example, knowing Jesus and God are there and love you unconditionally is likely conducive to developing a secure attachment style.


Seems we do agree on much. It does seem that you do want to “regulate” in favor of LGBTQ++ to change the more established religions. I personally don’t think this legal or even necessary in the US. I think say (for example only) if the T’s and Q’s want to gather and worship they can do so WITHOUT interference from others or the State exactly how they like and with whom they like. It’s literally no one’s business except for their own. And yes, they should be able to “make” their children attend as well.

But this must be reciprocal or the entire system becomes arbitrary, capricious, and very quickly devolves into totalitarianism. I know here in the US we are free to worship where ever, how ever, and with whomever we like with no fear of persecution. I think confusion ensues when a religious / anti-religious group moves into the political arena to impact policy - funding one religion/anti-religion or another - regulate specific religions/anti-religions. This moves out of “religion” and into the “political” domain.


I myself never really got into feminism. For sure never called myself a feminist as is / was fashionable in my social circles. I don’t really have a horse in that race. My personal view is that the modern feminist movement is modeled on patriarchy and wants to enable a female led patriarchy, which is very different than equality or even a matriarchy. But I don’t think focusing on that benefits anyone.

What I do see is that education and support of men can be healthy, but the longer it remains focused on anything except the man, the more unhealthy it gets. I think also dwelling too long on “History” isn’t productive. Where does this dynamic manifest itself in the current life of each individual man (I might get to women later, but my focus now is men). I’m interested why half my male friends can’t simply tell their women “no” and stand their ground, or why they feel their status or self worth is in any way related to how attractive that woman is. I can go on and on - but none of the answers to these questions will be found in what’s wrong with feminism or what’s wrong with women. These men can literally choose from dozens of women - why do they pick the most psychologically unhealthy ones? Because they are “hot”, lol. Great. Ruin their career / business / financial security because they have an unhealthy relationship to femininity - then double down on that and teach them to focus on everything wrong with women and feminism and form MGTOW movements that talk constantly about how bad feminism is - but never actually focus on what is “wrong” with them.
Yes - mothers raise boys to men, and usually keep the men in some kind of boy relationship throughout their lives. Or at least try. That’s what mothers do. It’s each individual man’s work to at some time in his life tell the mother “no”, and look at the world through his own eyes. That’s the man’s job. It’s pointless for the man to keep talking about how his mommy didn’t let him do whatever as a boy, or still doesn’t “let” him do things as an adult, lol. That’s just unhealthy. Today we have men who are over 50 and are still wanting permission from mommy - and when mommy (represented by feminism or a partner) doesn’t allow things, the 50 year old little boy throws a tantrum and calls mommy bad words. In my opinion all that is pointless.
In wars - at some point the elder men of the “tribe” bear ultimate responsibility. At some point in their lives, the men fully had the ability to cast off whatever control their mothers or wives have on them. So while I see the point of women sending sons to war and many other things - at some point men have to accept 100% responsibility for themselves and their well being.
Maybe in my next life I’ll be reincarnated as a woman. If that happens, then hopefully I’ll work on the other side of the equation. But as a male, I see it as counterproductive to even attempt to “fix what’s wrong with women”. I’ll get a much bigger bang for my buck working towards fixing what’s wrong with men, which doesn’t involve complaining about what’s wrong with women.

Yes, I completely agree.


If we look at the facts, it’s actually the religious groups that constantly want to pass laws to enforce their religion through the law. I grew up under religious censorship in the USA - Networks were not allowed to display things on TV that Christians disagreed with. This reached the absurd point on an episode of “Murder She Wrote” where the scene was in a Drag Club but not a single person in the club was queer (because then it couldn’t have aired in that time slot)
Christian attempts to force their religious beliefs on the public in the form of censorship is well documented

More recent incident of Christians trying to pass their beliefs into law are the “One man, one woman” marriage laws, and the “check for penises at bathroom entrances” laws.

As is typical, the right wants to try and point the finger and accuse the opposite side of doing the very thing that they have been doing for decades (actually centuries).


On the lighter side
Talking about COVID and Politics in 2021:


Your Hawai’ian culture has some excellent male-rearing history that we could learn from. As with most tribal cultures as boys move into puberty they transition from being Mommy led to Dad/Uncle/Male Sibling led. In healthy instances the men teach the boys how to be good men and also how to pick good women. You bring up an excellent point regarding picking psychologically unhealthy women. The most common example is a man being attracted to the exciting, vivacious, sexual borderline personality disorder woman. In my experience BPD women are WAY MORE FUN, at least initially unleash our maleness, but then eventually pull men into unleashing our “Momma’s boy” inner Co-Dependency Disorder that Mommy happy ingrained in us. This is the world of Pick Up Artists as they cycle thru singles bars filled with men looking for the fun BPD women. Note that its “usually” BPD women (something like 20-25% of population) and CDP men, but they’re actually two sides of the same coin. Normally a BPD man would be labeled as a Narcissist instead of BPD. Our current culture fuels and reinforces this BPD / Co-Dependency cycle, witness the Facebook phenomenon.
Best “how to” guide I’ve found is David Dieda’s “Way of the Superior Man” on who to be a better man so your woman can be free to be herself. Dieda’s work is essentially what’s on the other side of the PUA training and enables true compassion for women, how to give them what they need, when they need it.


I don’t know anyone that cares if you have a “husband”. What many Christians, Righties, “those people” are weary of is the Left continually usurping language to suit their needs.
Why does the Left demand that Gay men or Lesbian women be able to “Marry”. Why not just call it “partnership” and everyone is happy. In the secular world go right ahead with bestow the same property rights, benefits, etc - but that’s all secular.

A weird twisted example is with many large companies that grant benefits to LGBTQ+++ “partners”, but do not grant these same benefits to heterosexual partners (real example). e.g. If a woman has a live-in male partner but is not married, he cannot share her benefits. But if she claims to identify as a transexual cis-woman gay male, now she can share company benefits with her male partner. Twisted but true. LOL


I’m not Hawaiian, but yes - Polynesian cultures of Hawaii, Samoa, Tonga, etc. traditionally have a healthy mix of masculine and feminine. They also tend to be predominantly Christian and family oriented, with family defined as the extended family. Their core values seem to be a bit more “community property” oriented and the more financially well off automatically “give back” to the community. An interesting side note is that transgendered people have valuable roles in the community.

David Dieda is a good “first step”, yes. But I’d like a man to be a better man so that he can be free to be himself, give himself what he needs when he needs it - not so a woman can be free to be herself, etc etc lol.

BPD women are only “fun” if the man is unable to live through himself, and needs to live vicariously through another.

Marriage is a secular affair that is stamped and approved by a government official. That’s just the facts. Being married by a Priest or other religious official is irrelevant and the marriage is not valid until it is stamped and licensed by the secular government official. So yes - that is pretty much what the various laws want - to make it so that gay people can get issued a “Marriage License” by a secular government official. If you want to pass laws that call the licenses for everyone something else, then that’s fair. You and your wife (if you are married) would also be issued a “Partnership Agreement” or something similar by the secular county official. But as it is now, the term for that document issued by the secular government is a “Marriage License”

By the way - I’m not gay. That’s another race I don’t have a horse in, lol. But I recognize convoluted logic when I see it.


The first “macho” mistake a woman might make is to jump into bed with a man. Playing it casual, says Lawson, just means you get treated casually. If women want to be valued, they have to play hard to get: “In days gone by, when we understood the importance of femininity, men wooed women and, if they were successful in their pursuit, considered these girlfriends a great prize,” she told the Mail .

The second mistake is that, even if a woman does manage to get a man to stick around after she’s flopped into bed with him, she’s still liable to sabotage herself by acting like the boss of the couple. Women who are used to being in control at work feel like they need to be in control at home as well, and men are happy to sit back and allow it. Wunder calls this impulse “mothering”, and according to Lawson, it creates “all kinds of tensions and resentments” which ultimately doom the relationship.



The ultimate hilarity is weak men blaming women for being too strong.
“Oh, please don’t be so strong and confident so that I can be the strong one.”
“Please at least pretend to be a virgin so my I don’t have to wonder about how I stack up to other men you’ve had sex with.”
“Please let me be in charge. Can I be in charge?”
“I can’t stand up to mommy, and when you act like a mommy I can’t stand up to you. Please let me be a man.”

Men have to make a choice.

  • Be the submissive one and accept the woman’s leadership
  • Be capable and emotionally strong enough to EARN the woman’s (or lgbtq partner) respect

I respect men and have friends who are in both situations. I have a friend who loves scrubbing floors and doing housework for women. It makes him happy, so more power to him. I also have female friends who just love that mental / emotional space of surrender and trust - but not just with ANYbody. That level trust has to be earned.

What does not work is to just expect women to be less than 100% of who they are just because the man isn’t up to the task of being 100% of who he is. Or substitute whatever genders are involved.


Hey Ray - Sorry, but I think you missed the gear shift from focusing on “coaching for men” if you will. The last article was “Do Women Need Dating Coaches” so specifically geared towards how women might want to consider their contributions to their relationships in order to get what they want out of life and their relationships.

It is admirable your focus on yourself and your roll in relationships.


Your desire to coach women to reconsider their contributions to their relationships is also admirable.
Pointless without looking at men as 50% of the equation
but admirable

Maybe you can fix what’s wrong with women enough to accommodate whatever is wrong with or lacking in some men. I doubt that method will work, but good luck with it.


@raybennett personally I view a man as having 100% responsibility for his relationships. I also thin this 100% reaponsibility ideal is something everyone should hold as an aspirational goal. Ideally we have partners that arent standing at the 49th% line demanding thier partners to inch up to the same line.
Think of it as surrendering to the relationship.


Each couple, triad or whatever can choose the specifics for their own relationships, and select partners who agree with them, and yes there can be negotiation.
But people who try to push their partner to “step up”? - lmao. That is not going to go well at all in most cases. Ask any marriage counsellor from whatever political background if this is a good idea and I think you’ll see them grimace.


I do believe we are in complete agreement @raybennett :slight_smile:

I’m blessed that my wife is also one of those all in, gives 100%'ers. It works for us and creates a very powerful peace both in our relationship as well as for each of us individually. It’s a beautiful feeling of love, compassion, acceptance, growth. It’s something I would want for everyone to enjoy.


Well yes, of course.
That’s each person’s journey.