 The third and fourth waves of feminism had led us to three dead-end solutions. And when I say it led us, I mean women as much as men. We are now stuck. We, men and women, are now stuck in a limbo, in a twilight zone, in a no-man's land. And thanks largely to third wave and fourth wave feminism. Now, I am not a misogynist. I'm a great believer in first and second wave feminism. I am not an adherent or a member or affiliated with or associated with any meaghtow movement, monosphere, incels, red pillars, actually, on this channel, you can find several videos attacking what I consider to be misogynistic conspiracy theories. I'm none of the above. I'm just an observer who is informed by psychology and sociology. When I look around, it's a wasteland. There's a gender war going on, and it's a disaster zone, and we are stuck with three solutions, none of which is operable, none of which provides a way out, none of which constitute a long-term settlement of the power play between men and women. And yes, what we call relationships between men and women, they are power plays. They've always been power plays. Sex and love were currencies traded between the genders in order to reach a modicum of coexistence and cohabitation, and in order to work towards common goals such as children, a way to transfer wealth between generations, and to increase wealth by working together. But it was all about power, and there was a glaring power asymmetry. I'm going to come to all this later. But first, what are the solutions presented to us, men and women, by the geniuses of third and fourth wave feminism, which are in control, in control of the academic agenda? Today in Akadem, there is extreme self-sensorship, which easily competes with Putin's Russia. Professors, academics, and scholars do not dare to speak their mind. The penalties are enormous. You can lose your tenure, you can lose your job, you can lose your pension scheme, you can lose your health insurance, you can lose your reputation, you can be cancelled out. The punishments, the penalties are so huge that there is no vestige of free speech left in Akadem, none. So the agenda, gender studies and culture studies, is controlled fully by a group of ideologies, whose science is dubious and I'm being charitable, but whose agenda is very clear. And I wouldn't mind if they were leading us to a good place, and if they had presented have presented practicable solutions, but they don't. Here are the solutions that we are faced with today. Number one, standardization. Women should retain traditional gender roles, and one standard should apply to men and women. In other words, women should regress to the Victorian era, where they were pure, domestic, not to say domesticated, homebound, etc., etc., and men should become the same. They should also be pure. So if men used to be promiscuous, they should lose this. It should no longer be promiscuous. If men used to be aggressive, they should no longer be aggressive. Men, in other words, should become women, and men and women should go back to the 19th century. This solution is promoted by several prominent intellectuals who shall remain unnamed. The second solution is emasculation. Men should become more feminine, even as women become more masculine. So they will meet somewhere in the middle, when men will cater to the feminine aspects of their personality. They will become more emotional, more empathic, more sociable, more malleable, softer. They will attend to household chores. They will become more women, and women will become more masculine. They will become more men. Indeed, over the last 40 years, women tend to describe themselves in exclusively traditional masculine terms in various studies. Now this is part of the stalled revolution, the revolution that never ended, never actualized, never materialized. The stalled revolution is a topic you can read about online, especially in feminist in feminist writings. So men should become more feminine, not a feminine, not a feminine. There's a big difference between a feminine and feminine. The idea is that men should get in touch with their feminine core. Everyone has a feminine and a masculine core. Men should get in touch with their feminine core, and women should get in touch with their masculine nucleus. And then, again, they will meet in the middle somewhere. This is the unigender solution. Everyone becomes gender neutral in effect. But the outcome of this has been that women became a lot more masculine while men refused to become more feminine. Yes, you heard me correctly. Hype and myths and nonsense aside, men are not more feminine than they used to be 40 years ago. On the very contrary, they are emphasizing their masculinity as a sign of protest, hence phenomena like toxic masculinity. So now we have a unigender. Everyone is a man. Everyone, women are men and men are men. They differ in terms of genitalia, but nothing much else. This led, of course, to the emasculation of men. Men were the losers in this kind of solution. The third approach, so standardization was the first approach, emasculation was the second approach, and the third approach is that it is masculineization. Outright masculineization. In other words, competition between the sexes. Women should emulate men, and not only should they emulate men, but they should outman men. They should be more men than men. And so we have phenomena like ranch culture or sloth walks or whatever, where women express their agency, they express their empowerment, and they behave and act absolutely as men used to or still do, hitherto, in the past two millennia at least. So they're becoming men. They imitate men. They behave as men do. They talk as men do. They drink as much. They drink men under the table. And of course they sleep around way more actually than men used to in the parallel age group. So women emulate men. The problem is with this solution that women imitate and emulate wrong male models. They imitate and emulate narcissistic, psychopathic, bullying, chauvinistic men. They are becoming what the worst sliver of men would used to be. They're not imitating good hardworking, conscientious, empathic, loving, caring men. They're not imitating these kind of men. Forced into the workplace, forced to compete with other men, forced to become the primary breadwinners, forced to support children without a male figure, 40% of children are raised in single parent household, and the majority of these also are female, female headed. So forced into this jungle, women reach the conclusion that they have to become what their abusers used to be. They had to become these alpha men to use dating coaching term. They have to become alpha men. The alpha man, of course, is a caricature. First of all, there's not such thing, not in nature and not anywhere else. It's a caricature. These are not alpha men. The men they are emulating and imitating are not alpha men. They're simply mentally ill men, narcissists, borderlines, psychopaths, anti-social. So this is the third solution. I'll summarize it for you. These are the only three solutions offered by feminism, by the way. Standardization. Women should refer to traditional gender roles, but men should do this, should become actually women in their sexual behavior and emotional life and so on. So unigender focused on women, but not modern women, but Victorian era women, 19th century women. The second solution is emasculation. Men should become more feminine. Even as women become more masculine, they're going to meet somewhere in the middle. Unigender, gender neutral. And the third solution is masculinization. Women should outdo men. Women should be more men than men. They should be more masculine than men. They should take over in short. They should replace men, or at the very least be like men, but wrong kind of men, psychopathic and narcissistic. And this is masculinization. These are the solutions. Immediately you see that not one of these three is optimal. Not one of these three is practicable, operable, long-term, a long-term solution. In terms of the power matrix or the power play matrix, the eternal game men and women had played, have played over millennia. These are dead ends. They lead nowhere. They are not an evolution. They are not even a revolution. Women are taking over. It's very clear. They have displaced men from a variety, from many professions, from dozens of professions. They are much better educated than men. They are much more hard-working than men. And they have deferred childbearing and family formation to their mid-30s. So it gives them a lot of time to engage, to build a career and to make money. So they are financially independent. Women are better equipped to cope with the modern economy and its demands. They are better networkers. They have empathy, so they can enter the caring professions. They are a lot more balanced in some senses. So women are the wave of the future. We are transitioning from patriarchy to matriarchy. It's a question of time and not a long time. Men are fighting back, of course. They are fighting back by degrading women sexually and by abandoning them within relationships, by refusing to commit and to invest in long-term relationships. It's an all-out war. It's an all-out war, and men are hitting back hard. Abortion rights are rolled back. Domestic violence has just been legalized in Russia, in Afghanistan. Women cannot attend school. There's a massive increase in misogynistic hate crimes. There are enormous movement, giant movements, millions of men disparaging women and calling openly for violence and aggression against women. The incidents of sexual assaults, the skyrocketed and so on. Men are fighting back. How and the consequences that marriage, cohabitation, childbirth rates, and even sex, the frequency of sex, fell off the cliff. All these fell off the cliff. Marriage is down 50%, 50% since 1990. Cohabitation had increased, but it does not compensate for the fact that many people don't have a relationship at all, according to Pew Center. Childbirth rates are so low that all industrialized countries without a single exception that includes China cannot replace the dying portion of the population. People are dying, age 70, 80, 90, and not enough children are being born. Within fewer than 15 years, there will be a gigantic economic crisis because pension schemes will collapse. The contributions to pension schemes are going down. The number of old people is exploding meteorically in some countries. 25% of the population is under age 65, Japan, for example. Many other countries are heading the same way. And then the incidence of sex, the frequency of sexual encounters among people under age 25 is, in some cases, close to zero. And in some countries, zero. Simply, people are not having sex anymore. Even the number of sexual partners is 30% less than it used to be in the 60s and 70s when I was born. So these are clear signs of disengagement. Men and women don't want to be together anymore, in any way, even if sex is guaranteed. Pornography is sufficient, as far as men are concerned. About one third of women and men are lifelong singles, most of them celebrate. Another third are involved in ephemeral, pseudo-relationships, including, of course, numerous dead sexless marriages. Officially, 21% of marriages are sexless. In 21% of marriages, the frequency of sex is fewer than 10 times a year. But if you ask me, the number is not 20%. The number is more like 40 or 50 or 60%. Marriages are dead. 40% of children are raised in single-parent poverty-stricken households, most of them headed by women. Men and women, and women, had walked away. It's not only meek Tao, it's weak Tao. Men go in their own way, women go in their own way. Bye-bye. I don't want to see you again. You have giant, enormous segments of the population. Better women would never want to date again. And if they plan to have children, they plan to do so via Donald sperm and IVF. And you have a huge number of men who would never get married as a matter of principle, let alone have a committed relationship with a woman. And they avoid women, except for the occasional casual sex encounter. And even that, according to statistics, is declining very, very sharply. Don't believe the hype released by dating apps. Objective studies show that dating apps rarely, extremely rarely, lead even to sex, let alone relationships. How did we get here? What went wrong? There used to be some charm and magic between men and women, definitely in the 1920s, 30s, 40s, 50s, and I would say 60s into the 70s. When a man and a woman were in a room, there was charge. There was magic. I am not selling you on Disneyland. Things were tough between men and women. As I said, it was a power play, always. And women paid a heavy price over the years. But still, there was this magic. It's undeniable. I had experienced it first hand and so did all my generation. Where did it go? How did we end up so bitter, so hateful, so resentful? How did we end up detesting the other sex, holding everyone in contempt, avoiding, shunning, atomizing, secluding ourselves, cocooning ourselves in technological bubbles of self-sufficiency? How did we get here? Until the period of enlightenment in the 17th century, men and women shared work and home. Actually, there was no distinction between work and home. There was a farmstead. The farmstead was home and work. Sometimes livestock resided in the home, the so-called home, with a family. Children worked as well as adults, so there was no concept of childhood. There was concept of little men and little women. Everyone worked. Everyone shared everything. Women worked in the fields as much as men. And so there was a cohesive, coherent, unitary unit. Unitary entity shared a sphere shared equally by men and women. This all changed in the 17th century, at the beginning of the enlightenment. Until that period, muscles, muscles provided men with an advantage. And this gave rise to the patriarchy. The patriarchy is real. Patriarchy deniers are like Holocaust deniers. They don't know what they're talking about. All you have to do is travel to some parts of the world, try Afghanistan. Patriarchy is real, was real, is real. It's a subjugation of women, treating women as servants or indentured slaves, catering to the needs of women, maintaining them, of course, because they have to function. Women were supposed to produce offspring. And the role of offspring was to carry forward the wealth of the family, intergenerational transfer of wealth. That's why sons were much more important than daughters, and many daughters, many girls, newborns, were killed. So killed on birth, I mean. So this was the landscape. Women were essentially property. But then there was the enlightenment. The thinkers of the enlightenment said that men and women, all men, all humans, were created equal and should share and have equal rights. The French revolution followed the likes of Jean-Jacques Rousseau. The French revolution followed. And then the revolutions of 1848. And these revolutions emancipated women for a while. Women had tasted freedom and equality, real, not feigned, not imagined. The very symbol of the French Republic was a woman. So women became revolutionaries. They entered the public sphere in order to transform it, in order to create a level playing field for men and women. Simultaneously, the home, the home was hollowed out. Functions that used to be carried out within the home, like healthcare and education, these functions were outsourced to communities, to the church, to the state. Within the home there was less and less to do. Work and home became two distinct spheres for the first time actually in human history. You went to work. You didn't work at home, but you went to work. They were distinct. These spheres were distinct physically, as well as mentally and psychologically. Now interestingly, we are going back to the pre-industrial era where we worked from home. And the pandemic had accelerated this trend. We are regressing to the pre-industrial phase of human history, where home and work were one. But in the 18th and 19th century, work was separated from home, and the functions of the traditional home were outsourced to other agents, as I said, like the state or the church, and sometimes the factory. So now there was little to do at home. Men went to work. Women stayed behind, essentially raising children, socializing them, and making sure that they grow up healthy, or trying to. Work for men was a Darwinian jungle, survival of the fittest, all it all. Work was perceived as a cruel, unforgiving, unrelenting environment. So you went to work. You went to fight. It was a war as a man, and then you returned home. Home was the sanctuary. Home was the shelter. Home was where your woman was. The woman's role was to comfort you. You came back home to be comforted by your woman. She socialized your offspring, your boys and girls. She socialized them with traditional gender roles. She socialized boys, her children, the male. She socialized the male children to be like you, to go to work, to fight, to prevail, to survive, to be fit. And she socialized the girls to be like her. Domestic, loving, caring, empathic, comforting. And so men went out to work. They were the providers. They broke home the bacon. Women stayed behind, awaiting them with open arms when they returned from work. Exhausted, depleted, injured, and broken. And women healed them, and cured them, and solved their wounds. And women raised their own children, boys and girls, according to this division of labor in traditional gender roles. That was a picture in Victorian England. Then something interesting began to happen. Leisure. Leisure and idleness. Because the home was hollowed out, because most of the functions that used to be carried in households were outsourced and offshored to external entities, there was little to do at home, except to raise children. There was little to do. So women became idle and bored. Leisure time was upon us, a very new concept in human history. Leisure was limited to the nobility, the aristocratic classes, but now leisure was available to everyone, the new middle class. So what women did, they started to look for things to do outside home. They were bored at home, so they wanted to do something outside home. They wanted to occupy themselves. They wanted to entertain themselves. So they extended this domesticity to the public sphere. They became mothers at large, wives at large. They adopted social causes, such as temperance, you know, anti-alcohol. They entered the caring professions like nursing and teaching, and these displaced men. Men used to be teachers and nurses. These used to be enclaves. So the first time in modern history, women ventured outside home and they competed head on with men and they had prevailed. They took over. This was a novel experience. Women realized that there's no reason for them to be confined at home and that they are as good as men, but they still didn't dare to challenge head on traditional gender roles. Even in the public sphere, they were like mothers or like wives. You know, nursing and teaching children is very much what mothers do and wives do. So it was just extending the domestic sphere and intruding upon the public sphere. And then two world wars pushed women even further into male roles. Tens of millions of men were killed, so this created the demographic imbalance between women and men. There were more women than men. And so women had to become aggressive in order to snatch a man. Mate poaching became prevalent. Promiscuity, dating, these were all modern phenomena intended to redress an imbalance in terms of sex, more women than men. And so after the Second World War, we had a type of feminism that pushed for inclusion of women in the public sphere equal to men. The first two waves of feminism were concerned with equity and equality. The franchise, the right to vote, which shockingly was not fully realized until the 20th century in Switzerland in 1970. So even the right to vote took about 100 years. It was a 100 year fight. So the right to vote, property ownership, women had to transfer all their property to their husbands well into the 19th century and women were registered as property in testaments and wheels. They were chateau, they were property. So property ownership, the franchise, political franchise, access to education, to healthcare, to the workplace, a right to abortion, equal wages, anti pornography, anti prostitution. These were the first and second waves of feminism, which I personally find commendable and laudable. This is what they did. They granted women the same access, the same rights, the same treatment, or they tried to grant the same access rights and treatment as men had enjoyed for millennia. But then came the third wave and the third wave was not about obtaining equity and equality. It was about power. It was about empowering women. Women were perceived as weak, vulnerable, and men were perceived as predators who are out to leverage this weakness and vulnerability to the detriment of women. It was an all out war third wave feminist said. And so women should fight back. Third wave feminists had converted the discourse from equality and equity and respect for women and autonomy and agency and access. They had converted the discourse from these socially sublimated just causes. They've converted this. They went into a power play. They went into a conflict. They created a conflict between the sexes. Women should do whatever made them feel empowered, even if it meant conforming to male chauvinistic stereotypes, even if it meant doing sex work, even if it meant self objectification via sex and pornography, even if it meant engaging in self pornography or group sex, whatever a woman felt like doing, she should do because that would make her feel powerful, empowered, and out of the control, out from under the control of men. Sex became a political statement. Sex became the main vector for empowerment, female empowerment. By behaving promiscuously in your face, defiantly and contentuously, women were asserting their newfound power, not independence, power. This was about power. So the problem is that it's very difficult to change a collective state of mind and social memories within 10 years. It's very difficult. Women want to have the cake and eat it. Women want to lead a third wave emancipated, career centered, and hyper promiscuous lifestyle. They want this. They bought into the power play thing. They say to themselves, it's a war and I'm a soldier and I must demonstrate that I'm willing to sacrifice myself in a thing, to objectify myself and this would make me feel powerful and it's a good dopamine filled addictive experience, which I want to repeat again and again and again. And it was a psychopathic approach. Third wave feminism is utterly psychopathic. This is the psychopath's attitude. In your face, my way or the highway, I'm going to do whatever I want. I don't care what you think about me or about my actions. I don't give a fig about social mores and conventions. I am my own rule. I am my own law. I'm defiant. I'm reckless. I'm conchumacious. I reject authority. Anyone's authority is psychopathy. What I've just said is the diagnostic criteria of psychopathy. Women, third wave feminists are psychopaths and women had bought into this psychopathic narrative and lore. But women want to divide their lives and they want to be psychopaths until age 30 or 35. And then, and then they want to revert. They want to return to a traditional gender role. They want to settle down. They want to have a family. They want to have children. They want to have a phoning and adoring male, a man who would be committed and invest in them while they, I don't know, do what, whatever they do. They want to be psychopathic, promiscuous, defined sluts. Slut walks, yes, sluts until their mid 30s. And then they want to be Victorian women. Traditional gender roles depend crucially on purity, especially sexual purity. Traditional gender roles involved dedication to the domestic sphere. Now, I am not in favor of traditional gender roles. Traditional gender roles brought on abuse, fostered and gendered and enabled abuse. They granted men disproportionate power over women, not least by exerting social control and brainwashing women. Traditional gender roles were bad, not only for women, I think, also for men. They poisoned the atmosphere. They created toxic relationships. I am dead set against returning to traditional gender roles. But women do want to return to them after they have had their psychopathic phase. So they want to have a psychopathic, promiscuous, career-centered phase. Then they want to stop all this and suddenly revert to traditional gender roles. But you can't be, you can't have a traditional role as a Victorian domestic woman catered to and taken care of by a husband or an intimate partner. You can't have this if you are not sexually pure. And you can't be sexually pure if you have a body count of 50 or 100 men. And you can't have a career and be in a traditional role. Traditional gender roles exclude careers. They are focused on domesticity and the home. Women gave up on sexual purity. Women gave up on domesticity. Women spend decades as singles, and not only singles, but promiscuous singles. And so consequently, they lack the skill set for domestic, committed, long-term intimacy. Men and women don't know how to do intimacy anymore. They don't even know how to date. They are classes in universities to teach men and women in their 20s how to date. No one knows how to do anything except have a few drinks and go to bed and have bad sex. That's the orgasm gap where women actually don't enjoy casual sex because it's bad. Dating is extinct. It is replaced with rare and disappointing hookups, replete with disgusting repulsive, unsatisfying sex for women. Again, the orgasm gap. Read up on it. It's a fact. Women have far fewer orgasms than men in hookups and casual sex. So women gave up on the women are not qualified anymore to maintain or to enter the role of a traditional Victorian type domestic arrangement because they don't spend time. They don't dedicate themselves to acquiring the basic skills needed to run and maintain efficiently a long-term committed relationship. They don't know. Women don't know how to do intimacy. Women are totally confused about what it is to be feminine and consequently the vast majority of modern women are masculine. Totally masculine. They describe themselves in masculine terms in studies. So they can't provide gendered femininity like in the past. They can't provide even a modern version of femininity. They're totally masculine. They have never experienced. They don't experience relationships until they are in their 30s. So they don't know how to do relationships. All they know how to do is how to pick up guys on dating apps or bars or I don't know what and sleep with them. That's the skill set they acquire. And that's not the skill set needed to run and maintain a long-term relationship with a possibility for procreation, raising children, educating them and propagating into the next generation. So both men and women and women under the age of 35 are ill-equipped to have relationships and consequently they don't actually. According to Pew Center studies, there has been a collapse in the number of relationships. There are far fewer relationships today than in 1990. People increasingly are spending their entire lives as singles. They don't know any better. Casual sex does not teach you how to be an intimate partner, let alone a good partner. A career does not encourage you to build a home and then to maintain it to fulfill the chores required to carry it forward. Living alone until age 35 doesn't prepare you for motherhood and childbearing. The initial period in most modern women's lives is career-centered and sex-centered. And this is a preparation for a life of singlehood, not a preparation for a life of motherhood or wifehood or relationshiphood, not indeed capitalism and corporate interests encourage women to be to remain single and to be promiscuous because then they can acquire a career they can earn much more money and they become much more lucrative consumers. Consumerism needs people to be atomized. Consumerism hates intimacy, is against family, committed relationships. I keep giving the example of Facebook. Facebook needs you to be glued to the screen because they make money, they monetize your eyeballs. If you spend time with your daughter or with your wife or with your girlfriend that's bad for business. The corporate world all over and capitalism need people to be consumers and people are not good consumers when they have long-term plan and a vision of togetherness which includes bringing new life to the world. Consumerism is a death cult. It's about inanimate objects in a world which is self-sufficient, solipsistic, atomized, isolated and lonely. Loneliness is the currency of capitalism. It is not by accident that women are indoctrinated and brainwashed into remaining in essence alone and consuming with a thriving career that brings in more and more money which they then can spend on buying totally unnecessary things. This is the world we live in today and feminism and especially the corrupting third and fourth wave of feminism are not offering us men and women any viable solutions. They are, these waves are purile, they're adolescent waves. These are prepubescent psychopaths. The solutions they're offering are psychopathic solutions, dead ends which would lead us nowhere. Feminism like everything else in the world, like every other social movement had degenerated from its intellectual roots and underpinnings to a entertainment-like sphere where emphasis is placed on how you dress and how sexy you are and how many men you can attract and how many women you can bed. It's an adolescent scorecard and so if we were able to revert to second and first wave feminism, I think we would be doing all of us a favor. But I'm very pessimistic, very pessimistic because singlehood and loneliness are very addictive. It takes a lot of effort and resources and time and patience to be with other people. Loneliness is a shortcut in a culture, civilization, that values faking it till you make it. So singlehood is a fake existence surrounded by objects and pets dedicated to slow death via consuming. This is not the right background for any future, not for the individuals involved and not for the species.