Men shouldn't just be looking for red flags in women, they should look for red flags in men too.

You don't just vet women, you vet everyone. You vet the men you work closely with, and one you'll be vetting your daughter's husband too.

A man's character is a crucial determinant.

Lots of garbage men. And in a society full of broken families, sociopathy is prevalent.

You see you don't just need to understand women, you need to know how to deal with shitty men too.

If you don't know how to detect and deal with sociopaths, you're missing a valuable skill.

So I was wracking my brain thinking, did anyone in the men's space ever actually write about this?

And to the best of my knowledge, they didn't. There are tons of articles on dangerous women and their pitfalls, but absolutely nothing on dealing with disordered, dishonourable men

Then I asked myself, well why is this the case? Why is something so important such a neglected topic. I'm sure many men have come across these types in their social and business dealings, and yet no one is talking about it or advising on how to deal with them. Why is that?

And then it occurred to me that resentment for the negative feminine being distilled as wisdom took precedence above actual practical knowledge for men. That is to say, "understanding women" provides catharsis for men who've been hurt, but understanding toxic men doesn't.

Then I considered how this emotional discrepancy could form the basis for an ideology, or at the very least, a worldview that is reactionary to feminism. It is wholly centred on the criticism and negativity of the opposite sex, without ever actually self-examining itself.

So if we look at feminism as a reaction to patriarchy, it highlighted all the predatory and authoritarian elements of men, whilst excluding all their provisionary, paternalistic and protective elements. It effectively took a broad brush and painted masculinity as a unique evil.

When I look at the men's space and its intellectual output, I see that same cynicism. Men are, effectively, not merely instructed on and cautioned against the unglamorous parts of the fairer sex's nature, but led to believe there's nothing good about the feminine at all.

It fails to simply be about educating, but takes on a tribal men vs women dynamic. Men are good, women are bad. Men are trustworthy, women are not. And yet we've all known many untrustworthy men. It becomes polarising to self-perpetuate. Effectively feminism, just for men.

The goal is to build better men, building better men entails understanding how women work, as well as the ugliness they're capable of - but a preeminent occupation with this to the exclusion of valuable adjacent knowledge (like handling sociopathic men) does men a disservice.

Stated more simply, by being too obsessed with how bad women are, you blind yourself to how bad men can be. If you don't know how bad men can be, other men can blindside you. If you don't know bad you can be, you don't know what to work on with yourself.

Practicality > ideology.

Life's more complicated and nuanced than the answer you're looking for. Generalisations point to patterns which indicate certain underlying traits, or can predict with an above 50% accuracy the prevalence of a thing, but what you must realise is that we live in a world of paradox

So for example, if I say women are better at rationalising than men (they are) and less logical (they are) and more easily offended and truth avoidant (they are) and that they marry up not down (they do, generally) - that doesn't mean I'm saying you can never trust a woman.

But a person with a simple mind who reads these things and accepts them as true then comes to think "there is nothing good about women, they are dishonest, you can't trust them"

Instead of "if you manage her emotions properly, she will be be faultlessly loyal to you"

I am responsible for what I write, but not what you take from what I have said.

I can convey a thing which as much clarity as I can, but if your interpretation lacks nuance, you will simplify it in your mind to conclude things I never stated, and take positions I do not hold.

This is the absurd reality: women are irrational, prone to impulsivity, truth avoidant, self-obsessed yet low self-awareness, and dishonourable in that they are generally fickle and rationalise their mistakes away.

And yet she will be good to you if you rule her emotional world.

The one thing that likely annoys you most about her (emotionality) is the saving grace through which you will shape and direct her behaviour.

Bad aspects of her nature can be overridden when you know how to manage her and teach her to self-regulate.

This is why women need men.

When we mature past the foolishness that damages them, we guide them and raise them up.

It is only through our guidance and oversight they reach a higher point of humanity and become their best selves.

This is why the best women have great men in their lives without exception.

Paternalism is truly the closest thing to godliness within humanity, maternalism its mirror image, more primal and less cerebral, yet still vital, for whilst the maternal is the primary civilising factor on the child, the paternal is the primary civilising factor on the feminine.

Because women can soften men into behaving more sensibly, and inspire them to greater heights, it is commonly misunderstood that women civilise men. But this is not the case. To civilise is to instruct, mentor, guide and raise up. Women do not do this for us. We do that for them.

Men behave more sensibly when mated as opposed to when they're single for 2 main reasons:

1: They have to be more risk averse as they must consider their woman when acting, and she cannot handle things he alone can

2. Feminine wiles have a way of seducing men into non-hostility