https://youtu.be/5RI6-etJSmo?si=c___166OkMmgKZfQ

https://youtu.be/PVka4Hd_D38?si=ADerkHfJ8OFe8RpO ( 9:00 to 12:00 is very important for this post).

This is my favorite topic to talk about. Because it exposes the cognitive dissonance society has when it comes to male gender roles. Wanting flexibility in one direction, while wanting a rigid system in another direction. So basically Cakism Feminism.

This is the world we live in. Where feminists advice to men, is to romantically approach women, by pretending like they aren't romantically approaching women. I'm joking here guys, this serious advice they give to men.

Every time people dismiss these conversations as “just online noise,” they completely miss the point. These discussions reflect real social contradictions, especially around consent, safety, and gender expectations. Feminists can’t claim to take women’s fears seriously while mocking the very platforms where those fears are expressed and analyzed.

If it’s all “just online,” then what. 1 in 4 women don’t experience sexual assault? Women feel totally safe walking home at night? These fears exist offline too, and pretending they don’t just helps people avoid uncomfortable truths about how modern gender norms actually work.

The issue isn’t whether women’s safety concerns are real. It’s that the public conversation around them is wildly inconsistent. People suddenly care about consent and boundaries when something horrific happens, and then a week later, the same people mock men for being too cautious or “asking for consent too much.”

Feminists will insist men don’t understand consent, that women feel unsafe around men, and that men need to communicate better. Then the next week, they’ll ridicule men for asking for explicit consent or for being “awkward” about signals. Suddenly, “just read nonverbal cues” becomes the enlightened take.

That’s where the whole idea of muddying the waters comes in. Every piece of dating advice for men contradicts the next. Be confident, but not too forward. Be assertive, but don’t initiate too much. Don’t ask for consent like a robot, but don’t assume anything either. It’s chaos disguised as nuance.

And when men push back or ask for clarity, they’re insulted, called autistic, incel, or socially inept, simply for refusing to play a guessing game with something as serious as consent. That contradiction alone shows how unserious these “nonverbal cue” defenders are about actual boundaries.

It’s not about men being entitled or afraid of rejection. It’s about refusing a broken system that punishes men whether they act or don’t act. Because in today’s culture, a man can be seen as creepy for cold approaching, or cowardly and socially inept for not doing so.

I call this Schrödinger’s Consent. Men are both dangerous predators and timid losers at the same time, depending on which narrative benefits the speaker. Feminists call it empowerment, but it’s really just shifting goalposts that protect their own double standards.

This double think mirrors conservative hypocrisy perfectly. Conservatives decry mass shootings, yet resist gun laws. Feminists decry rape culture, yet cling to the same gender roles that blur lines around male behavior.

Conservatives love their guns. Feminists love their rigid gender roles.

Same energy. Same cognitive dissonance. Both refuse real accountability, because solving the problem means admitting they helped create it.

This is proof and kind of proving my point in another comment about non verbal cues being BS.

Again men are told to be assertive, confident, and take initiative, but the second they misread the invisible cues, they’re suddenly “creepy” or “pushy.” Men are punished for not being mind readers.

It’s an impossible tightrope walk where the same behavior can be either attractive or threatening depending on who’s watching and how they feel that day. And most importantly how attractive the man is.

That’s not social skill, that’s gambling with your reputation. Men aren’t broken for rejecting that game. They’re just tired of being told to read minds under threat of public shaming.

And calling that “autism” or “lack of rizz/game” is just a lazy way to excuse women’s inconsistency and pretend it’s men’s fault.

In conclusion: This will get worse. They will call men paranoid, autistic, incels, socially awkward, or closeted creeps (I.E. Kafka trap) for wanting to keep things professional with women. Oh the irony.

Edit: 21:14 to 23:00: To add to Dr. K point here. Soon Angry would be the emotion men rely on anymore. That emotion would be Indifference. And Indifference is the emotion men are showing in this approaching women less topic. (https://www.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/s/kj4kSAtGDc)