Whilst this is AI material, and potentially a new approach to the self help industry grift that knows males are hurting, the script is reasonably sound as a message.
Yes, the actual creator is a woman urologist who is in Oregon. I am looking to see if we can set up an interview. This is one of the better ai vids as noticed by the sync of the lips with words. that is usually the downfall of these and this one gets it very close.
Whilst I understand the reasons for faceless and AI voices in videos (doxxing, professional reputation etc) it clearly comes across like so many others that don't seem legitimate in different spaces. I hope you can engage with her and bring us some interesting content .
Well said! You an sum up her recommendations by recognizing that feminist women (or even most women) are simply so broken by feminism and the lack of accountability it generates that they are toxic and unworthy of the men in their lives. Time to focus on yourself and the male friendships worthy of your time and leave "her" to stew in bitterness in the mess she and her fellow women have created until such time as they evolve out of their toxicity...recognizing that many never will.
The video is an AI representation of a doctor, but not a Psychologist or Mental Health practitioner, but a Urologist. It's misleading and misrepresentative.
This video is also the definition of collusion. The video literally says, "It's not your fault." How could you act any differently as a man, when your biology is the reason you act the way you do? It is ironic to me there is so much discussion of accountability for women and yet, there is little discussion here of men holding themselves accountable. I have been divorced and it was way more useful to my own growth to reflect on my own failings in relationship, and why I chose the wife I did, than cop out by saying she just hated men.
It's hard to image how the real challenges of men, caused by stereotyping all men as toxic, will be solved by blaming all women as unaccountable and self loathing.
Recently on F/B, there are more and more pages promoting the Feminist version of history, using misinformation, so I began to wonder whether this is a new propaganda campaign design on two fronts, to stoke female anger and to bait men into responding, where they can get shot down in flames.
History is interesting, yet when certain details are deliberately excluded or distorted such as the right to vote and the claim women were denied credit cards. The question must be asked as to why?
Given the angry hostile responses when such information is corrected, it would seem that it used to;
Justify female hostility towards the male gender
Promote female anger towards the male gender.
“When emotions are driving, logic and rational thought are not back seat passengers, they are locked in the trunk( car boot)” Brene Brown
Are you suggesting that women (presumably American women ) never fought for the right to vote or that women could always get credit cards without a male co-signer? Please cite sources.
quote<The reality is that from the 1950s on, credit cards were a new invention being aggressively marketed to both men and women. Advertising from the era shows how keen credit card companies were to target female customers, how eager to tap into women’s spending power.
..............
It was possible for a married woman to ask for a credit account in her own name in order to avoid this type of problem; many women didn’t know, or didn’t choose, to ask. The Kansas Advisory Committee heard that the Credit Bureau of Lawrence, Kansas would separate files of married couples upon request at no charge. Not all women wanted their accounts separated.>unquote
Obviously, my wife Mila has been misinformed on this issue. Perhaps the origin of this myth, other than the bad faith of some feminists, is that in some countries like Spain under dictator Franco women didn’t have the right to have their own bank accounts. But I think they were during the Spanish Second Republic in the 30s. This is just another example of fascism turning back history.
Again, assuming you're right: So men could easily get credit cards in their own name, and it was more opaque/difficult for women to do so, when it was even possible (Kansas is just 1 state, and each of our states has different laws. Crazy system, I know~). How is this not inequitable?
Because by the sounds of what you have written it looks like you didn;t so I will add another section.
<At a time when many married women either did not work outside the home or worked only part-time and on a temporary basis, there would have been nothing unreasonable about a woman’s husband co-signing her credit card application. Many married women were happy to purchase what they wanted on the assurance that their husbands would pay the bill when it came in, and credit card issuers saw joint accounts as a way of ensuring payment.>
You wrote "Men could easily get credit cards"
This is a furphy as to obtain a "credit card", the person who made the application needed to prove their "creditworthiness".
Credit cards when initially introduced were aimed at "business men" who travelled. So instead carrying wads of cash, to pay for things they were able to use a card.
As to the right to vote I am not sure about the American History however in England and other english speaking countries, men who did not own property did not have the right to vote and the Suffragettes in their fight to vote, won the right to vote for men who previously did not have that right.
Assuming you are right about British history: Only rich (landed) men could vote. Women wanted the vote and fought for it, and got poor/working men suffrage at the same time. How is this a bad thing or a misrepresentation that women (and others) were disenfranchised and that women not only fought for their rights but for others' rights as well?
i have never heard of women holding themselves accountable for anything. it will be a new experience for the few who want to try .
AI gets better every day!
Whilst this is AI material, and potentially a new approach to the self help industry grift that knows males are hurting, the script is reasonably sound as a message.
Yes, the actual creator is a woman urologist who is in Oregon. I am looking to see if we can set up an interview. This is one of the better ai vids as noticed by the sync of the lips with words. that is usually the downfall of these and this one gets it very close.
Whilst I understand the reasons for faceless and AI voices in videos (doxxing, professional reputation etc) it clearly comes across like so many others that don't seem legitimate in different spaces. I hope you can engage with her and bring us some interesting content .
Well said! You an sum up her recommendations by recognizing that feminist women (or even most women) are simply so broken by feminism and the lack of accountability it generates that they are toxic and unworthy of the men in their lives. Time to focus on yourself and the male friendships worthy of your time and leave "her" to stew in bitterness in the mess she and her fellow women have created until such time as they evolve out of their toxicity...recognizing that many never will.
Well said, other women’s interrogations really exhaust me. Well set out and explained.
The video is an AI representation of a doctor, but not a Psychologist or Mental Health practitioner, but a Urologist. It's misleading and misrepresentative.
This video is also the definition of collusion. The video literally says, "It's not your fault." How could you act any differently as a man, when your biology is the reason you act the way you do? It is ironic to me there is so much discussion of accountability for women and yet, there is little discussion here of men holding themselves accountable. I have been divorced and it was way more useful to my own growth to reflect on my own failings in relationship, and why I chose the wife I did, than cop out by saying she just hated men.
It's hard to image how the real challenges of men, caused by stereotyping all men as toxic, will be solved by blaming all women as unaccountable and self loathing.
There can NEVER be females in the red pill and this is because of their inability to see anything without female lens.
It’s a multifaceted attack politically i.e. on left and right and interpersonally i.e. marriage and courtship(s).
It’s Overt with liberal wm. Covert with “[con]servatives” wm.
And clandestine with girlfriends(including the friend zone) fiancée’s and or wives.
Recently on F/B, there are more and more pages promoting the Feminist version of history, using misinformation, so I began to wonder whether this is a new propaganda campaign design on two fronts, to stoke female anger and to bait men into responding, where they can get shot down in flames.
History is interesting, yet when certain details are deliberately excluded or distorted such as the right to vote and the claim women were denied credit cards. The question must be asked as to why?
Given the angry hostile responses when such information is corrected, it would seem that it used to;
Justify female hostility towards the male gender
Promote female anger towards the male gender.
“When emotions are driving, logic and rational thought are not back seat passengers, they are locked in the trunk( car boot)” Brene Brown
Are you suggesting that women (presumably American women ) never fought for the right to vote or that women could always get credit cards without a male co-signer? Please cite sources.
quote<The reality is that from the 1950s on, credit cards were a new invention being aggressively marketed to both men and women. Advertising from the era shows how keen credit card companies were to target female customers, how eager to tap into women’s spending power.
..............
It was possible for a married woman to ask for a credit account in her own name in order to avoid this type of problem; many women didn’t know, or didn’t choose, to ask. The Kansas Advisory Committee heard that the Credit Bureau of Lawrence, Kansas would separate files of married couples upon request at no charge. Not all women wanted their accounts separated.>unquote
https://fiamengofile.substack.com/p/surprise-surprise-another-popular
Obviously, my wife Mila has been misinformed on this issue. Perhaps the origin of this myth, other than the bad faith of some feminists, is that in some countries like Spain under dictator Franco women didn’t have the right to have their own bank accounts. But I think they were during the Spanish Second Republic in the 30s. This is just another example of fascism turning back history.
Again, assuming you're right: So men could easily get credit cards in their own name, and it was more opaque/difficult for women to do so, when it was even possible (Kansas is just 1 state, and each of our states has different laws. Crazy system, I know~). How is this not inequitable?
Have you been able to read Janice's article?
Because by the sounds of what you have written it looks like you didn;t so I will add another section.
<At a time when many married women either did not work outside the home or worked only part-time and on a temporary basis, there would have been nothing unreasonable about a woman’s husband co-signing her credit card application. Many married women were happy to purchase what they wanted on the assurance that their husbands would pay the bill when it came in, and credit card issuers saw joint accounts as a way of ensuring payment.>
You wrote "Men could easily get credit cards"
This is a furphy as to obtain a "credit card", the person who made the application needed to prove their "creditworthiness".
Credit cards when initially introduced were aimed at "business men" who travelled. So instead carrying wads of cash, to pay for things they were able to use a card.
As to the right to vote I am not sure about the American History however in England and other english speaking countries, men who did not own property did not have the right to vote and the Suffragettes in their fight to vote, won the right to vote for men who previously did not have that right.
Votes For Women - The Fiamengo File, Episode 3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKqS1D1tv5g
Assuming you are right about British history: Only rich (landed) men could vote. Women wanted the vote and fought for it, and got poor/working men suffrage at the same time. How is this a bad thing or a misrepresentation that women (and others) were disenfranchised and that women not only fought for their rights but for others' rights as well?
The fact that there were men in society who did not have the right to vote is often left out when the right to vote is presented.
The Suffragettes did not fight for the rights of men who could not vote. That is mischaracterisation.
And it is destroying society.
Excellent!!
The video you posted has now been made private for whatever reason.
Thank you for sharing!