You can have a philosophy that is logical but not necessarily ethical, and determining what are fair ethics is a debate in and of itself but fairness should be the underlying goal.
Part 1. Random Beginning Stats I found. Related but unrelated to what will be discussed.
- Women are more likely than men to initiate divorces, but women and men are just as likely to end non-marital relationships, according to a new study. Michael Rosenfeld, an associate professor of sociology at Stanford University, found that women-initiated 69 percent of all divorces, compared to 31 percent for men. “Women seem to have a predominant role in initiating divorces in the U.S. as far back as there is data from a variety of sources, back to the 1940s,” Rosenfeld said. Rosenfeld said his results support the feminist assertion that some women experience heterosexual marriage as oppressive or uncomfortable. Perhaps women were more likely to initiate divorces because, as Rosenfeld found, married women reported lower levels of relationship quality than married men.
- American Sociological Association. (2015, August 22). Women more likely than men to initiate divorces, but not non-marital breakups. ScienceDaily. Retrieved July 31, 2021 from www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/08/150822154900.htm
- Women are almost twice as likely to suffer from anxiety as men, and that people living in Europe and North America are disproportionately affected (Remes, 2016). Remes (2016) stated the likely reason why women are twice as likely to suffer from anxiety is because of 1) brain chemistry and hormones, such as Reproductive events across a woman’s life are associated with hormonal changes (Russell, Fawcett, & Mazmanian, 2013, The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry), 2) Women faced with life stressors are more likely to ruminate about them, which can increase their anxiety, while men engage more in active, problem-focused coping (McLean & Anderson, 2009, Clinical Psychology Review, Volume 29, Issue 6, page 496-505), 3) and other studies suggest that women are more likely to experience physical and mental abuse than men, and abuse has been linked to the development of anxiety disorders. Social anxiety in the West is typically manifested as an intense fear of social situations, high self-consciousness, and fear of being judged and criticized by others during interactions and performance situations (Remes, 2016),
- Remes (2016). Opinion: Women are far more anxious than men – here’s the science. Cambridge Institute of Public Health. Source: https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/discussion/opinion-women-are-far-more-anxious-than-men-heres-the-science
- Russell, Fawcett & Mazmanian (2013). Risk of Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder in Pregnant and Postpartum Women: A Meta-Analysis. The Journal of Clinical Psychology. 74(4):377-385. Source: https://www.psychiatrist.com/jcp/anxiety/risk-obsessive-compulsive-disorder-pregnant-postpartum/
- McClean & Anderson (2009). Brave men and timid women? A review of the gender differences in fear and anxiety. Clinical Psychology Review. Volume 29, Issue 6, Pages 496-505. Source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0272735809000671 & https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2009.05.003
- Mclean, Asnaani, Litz, and Hofmann (2011) references Angst & Dobler-Mikola (1985), Bruce et al. (2005), and Regier et al. (1990) who found that anxiety disorders are the most common class of mental disorders, affecting nearly 1 in 5 adults in the U.S. (Kessler et al., 2005). One of the most widely documented findings in psychiatric epidemiology is that women are significantly more likely than men to develop an anxiety disorder throughout the lifespan (Angst & Dobler-Mikola, 1985; Bruce et al., 2005; Regier et al., 1990).
- McLean, C. P., Asnaani, A., Litz, B. T., & Hofmann, S. G. (2011). Gender differences in anxiety disorders: prevalence, course of illness, comorbidity and burden of illness. Journal of psychiatric research, 45(8), 1027–1035. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2011.03.006 & https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3135672/
- Angst J, Dobler-Mikola A. The Zurich Study. V. Anxiety and phobia in young adults. Eur Arch Psychiatry Neurol Sci. 1985;235(3):171-8. doi: 10.1007/BF00380989. PMID: 3879219. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3879219/
- Bruce SE, Yonkers KA, Otto MW, Eisen JL, Weisberg RB, Pagano M, Shea MT, Keller MB. Influence of psychiatric comorbidity on recovery and recurrence in generalized anxiety disorder, social phobia, and panic disorder: a 12-year prospective study. Am J Psychiatry. 2005 Jun;162(6):1179-87. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.162.6.1179. PMID: 15930067; PMCID: PMC3272761. Source: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15930067/
- Regier DA, Narrow WE, Rae DS. The epidemiology of anxiety disorders: the Epidemiologic Catchment Area (ECA) experience. J Psychiatr Res. 1990;24 Suppl 2:3-14. doi: 10.1016/0022-3956(90)90031-k. PMID: 2280373. Source: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2280373/
- McLean, C. P., Asnaani, A., Litz, B. T., & Hofmann, S. G. (2011). Gender differences in anxiety disorders: prevalence, course of illness, comorbidity and burden of illness. Journal of psychiatric research, 45(8), 1027–1035. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2011.03.006 & https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3135672/
- Mclean, Asnaani, Litz, and Hofmann (2011) in their conclusions found that, consistent with previous epidemiological research, they found a preponderance of women among almost all anxiety disorders examined. One in three women met criteria for an anxiety disorder during her lifetime, compared to 22% of men. Overall, the lifetime and past year rates were approximately 1.5 to 2 times as common among women, with the greatest differences in PTSD, GAD, and PD.
- McLean, C. P., Asnaani, A., Litz, B. T., & Hofmann, S. G. (2011). Gender differences in anxiety disorders: prevalence, course of illness, comorbidity and burden of illness. Journal of psychiatric research, 45(8), 1027–1035. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2011.03.006
- Robinson, White & Anderson (2017), found that young men are getting more out of ‘bromances’ than romances. Study authors Robinson et al. interviewed 30 undergraduate straight men and found that the men felt less judged by their close male friends than by their girlfriends and that it was easier for them to overcome conflicts and express their emotions in their bromances than in their romances. The researchers suggest that the rise in bromances can be recognized as a progressive development in the relations between men, but they also wrote that this progress may negatively affect heterosexual relations. For example, the study authors suggested that strong bromances could challenge traditional domestic living arrangements between men and women. The study authors frame the tensions of the bromance vs. romance dynamic against a backdrop of declining homophobia, sexual liberalism, and inclusive masculinity.
- SAGE. (2017, October 12). Young men are getting more out of ‘bromances’ than romances. ScienceDaily. Retrieved July 31, 2021 from www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/10/171012091014.htm https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1097184X17730386
- Researchers from Indiana University say that nearly 1 in 3 U.S. men, ages 18 to 24, reported no sexual activity in the past year. Herbenick and Ueda (2020) of the University of Indiana School of Public Health at Bloomington and the later from Karolinska Institutet in Sweden, looked at the sexual activity and number of partners of 18- to 44-year-olds in the U.S. from 2000 to 2018. During that time, the researchers found that sexual inactivity had increased from 19 percent to 31 percent among men age 18 to 24. Men and women age 25 to 34 also reported an increase in sexual inactivity during the time period. In the most recent surveys, men age 18 to 44 were more likely to have had no partners in the past year (16 percent) compared to women (12 percent). Men also were more likely to have had three or more partners in the past year (15 percent) compared to women (7 percent).
- Ueda P, Mercer CH, Ghaznavi C, Herbenick D. Trends in Frequency of Sexual Activity and Number of Sexual Partners Among Adults Aged 18 to 44 Years in the US, 2000-2018. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(6):e203833. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.3833 source. https://news.iu.edu/stories/2020/06/iub/releases/15-sexual-inactivity-young-men-united-states-no-sex-debby-herbenick.html
- Factors likely that affected this could be COVID 19 shutdowns, social media & Only Fans, hypergamy (people wanting higher standards) and feelings of inadequacy due to contemporary culture such as “Bro Culture”, e.g., Dan Bilzerian, relating to men who feel they have to be Alpha hyper-competitors, but also “Selfie Culture” relating to females where they feel they have to fit into body standards of models, etc. For example, men reported a decrease in sex, yet there is a stat saying men are more likely have had three partners in the last year, seems to mean that men experience hot-cold periods of sexual activity, whereas women experience more steady access to sex and relationships, where men might engage in hook up culture, prostitution, etc., as a replacement for the lack of relationships, considering the normalization of the practice, the normalization of sex work such as Only Fan models making lots of money thus inspiring other women (potential mates for men) to engage in the activity, so when men are paying for it, they are likely to not receive it. Also, with student loans, COVID, a COVID related recession resulting in unemployment, etc., many young people are living with parents, meaning they don’t have freedom to experience sex as they would if living on their own, or younger people often roommate with each other, meaning competition for a limit amount of females is high (the notion of “cock blocking”). Then you can add pornography, personal choice of celibacy, etc.
Lets Get to It.
But, let’s get some definitions out of the way. Misogyny is dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women. Sexism is characterized by or showing prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex. The Fresh and Fit podcast got into a nasty debate in which a woman called them misogynistic, but they claimed otherwise. Yet, if I had to interject to help the woman I would call them sexist. They do have a sexist podcasts basing itself on a belief that misandry is rampant, i.e., a hatred for men, yet, the podcast does offer some good advice such as improving fitness, etc. They have had female guests such as female lawyers, adult actresses (meaning they don’t see sexually liberated woman entirely as bad, I guess), etc., yet, still there’s something off to their overall worldview. But, though having a space for men isn’t bad, the truth is the podcast does promote the superiority of men, wishes to control women, and in many ways wants men to deceive women by not being their true selves but becoming this debatable concept of Alpha.
Beginning Thoughts. Fresh and Fit, and What is Truth?
What is the truth? According to Merriam and Webster (n.d), truth is the body of real things, events, and facts; the state of being the case, and a transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality.
Truth will always be a philosophical debate (Does the mind rule the body or does the body rule the mind?), but to me truth is derived from a democratic processes of how people interpret reality to develop facts that become what we consider truth. We take data, turn it into information, and then turn into knowledge that we can act upon. Data, Information, Knowledge, Action. We take findings, analyze them, find correlations, study them, and then create truths but truths are expanded upon as time goes on, depending on what type of truth we are referring to, e.g., fundamental laws of nature such as gravity, states of matter, etc., are hard pressed to be changed too much from how we understand them now, yet, constructs created more so from human activity or consciousness, such as culture is always evolving. For example, we could have given up with seeking the truth regarding physics by stopping with Newtonian physics but we then we developed new concepts such as Quantum Mechanics or theories of Relativity. Certain truths are so innate that we can’t escape them, such as physic laws, i.e., gravity, up, down, left, right, our notion of dimensional space, etc. There are also truths that are in the ethical realms, such as the benefits of following the Golden Rule, i.e., treating those how you wish to be treated, i.e., you have a higher chance of success or peace that helps you survive if you project the ethics you wish to be treated with. Yet, even though we can pull certain truths such as biological, or even more complicated, evolutionary behavioral theories, e.g., the nature of men versus women, even though truths exist doesn’t mean our constructions of those truths are always fair, ethical, or even logical. There are truths and constructs, but not all constructs are designed as ethically and/or logically as they can be especially if a certain party has more power over the construction of the “constructs”. So, for example for men to have had disproportionate power in designing constructs such as societies, typically by positing a sense of having a higher capability of rational skills and physical strength, this doesn’t mean that the truths we pull from patriarchal societies are the explicit (objective) truth, considering the other half that lives in such construction, i.e., women, did not have as much power to consult the construction process and if anything were physically disbarred from showing their worth or merit. There’s so many levels of truths. Physical sciences and math versus ontology (the mind), psychology, culture, aesthetics, etc.
We still don’t even fully understand how the human brain works. We are a mystery to ourselves as we try to figure out mysteries that exist outside ourselves.
The Fresh and Fit Podcast claims a lot of truths but I would say they are little t “truths, as opposed to capital T Truths, because even though we operate on truths, our goal post of the truth always moves slightly further away and as we explore the natural world, the psychological realm, etc. So for Fresh and Fit to say” truths” they are part right but also part wrong, in that their ideology seems to get in the way of trying expand upon previously understood truths about how gender especially works. For example, (I’ll got more into detail below), they’re pick out facts or poll studies about female nature in the modern world to refute ideologies such as feminism out-rightly (not even to preserve it, though critique it), yet there’s a problem here. Feminism is fairly new as a distilled spectrum of ideology within the larger span of human history, which is no fault of its own. To compare and berate a philosophy 100% while it is still getting off the ground isn’t good faith. Just because men of modern times might have negative reactions to feminism, for good or bad reasons, feminism is relatively new. Modern men having hard times dating, is sure painful (I would know), but it doesn’t amount the history of physical and psychological terrorism employed on women who dared to speak up for themselves.
The Fresh and Fit Podcast basically pushes “This is how it always was, why change it?”, but this in anti-human, i.e., humans always try to improve their conditions. Humans were afraid of lightening but we figured out electricity, so why should liberated women be seen as feared? Granted, liberated women do need to learn ethics about the power they have, i.e., with power comes responsibility.
The only perk to the Fresh and Fit Podcast is that it reveals harsh truths about the realities of modern dating and the effects of modern feminism on society. Not all women are ethical. Not at all women are egalitarian. Women do have privileges same as men have privileges. We are still in an ambiguous zone of development. The goal for future waves of feminism is having more a say in the design of society where the majority of people can benefit, i.e., a utilitarian approach. Sure, we can say that patriarchy was bad, but it wasn’t entirely bad. The perk of it despite its many flaws was that people had roles, where typically such roles granted a varying level of happiness. Did it go too far? Was it too harsh? Of course, but the arraignment of women and men, worked. Think about our grandparents. Sure, they were married under patriarchy, but was it really 100% bad? Did women not smile on their wedding day or cry when they held their child after birth? Were there not vacations, romantic getaways, laughs, tears, photo albums, etc.?
Society as far as gender is in a flux. Change. Sure, people still get married, date, have children, etc., just as it has been for centuries, yet, it’s no longer a guarantee and each gender is trying to fit into each other’s expectations in a more competitive, technological, fast paced, and some could say exhausting landscape. Yet, it’s not THE fault of feminism, though certain ideologies of feminism or how people apply it can be considered just one of many variables in why some people feel lost. But do we hate feminism? No. Do we shame it? Of course not. We just to need to respect all parties and continue to develop new customs, courtesies, etc., that makes society bearable for most so they can create healthy connections.
Fresh and Fit is great in part because I see it as an attempt (though haphazard) to gain constructive feedback for feminism to be better, yet, Fresh and Fit is anti feminist, so we run into issues. Fresh and Fit is a like a meal. Some stuff is good, other stuff you pick at and push to the side, just to cover up with a napkin before pushing your plate away when finished.
It’s a podcast with mixed sentiments. Part good, part bad, part from a good place about self-improvement, yet part disingenuous and covertly trying to re-instill patriarchal notions as we knew them, so one side, men can “equalize the playing field” they feel isn’t fair anymore.
For the genders to get better, both have to understand their flaws, but Fresh and Fit’s advice, is reactionary in nature based on what I would argue is the reality of a generation of boys and men living under neo-liberalism (capitalism) that co-opted feminism. Materialism, Boss Bitch Feminism, consumption, celebrity obsession, etc. For example, feminism is many ways is used for corporate marketing, or also they will put women CEOs into power positions into the Military Industrial Complex as a sign of progress (not hating on women who work in these industries), but you see what I’m saying, i.e., it’s a marketing tool that uses women to become more consumers and apologists for the capitalist system as is. But, Fresh and Fit’s remedy isn’t a remedy but just playing the same game. Instead of challenging a capitalist system that exploits everyone, creates waste, intimidates us into buying things, Fresh and Fit say become more of a “hustler”, “get on your grind”, “build your empire”, etc. How many empires can all his followers truly have? What happens to the followers who don’t make it to the top of mountain and find themselves older and older as the years go on, who might realize you can have a lot but it’s not enough, or was it even worth it? What unique empire is even being created? Something that helps, or just another mishmash of crypto-mining mixed with predatory real estate flipping mixed with aggressive sales teams in Ponzi schemes mixed with selling grifts to the masses of insecure people searching for meaning? What are we doing that’s really so impressive?
Fresh and Fit’s underlying logos isn’t the best remedy and I would argue it leads to let down being that its an innately capitalistic mindset (about image over substance, ethics, self-help, honor, well being, holistics, etc.) that espouses Ayn Rand Objectivism of selfishness.
Basically, they want power but have to shame women to get it to make their landscape easier for them to succeed in. Is that strong? Is that overcoming 100%. They employ a level of emotional reverse psychology on women pointing the negative effects of the modern world, but really have an agenda to re-instill superiority. They never bring up facts of sexual assault rates, domestic violence rates, etc.
1. Inconsistencies in Myron’s dating advice from Fresh and Fit Podcast. Enslavement to a transactional power view to reality
Myron Gaines says a man should never pay for sex (understandable but debatable depending on who you are), yet in an episode, titled: Heated Debate! Are women entitled to a man’s time without sex?, states that if he spends money on a woman that she should be required to give him sex when he wants it. My question is, what’s the difference if we’re boiling it all down to time, money, and sex?
Does love or natural attraction even exists in their world? Also, Myron Gaines states a woman’s value is derived from her chastity and women shouldn’t be “hoes” (he claims no man wants a “used car”, or for it to be revealed that his friends had easier sexual access to her when he feels he had to work hard for her – understandable, to varying degrees, yet, there is a double standard to that), yet he tells men that they should have a “Body Count” of at least 50 women (coming from a defensive place since women do have easier sexual access compared to men, i.e., it’s easier for women to get laid), meaning that he is making/needing these alleged “hoes”, so this is contradictory. How can someone be chaste but still give him pleasure? If she refuses to maintain her respect and maybe even his respect for her, then he “kicks them to the curb”.
So, women are required to have sex with him because he exhausted some of his resources, yet a woman’s dignity is preserved by her chastity which he states, and if the woman refuses his sexual advance to preserve her chastity, then he’ll make it known to her that he’ll find someone new, but he tells men to sleep with as many women as they can?
This is not consistent advice. Restated, he tells women to be chaste for the benefit of male egos but when men want it, they should have it for expending resources, yet, the guy won’t respect the girl if she gives it too easily, and he insinuates he’ll find someone new if she is not willing, which is a form of “hard ball negotiations”, i.e., could be construed as manipulation. So, women must be pure to get respect, but he wants sex from them thus making them impure based on his ideology?
What is even more crazy about his advice is that he admitted that his parents might arrange his marriage (they are Muslims), so he’s giving dating advice to men of the West, highly influenced by his Muslim upbringing (I am not hating on Islam) who must compete in what they call the modern Sexual Marketplace (social media, likes, clout, filters, fancy pictures of travel, showing sociability such as at parties, spending money, etc.). Despite him saying that the West has failed in many ways, his libertine lifestyle if granted by the West.
Yet, he’s burning through women using tactics that could be argued as manipulative to varying degrees, but Myron at the end of the day has mommy and daddy finding him a wife (which he has said with an almost badge of honor insinuating his culture does influence is thoughts)?
Myron Gaines known as Fit on The Fresh and Fit Podcast, has some slightly contradictory advice. He says a man should never pay for sex. Ok, totally fine. Yet, in the episode of the podcast titled on YouTube named “HEATED DEBATE! Are women entitled to a man’s time without sex?”, which I stated above, he argues that if a man gives a woman his time and money that he is entitled to sex. This transactional viewpoint based around the concepts of money, time, and sex is a very “prostitution” type of worldview. Thus, his advice is contradictory on this matter. What’s the difference between prostitution versus expecting a woman to have sex with your just because you pay for things like dinner (please, God let it not be a cheap dinner, which I assume him being frugal likely is).
Are we really saying that men by spending $80.00 on dinner somehow means her vagina is worth $80.00? Yet, for women who expect lavish lifestyles are they also insinuating that they their bodies have price tags? It’s easy to point to Fresh and Fit has being glib but the environment they exists in being Miami is just that and women are responsible for pushing this materialistic objectifying viewpoint as well.
We could flip this in reverse to point finger at certain women who do expect lavish lifestyles or at least for some men to expend resources before even considering sex. But, regardless of whether it is men at fault or women at fault, the underlying logos of the society is the problem. The problem being that the modern world is all about money, power, clout, etc., over mutual attraction, mutual effort, seeing and valuing a person for who they truly are rather than the object they present themselves as being. Instead of seeing people as potential, we want the results and benefits of the potential up front. Maybe this is why divorce rates are so high. We have horrible attention spans, we’re ADD, we want it now. We are the microwave generation. Value is also relative.
An Instagram model, known as Monica Muniz, challenged Myron on his advice in which he stated that if a woman comes to your house and doesn’t want to have sex, assuming the male paid for dinner with money generated from his time and labor, then the man has a right to call another woman around the woman who doesn’t want to have sex, to get the other woman to come and have sex.
Ms. Muniz stated that was a form of manipulation, yet Myron argued that he is simply exercising his choices because one option wasn’t willing to give him sexual pleasure. Who is right? In theory both are right. It sounds harsh, but Myron isn’t entirely wrong. Could it be considered harsh, brutal, and yes even emotionally manipulating? Yes, but still him exercising his free-will and choice is not manipulating. If anything, he is being forthcoming (if he truly is) about his intentions, and this saves the woman time from not wasting her time if she not willing to engage in what Myron wants to do.
But the advice that Myron is giving is revealing of him. He doesn’t respect women. They’re only there to serve a role for him. Could we argue that many women don’t respect men and use Dating Apps to find men to simply “have something to do and let men pay their way”? Absolutely.
Fresh and Fit are different sides of the same coin of what they claim is their antithesis is modern women.
They just like feminists are entrapped into a dialectical worldview of struggle, tension, and power.
Back to the dating advice about paying for dinner means automatic sex, a person who likes a female would have acted differently, but Myron doesn’t like these women, but he just wants to use these women. As a guy, of course it’s a victory if a woman chooses to come back to my place after dinner, especially if it’s on the first date, but waiting is important. Does Myron really think that going on the first date with a woman paying her way, etc., someone justifies him having sex? Would he even truly respect the woman if she gave sex to him on the first date?
A woman that genuinely likes you won’t make it hard, on the condition you like and respect her.
A part of wants to say that Myron, being raised in the Northeast, having gone to college in Frat Boy City Boston, is likely another Barstool Sports Bro. Pridefully politically incorrect, qausi racist (for example, when Fresh and Fit talk about promiscuous women they often use the stereotype of a “pack of black males running a train”), male banter straight out of an FX Show like It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia or Rescue Me with Dennis Leary.
Doing such as move such as calling another woman in to have sex because the one you invited didn’t want to, means that you’re not invested in that person (you don’t like them) and by having sex is it as if Myron is simply marking a woman or it’s the equivalent to a dog pissing on territory.
So even if the woman does give him sex, but doesn’t want to comply with his demands elsewhere, then he can get rid of her (repeat the process) but know he’s marked her with sex, i.e., a de facto way of saying he owns her or has one up on her. If I had a daughter I would tell her to avoid guys like this. The self-made asshole. Because once you give him your fruits, you’re nothing to him. This is the problem with making money central to courtship. At some point in each which parties mind they will come to realization that maybe this is prostitution, i.e., this is nothing more than a transaction over a romance.
Even if the woman complies to this stunt, how will she feel afterwards? Memories can last forever. I don’t think Myron even cares because he like many “Dating Experts in the Manosphere” he pushes the concept of having a “Body Count” (which is disturbing because Body Count is a euphemism for a murder count, i.e., mixing sex with language tied to murder, distills dating into purely being hunting). Body Count also touches upon modern men who play video games such as shooting games like Call of Duty, and I say this because on YouTube you can find many creators who play video games for their audience while commenting on the flaws of females. It’s just more Gamer Gate stuff. Is Body Count the worth thing ever? No, but the language does mix a lot of things, i.e., sex, violence, video games, hunting, Darwinism, Natural selection, etc.
There is something manipulating under the surface, though on the surface a man does have the right to do what he wants without being looked at badly, same as how we empower women to do in modern society to exercise options.
2. Power. Ayn Rand Objectivism. Capitalism. Postmodernism. Right Wing Adjacency.
This is the root cause of all this advice. Power. A Tug of War Game. A tug of war game between the genders within a materialistic, capitalistic, conspicuous consumption society where people are bred as and further reduced to objects of labor potential. We are objects creating objects, buying objects, and using others as objects, and comparing ourselves. This is all the consequence of a society that has atomized individuals and bred them to see the world as purely transactional and hierarchical, i.e., us vs them, strong vs weak, higher versus lower, but humans are much more complicated than the rules we consider to be Darwin’s game of Natural Selection.
Humans are animals but animals with a unique nature that we created separate from nature, so to push us explicitly more so back into a nature that we alleviated ourselves from, means that humans, despite being advanced, always suffer the threat of devolving back to primal tendencies. The writer Don DeLillo in his 1985 National Book Award winner novel, White Noise, said it best in that “Technology is lust removed from nature”. What do I mean by this reference? As humans got more advanced and created their own nature separate from nature (with technology, spanning from using sticks to find bugs all the way to building spaceships), we have a tendency of overcompensating for what we consider to be our lost primal nature, thus within modern capitalist or post-capitalist nations we hyper-technology mixed with “hardcore” mediums such as hardcore sex, blood sport, warlike scorched Earth policy managerial philosophies, etc. We convince ourselves that is OK. We convince ourselves that this is required by “nature” or “Darwin’s natural selection”, but it’s ironic because in many ways it de-evolves us. What’s more ironic is that such ideologies are often pushed by the Political Right Wing (Alt Right included) yet they also espouse religion and tradition, but religion, i.e., belief in a higher reality is anti-Darwinism. This is why we have concepts like asceticism, anti-materialism, compassion, mercy, etc. Things that are above the harsh landscape of “nature”.
Back to Fresh and Fit and this notion of paying for dates means sex is required, etc., Myron giving this advice is a part of having “Game” meaning that this advice is playing games, i.e., there is a level of manipulation around it.
But let’s look at it another way. Both the man and woman are playing games. Myron’s advice is about maintaining leverage and power, so he doesn’t “get played” by a woman who willingly accepted him paying for dinner or other festivities which could have been considered her as “playing him”.
But, let’s be real here. Women are supposed to make it hard for us to have sex because woman have a right to vet those they have sex with to ensure she is 100% committed to the act. A real man doesn’t play games. He accepts his wins and losses. It’s harsh but it’s just how it is to a degree since sex even though we live in a casual sex society is still sacred be you a religious person or a secular one, i.e., we still value as sex as this special thing regardless of faith or belief.
This isn’t necessarily wrong of Myron, but it is a bit paranoid, i.e., by having such a rigid ideology it means that this rigidness, though he might argue is based on matters of probability (i.e., it’s more so within his favor act this way), is a sign of fear.
3. Consequence of the World as Is. Technology
All this advice is a consequence not of romance but rather the failures of a casual hook-up culture, online speed dating culture (Tinder, Bumble, etc.), a society where people feel alienated as something Marx would have argued. People feel they can’t be accepted as their true selves, they put on shrouds, but then resent that mask even if successful and might possibility resent those who even reward them for having a mask, and this can lead a person into negative thoughts, feelings of entitlement, etc.
The vastness of options presented by online dating, the affordability of travel (where a love of travel is often criteria for mate selection in the modern world by some women), and the speed of communication isn’t in alignment with how humans have evolved to mate select, so in the modern world everyone is on edge to an extent yet forced into a system where they are being used but using others. Where are we going with evolution based on this? The Hunger Games?
Dating has been reduced to a non-humane, more so animalistic, transactional medium of Natural Selection where the criteria for natural selection are created from a capitalist system that manufacturers what we deem as superior, e.g., beauty standards (often with filters, airbrushing), and designed archetypes such as a young, stoic, Playboy millionaire, etc. Dating has always been based in part on Natural Selection but the scope of it, i.e., how densely or harshly we apply it to dating is the issue. I would argue that if our ancestors had to compete within the same modern landscape of vast options, affordable travel, instantaneous communication, etc., then many of us would not be existence, even those we now consider to be “Alphas”.
The Fresh and Fit Podcast is a consequence of a capitalist system that turns people into materialistic consumers and hyper-competitors who use people. Capitalism, the ideologies of Ayn Rand (arguably a Satanic type of philosophy which is so ironic considering the Manosphere is more in alignment with Right Wing talking points), and one could even say fascism are embedded into the American and Western psychology and The Fresh and Fit podcast is no exception.
It’s a grift with seemingly noble intentions. These noble intentions are making better men. There’s no issue in men having a podcast for men to give advice on finance, fitness, and dating, etc. Yet, they talk big game about being 1% men, to get compliance from men who want to be that, yet, Fresh and Fit are becoming enriched by these very men, and day after day, as their power and money grows, they can further hide the fact that it was all a grift to begin with and their success was simply them being far more superior than any other person. But this is the thing about power and money. You can have it, and still not be respected or liked, and having social esteem has value.
Myron or those who listen to his advice have a right to respect his or their time and money. People have the right to look elsewhere, even though it is harsh, could be considered rude.
Is it fair that men think they must pay for dinner to get further along with a woman? No, it’s not, but it is a custom that has been a part of dating for a while, yet, this custom did develop under patriarchy, so if modern women are still expecting men to pay for dinner, then this is a violation of the feminist cause. Hence, therefore it’s important to split dates and for women to expect that dates are split, because it not only protects the reputation of Women’s Rights, but also protects the male as well, so he doesn’t feel violated in case romantic or sexual feelings are reciprocated.
In a perfect world a man should start paying for dates once the female makes it clear that she is interested after meeting for the first time, i.e., the more time he spends with you and the more romantic feelings are exchanged, then paying shouldn’t be an option for either the man or woman because both are now at a level of seeing each other as becoming singular, i.e., a unit.
If Myron really wanted to do the most ethical thing that protects men and women, then he would be telling his guests – typically younger age females from the Miami area – that a man and woman should go “Dutch”, i.e., split the first few dates. Everyone thus leaves with a sense of dignity, and as romantic feelings grow over time, then paying isn’t even a thought about because it’s about both having a great time to maintain their happiness with each other.
But, for Myron it’s all a power game. Does he know this? Maybe, meaning there is a level of sociopathy there. Does he not know this? If this is the case, then maybe he’s not as smart or aware as he claims to be. Either/or are fine, but just be honest about it.
The more I watched Fresh and Fit Podcast, sure, there’s some good information within the podcast and it’s great that we have free speech conversations about gender because men in the modern world aren’t a part of the “pop culture talk show or dating advice” sphere, which is important because we can’t have truly equality if we don’t have equal feedback from both men and women, i.e., I find it beneficial for feminism or modern women to hear the concerns of men and understand them because that is a form of having power and responsibility. But, women have to be cautious so they aren’t guilt tripped by another who simply wants them to feel bad so another can gain power over them. Make sure it’s genuine is what I’m saying.
Fresh and Fit is important because many of the young women on the podcasts have been raised, at this point since birth being 2021 going on 2022 which what I call a “female clinical gaze” where clinical gaze is borrowed from philosophers such as Michel Foucault. They do inhabit a gynocentric reality where understanding men deeper than them simply being their antithesis seems uncommon, emphasis on seems.
I support feminism but my largest criticism is its consistency to still be a dialectical framework, i.e., it is an ideology of “us versus them” (alleging it’s not), but most of the sources of misery, i.e., the antithesis, to feminism or women’s rights talking points are sourced from men as being the culprits (which is undeniable in certain spheres). Or, in order to free women it seems society has turned gender more into a broad spectrum (which it is), i.e., undercutting the notions of what we consider to be masculinity. For example, not all women or self-ascribed feminists who stand up for Trans Rights are doing it necessarily for the benefit of Trans Women but rather seeing Trans Woman as a means for their own self-empowerment if it chips away at feminism’s antithesis which is patriarchy. You have many people with hearts who care, but also many people who pretend to care to give their egos a since of power.
Yet, that aside, the underlying philosophy of Fresh and Fit Podcast is problematic, though if that’s their flavor that’s their flavor. If that’s how they wish to roll, then so be it.
(1) It hopscotches between morality often using moralism or puritanism on women, alleging this is all based on nature, which is and isn’t true, but then espouses a libertine lifestyle for men (2) uses selected statistics without even publicly debating those statistics either in a formal debate or through their own volition such as with people capable of debate (academics as opposed to casual people off the streets) or they don’t provide all the contexts of such statistics and they pull their own conclusions from them, which are influenced by their implicit or explicit biases, e.g., statistics used for confirmation biases (3) they haven’t performed or published their own quantitative research based on generally acceptable principles of conducting research (the Scientific Method), and if anything at best, their advice is purely from qualitative experiences, which in an often themselves could be considered “relative”, (4) uses Abrahamic religion here but then Darwinist Ayn Rand Objectivist notions there, (5) Fresh and Fit have a have a habit of making objective claims, typically by basing these claims on a “balance of probability”, relating to men versus female’s habits, e.g., they have a habit of saying “this is how men are” thus men cheating for example will never be as bad as a woman which is debatable, i.e., if we’re talking about biology versus ethical/morals then there is a basis for that, e.g., men spread semen whereas women protect eggs, but if you’re jumping from the biological, then inserting moralism when convenient then this can pose contradictions, i.e., moralism or biology can be used as a Deus Ex Machina to explain gaps in logic or a convenient way of emotionally manipulating a person to accept what it you are saying (6) men who don’t meet their created criteria or framework are considered “less valuable”, “Beta”, “Simps”, etc., i.e., they use peer pressure and emasculation to turn men into their mold masculinity, and (7) uses Straw Man arguments to justify their claims such as women have never created a “matriarchy” when in fact society wouldn’t be here without women and not just from pure procreation reasons but also offering labor potential (women worked in feudalism for example), and violence against women permitted them from having a political voice, and there are many examples of powerful women in history (Queen Elizabeth, Matilda of Tuscany, Mary Queen of Scots, Catherine the Great, Isabelle of Castille, Harriett Tubman – a black woman who helped give Fresh and Fit a platform to even speak, etc.).
All this cherry-picking appears to have created a muddled worldview, that works on the surface, but that’s like flying a plane with loose nuts and bolts, but ultimately benefits the podcast, alleging it’s about helping others. They’re like business owners who haven’t fully inspected their product, but threw it out to the public, knowing there’s little liability on their end, i.e., like a true capitalist.
Sure, they’ve created an ideology or school of thought, but there’s still contradictions in there (it’s not bulletproof), at least if they are willing to be honest, but if not, then their worldview might simply be another opportunistic power ideology claiming a higher position but really using whatever low and manipulative or fake Machiavellian tactics to achieve goals.
They are basically telling you not to be yourself. They want men to change their social media profiles to attract women, which sure makes some sense, but what about you as a person? Maybe that “lame” photo means something to you like a special occasion. Sure, you can say they’re telling you to be the best version of yourself, but are they really, when the advice is to conform to society
The Patriarchal Cultures of the Host influencing their “American Dream”
We can also add the fact that both hosts are influenced by the culture’s they come from with Myron coming Sudanese heritage, presumably North Sudanese (more Arabic versus Black Christian Southern Sudanese, i.e., North Sudan waged war on oil rich predominately Sub-Saharan Black Christian and Animist Southern Sudan), where practices such as female circumcision are commonplace, and Fresh, the other host is from Caribbean descent with Nigerian heritage if my memory is correct. Both cultures are patriarchal cultures, and even though the United States is a land of immigrants, as it should be, the truth is that other cultures do influence the Western concept of male and female relationships, etiquette, dating, etc. I am not saying that Fresh and Fit are condoning violence against women, but their worldview is shaped by cultures that many viewers or guests might not have a great grasp of. Even, the female guests are often of Latin American descent where Latin culture is noted for machismo, so you end up with guests of the show sometimes sympathetic to the hosts.
Other Thoughts Continued
The podcasts are not a debate of facts but more so a form asymmetric warfare they justify because the fate of men in modern world is seemingly more and more of a raw deal. We do have problems in society that do affect men. Horrible prison conditions, the slow displacement of male role models worthy of being role models, feelings of guilt for modern men who feel they can’t actually help feminism even if they wanted to because there are mixed signals (just as men are trash or “male feminists are cringe” coming from feminists), child custody and alimony laws, pressure to perform at work or be replaced mixed with pressure to perform at home or be replaced (and have to pay for it).
Most of the guests are ill prepared, indifferent, etc., and they’re getting something out of the podcast which is exposure in a world where “clout” in a form of value, e.g., popularity can be monetized such as selling advertising, products, getting donations, selling Only Fans content, promoting their sex work, etc.
Essentially the Gender Debates as is have gotten out of control because of the failings of both men and women. Many aspects of the gender debates are proliferated through the public through let’s be honest…trashy and often insulting means, i.e., click bait articles, rants appearing as journalism, memes, the prevalence of opinion pieces, i.e., op-eds, over intensive peer-reviewed research (which aren’t as fun to read), etc.
We are truly living in postmodernism, even the conservative who claims to be against it but benefits from it and uses it. We are saturated by information. We live in an paradigm of the “incongruity of meaning”, where meanings are manufactured by capitalism, doctored by conspiracy for various agendas across the board, and even processed subjectively by the spectrum of limited capabilities of those absorbing the information.
Do I think Fresh, and Fit are bad guys? No, not all. No one is perfect including myself.
There’s nothing wrong with them being entrepreneurial and offering what they consider is a sellable product on the market because they see a demand in the marketplace. But where is this demand coming from? What is the market? Is it really for helping men or rather is it from helping men that are reactionaries to progress who feel left behind (something we should sympathize with) but who can tune into a podcast that gives them a hard-on by seeing women “trained”?
The inability of feminism to transcend to what I call the stage of “existential self-examination” (women admitting that their nature can be problematic even in the absence of men) and beyond the traditional concepts of dialectical tension, i.e., us versus them, as the basis of its ideology, has in part created a market for the Men’s Rights movement to flourish. Yet, it doesn’t mean feminism must stop but rather it has to start using a “total systems approach” or permaculture approach to help design a better gender equal system. Men will be a part of the Future is Female, but do women even know how? Have they asked themselves this being real about women’s and men’s natures? How do we design a society for the liberate female and man, besides us being overworked “hustlers” “on the grind”, where love is found through pay for play services like pornography, a world where more people die alone. Do women understand men’s sex drives and they can be painful? Do they know rejection the same way a man does?
Do women understand men or do they objectify men, reducing them to terms like “brute” “stupid” “animals”? etc. Are women attracted to the things in men that scare them? We have to ask these questions.
Fresh and Fit Podcast has a sort of para-social, vicarious relationship between viewer and audience, but this is notable in many popular podcasters or influencers. People are willing to see past the flaws if they feel a part of a supposed popular person’s social circle that gives them a sense of purpose. They look past flaws or refrain from raising their hand to ask questions because the benefit of seeing their antithesis grilled is pleasurable. The psychology of a cult is no different where you have a charismatic leader with many notable flaws, but the followers have wants and needs that aren’t fulfilled.
The Fresh and Fit Podcast is the equivalent to a “You Go Girl!” talk show by women but catered to men. This is fair. It is entertaining but beyond the entertainment if a person lacks the discernment skills to analyze it, then the podcast can be problematic, even if the hosts slip in disclaimer statements from time to time, such as “don’t hit women”, etc.
It’s not the fact that Men’s Help podcasts or entertainment exists is a problem, for example we have magazines like Men’s Health, but the underlying logos to the philosophy is important. The logos of Fresh and Fit, is about money, power, clout, etc. As if these are the only things important in life. What about honor, character, or what about how to treat your women with respect that isn’t purely from a monetary viewpoint? How do they even make women happy? Is happiness of a women even important in their relationships? It’s as if Fresh and Fit in a “bro fashion” in the urchin cesspool that is internet just farted out an ideology that mixes Bronze Age masculinity (at least aspiring be so) with fake capitalistic dreams of grandeur. Look at Dan Bilzerian. A phony who emulates this “postmodern, make up your own reality, Warrior Male, Soldier of Fortune, womanizing” morality. It’s as if the entire world now has descended into some Neo-Babylonian aesthetic of Neoplatonic Zodiac worshippers giving “advice”, Polygamy (more viewed as conservative), Polyamory (more considered to be liberal), womanizing “Age of Heroes” Soldier of Fortune Joe Rogan masculinity, and Earthy pagan-like female sexuality, but also weaving in and out of a Judeo-Christian Islamic sentiment that is still prevalent within mediums like politics, etc. What’s the difference between now versus the Classical World?
If anything, they’ve fallen victim to the game they claim to wanting to beat by basically telling men to not be themselves, but rather doctor themselves to gain the attention of women. This is partially true. You must put in effort, but you should always strive to be your real self, express what you love to do at the end of the day. Think about the consequences of becoming a person you are not and even getting success. Sure, you might be happy here and there, but if you’re holding back who you really are even if it’s nerdy, then you’ll never truly be happy, and a higher level of love will never truly develop. Think about this. Einstein had wife. Stephen Hawkins had a wife. Many authors, artists, etc., have found love without having to worry about projecting a false self-image on a medium like Instagram.
Maybe the reason high-value men cheat is because even if at the top, the top is lonely, and many sacrificed all good relationships to get to that point? Maybe they are so oversaturated with excess and lust that they need more extremes to get off, and this appears to be the world that people like Jeffrey Epstein inhabited. A “rich” guy where enough was never enough who saw the world through pure power.
What Fresh and Fit fails to realize that people are still finding love outside of their specific “School of Philosophy”. Their School of Philosophy, which isn’t THE truth, but their interpretation of the the truth, is also highly based on what we consider to be Alt Right or Alt-Right adjacent thinkers such as Jordan B. Peterson (a member of the Intellectual Dark Web who Bret Weinstein where Weinstein is notable for his commentary on evolutionary biology, which isn’t an exact science, i.e., science is always being expanded upon), they’ve been platformed by the Tim Poole Podcasts (who I wouldn’t take dating advice from any day), they have ties by degrees of separation to Stefan Molyneux (by way of Rollo Tomassi, whom Fresh and Fit reference as an influence) where Molyneux was listed on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Watchlist for basically making a cult and also pushing theories such as Racial IQ, but also outright MAGA Republicanism, e.g., in one episode Fresh and Fit used a video from The Young Americans which is a Turning Point USA type of movement, i.e., College Republicans, Candace Owens, Charlie Kirk, etc. It’s essentially just a matter of time before they make it to Joe Rogan who has platformed the likes of Proud Boys founder Gavin McInnes, Stefan Molyneux, Ben Shapiro, etc.
They often talk against Progressive Ideologies, they push the “Equality of Outcomes” talking point common in Right Wing thought when arguing against any Progressive ideology (though Socialist thought doesn’t explicitly promise equality of outcome but equality of opportunity), they reference the supposed “failings” of Scandinavian nations, etc. Their goal is to basically discredit females, even though they give kudos to females, but ultimately men are better suited to rule and lead. As far as leadership this may be true, who knows, but we can’t be cynical to the fact that women should be allowed to lead, even though, to Fresh and Fit’s point, there are many women who expect men to lead because that’s how they consciously or subconsciously respect the man they “submit to”.
The Fresh and Fit Podcast, but being an older man, it seems like another example of postmodern urchins, but I don’t hate the guys. It’s just more “real estate home flipper quick money”, “Bitcoin bro”, “Right leaning” MAGA “The Art of the Deal” bleh that arose out of a reaction to people’s perception that progressivism was getting too much traction, especially with debates around identity-politics being a hot button issue.
They inhabit a world where social likes suffice for truth, and where popularity or the perception of popularity is all that matters. People liking or disliking a video can happen for an array of reasons besides simply you thinking they liked it or dislike it for the reasons you they think they did. You see this a lot in the YouTube universe. Even podcasters like Joe Rogan when getting criticism often defaults to “they’re just jealous of me because I’m more popular” (no hate to Joe Rogan though overall). People who aspire to the same accomplishments or people who want to project themselves on these podcasters where the podcaster serves as a surrogate for their own wish fulfillment will agree with this, i.e., people are just haters.
But not all of these “haters” have an issue with the person, but rather the inconsistencies and lack of fully thought-out logic within their ideology that they spew to the masses daily.
Yet, why do people watch it? All sorts of reasons. Bored, some true believers, others who have issue with the podcast, newcomers, some just wanting to see women, feminists, Men’s Rights activists, etc., etc.
“Reality doesn’t conform to social constructs” is something that Myron has stated in many episodes of his podcasts such as “Being Vulnerable with women? With Seven Girls” (interesting that aren’t called women).
In the same episode around minute 58:45, he stated, “We live in world now where people think their truth is the objective truth. I’m here to tell you guys something uncomfortable. But your truth is not the objective truth. We live in crazy world where people think things are subjective. Reality is objective, your perception of the truth is relative.”
But, sure there’s facts that point that we as men and women are definitely different but how we take those findings to construct realities in and of themselves can be relative, including the stance that Myron is defending.