*if the man is tall and good looking

I'd agree with you that most women are this way. But the thing is, no educated person ever questioned that really. People today think that there is a somewhat sneaky agenda to erase differences. That's not the case. Most feminists just argue that there is also a (not so small) minority where things are different and even the opposite way. Yes, there are also men who look up to powerful women and women who enjoy being above men. That doesn't invalidate the preferences of the majority.

@@sessaly7197 Yes they did question that really. What you said is just incorrect. There is a sneaky agenda to erase differences. They want women to go into male dominated fields, they want women to be more masculine and aggressive, etc. They want women to be like men and vice versa. Transgenderism is another example. That is the case. What are you talking about? That is not what most feminists argue. "Feminists just argue there are exceptions" wow there are exceptions, who would have though that? (fucking everybody). There are super rare exceptions, sure whatever. That is not what feminists argue. Feminists argue that women should not seek to be with a man who is above her, because that is sexism. "women are attracted to men who are above them". You think feminists like that statement? Wow. Stop doing that womanly thing where you just _make_ a term mean what you think it should mean. You don't own the word "feminism".

@@freddymarcel-marcum6831 Thanks 👍🏽 English isn't my first language (I'm studying it) so I often make mistakes like this..

@jeep23862 I agree with you when you say that is subjective, but I not agree that they are "highly". There are general traits that are accepted in our societies that makes a person good or ideal, for example a person who tells the truth or doesn't commit crimes is generally accepted as a good person. The same thing as a person who is responsible of his own acts and behavior, the other way around is certainly perceived as evil or bad. Beyond that we start to see those subjective aspects.

That sounds very much like Dr. Jordan Peterson!

The ideal man is someone who you would label toxically masculine. Why do you think that guy gets so many women? He should lead his wife, have authority, be aggressive, and yes, have responsibility. The ideal woman is sweet and nurturing and caring. She isn't very aggressive, and follows her husband. Men and women are different. their ideals are different.

​@@johnjones1870 Ideal men are not aggressive towards women. They do not have to. Toxic men are aggressive towards women because they are not respected by them

@@elck3 what would be the purpose?

tuxillo possibly so he stays on that grind and never underestimates the task before him

@@Joecool20147 sounds like a good goal

Try again. You can do better

@@dheujsnrhfydhehehshshhdggsd it's a struggle.

@@tinselinkl there are no answers. But what I enjoyed in this discussion was the theme of the guest that we have to take the failed research of others and use it in respectful recognition that we can spend time researching answers without having to repeat their failure.

@@dheujsnrhfydhehehshshhdggsd totally agree and these should be open to all. Not for elite few. Information shouldn't be a monopoly but we should increase good information.

@@tinselinkl the problem is rewards. How do you compensate for time invested. It's why so much research is trash. It just serves it's masters, not inquiry. The rapidly fleeting open internet was excellent at it. I fear it will be a memory soon.

If your asking you already have the wrong answer.

Who is Anonymous?

Yesss🔥🔥

Howard Roark 🥰

He explains an individualist view, less the specifics. That the ideal man or woman has come from a portrayal Ayn Rand's ideals.

@@jacquelinerendell and John Galt

@@Undone545 Yes! And John Galt!

Atlas Shrugged is ironically largely just a chick romance novel about a fantasy self insert female character who is a highly successful CEO, who only f***s even more highly successful male CEOs that invent everything that moves society forward. But I'll grant you that they are pretty ideal characters, and she absolutely nails the communist mentality in all her evil characters like a perfect marksman that's got their number. But then, her folks were done in by the communists I understand before she escaped to America, so she knew what she was talking about and had a vendetta. Still.. it's Twilight, if Twilight actually had something to say. Give it a read. Not the best book ever written for sure, but it's educational.

You mean adoring sycophants who don't dare disagree with you

@@dheujsnrhfydhehehshshhdggsd Yes exactly! Everyone must conform to my world view or else

@@ChristopherTreeChronicles or else what, people might not agree? Are you implying what? Starting to suspect a snowflake

@@Daniela-pr7rz possible. Also possible you don't know how to apply it

Yep two people who exploit the natives of the land that took them in and tell them how they should change what made the country great.

@Laërtu Yaron is an atheist.

It's Twilight with a vendetta against communism.

Rand was not a libertarian. She was an outspoken critic of libertarians.

How to get likes without making an argument in 2020: 1. Write something to the effect of "X is bad". That's it.

​@@phamnuwen9442 Determinsim. When you think enough and understand this relatively simple fundemental principle you understand libertarianism is entirely flawed. Thus with little thought libertarianism can be understood to be fundementally flawed.

@@jonathan2847 The fact that you think you "think enough" doesn't add anything to this discussion. The rest of your reply is word salad, except for the argument for determinism. Did libertarianism (do philosophies think?) really _avoid_ thinking about a huge number of issues? In what sense does avoidance exist if determinism is true?

No. The opposite is true. Libertarianism sounds fucking horrible to most people. No government social spending? how selfish! What you said is true for socialism however.

@@DeathEater93 Why does Rand in _Atlas Shrugged_ have a character describe the 8-year-old girl who needed braces as "mean" and "ugly"? And why does she portray the drunken factory worker who knocks her braced teeth out as an agent of vigilante justice? And why does Rand not have Dagny react with horror at hearing this story about the physical abuse of a child, which you would expect from a psychologically normal woman? You have to be a real sociopath to show gratuitous violence towards a child this way. BTW, I'm pretty sure that unionized American auto factories in the 1950's offered their workers and their dependents dental plans as part of their compensation. Yet Rand portrays her fictional auto factory's dental plan as an unspeakable horror because it offered a little girl orthodontic work.

Haha... your honesty is appreciated. I see so many people who make dismissive comments about Rand's work, and it is painfully obvious that they have not actually read any of it. They are just repeating what they heard somewhere else (probably their university lit or philosophy professors). You are kinda correct. Her protagonists are unbending, but not perfect. Because the books take place over a long period of time, you see them learn and grow and correct misconceptions. They are "unbending" on their values, but their values do mature, and in some cases, change. I think that is the case with most people. I know my values are certainly not the same as they were 20 years ago. Her stories do, however, revolve around a battle between an objective good and evil. If you literally know nothing about Atlas Shrugged, I suggest you stop looking in to Ayn Rand, and read/ listen to it (the audio book that is narrated by Scott Brick is amazing). The more you look in to Ayn Rand, spoilers are inevitable. When I read it for the first time, I knew nothing about it, and there was real intrigue and mystery. After you have read it, by all means, read and watch other Rand content. Her words. If you rely on the opinions of her detractors, you will get a mix of misunderstanding and misrepresentation, and some pure collectivists who despise individualism.

@@micahellis293 @Micah Ellis I definitely notice the thing you say about people attacking rand. They have strong opinions, sort of like it is all wrong or all bad, which is really suspicious. Because it's very black and white. I definitely relate to the message "stick to your core beliefs", as it is- it's a good message. You mentioned that the protagonists in her books undergo self correction on their beliefs also becoming more mature, which sort of makes them imperfect. But you know, change in beliefs doesn't show imperfection. It doesn't really humanise the protagonists. It may instead be a lack of information/experience. And once the protagonists have gained the right information they course correct their assumptions and beliefs and thus mature. A perfect person will stick to their beliefs, and as they gain more information/experience their beliefs will probably change. What i have an issue with here to be honest, is exactly this. A real human has moments of patheticness, and at times betrays themselves, while knowing what they're doing is wrong. They don't *always* stick to their beliefs. That's hypocrisy. I feel this is an unavoidable part of being human. And any protagonist that should be construed as "ideal" should have this notion of patheticness embedded in them. They overcome their patheticness when the time calls for it, but they aren't ever completely free of it. And sometimes they fail to do even this Now.. I don't know if the protagonists of Rand's are this category, as I haven't read Rand. But this is what i believe what an ideal "human" would look like. This doesn't mean that Rand is wrong about one particular thing, but that Rand's pictures is a good goal, which we should definitely strive for, but not the ultimate.

I owe you nothing fascist

It's just like wokeism. It requires a willing suspension of reality to believe it wouldn't promptly be exploited.

@@GCKelloch shshh you might confuse them with inconvenience facts their "philosophy" hasn't figured out yet.

Ayn Rand WAS NOT a libertarian and did not like libertarians. She called them right-wing hippies. Objectivism is very different.

@@GCKelloch why would you reply to such a childish comment. libertarism appeals to children and edgy teens. an adult would give it 2 thoughts and realize it's dumb.

Karen. Can't even mock these people anymore

@@dheujsnrhfydhehehshshhdggsd eh? What's your angle here? Please explain.

@@sirdanielfortesque5812 if I gotta explain it, you won't get it.

@@dheujsnrhfydhehehshshhdggsd lol. Could be a parody. Never know

@Charm Ming I'm just a Libertarian Troll?

The fact that you think his credibility is lost because he can have a discussion with someone different, tells me how far up in ur own ass you are...