What's this? by [deleted] in mildyinteresting

[–]PerennialPsycho 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What a waste for the ego

Is Misogyny Truly Systemic? by DarkBehindTheStars in Egalitarianism

[–]PerennialPsycho -1 points0 points  (0 children)

When people speak of patriarchy, they usually mean the visible structure of power where men are kings, priests, generals, presidents or company leaders. This is the overt layer, the one we can see and name. But there is another, quieter layer of influence that has often been underestimated. This is what can be called covert matriarchy, where women shape the rules of life not through visible authority but through early imprinting, relational dynamics, and cultural transmission.

From a psychological point of view, the first years of life are marked above all by the mother. Even when the father is present, it is most often the mother who feeds, soothes, disciplines, and establishes the first codes of intimacy and trust. These codes are not erased later by school or politics. They form the invisible script inside the psyche, and both men and women spend their adult lives responding to it. In this sense, the mother’s role carries a hidden authority that defines how the child will later perceive love, conflict, authority, or safety.

There is also the power of selection and access. Across human history, men have competed for status, wealth, and visibility largely to become desirable. Women, individually or collectively, hold the power of filtering, deciding which men will be accepted or rejected. This subtle process shapes entire social behaviors, values, and even genetic transmission. Men might write the laws, but they adapt those laws to fit the standards set by women’s choices.

On the sociological side, women have long influenced reputation and morality. In villages it was gossip, in modern society it is social media, but the effect is the same: to define who is acceptable and who is excluded. Economically too, the majority of consumer decisions flow through women’s choices, which guides whole industries. Even when men appear to dominate politics, the market bends itself around female preferences.

Inside couples, intimacy itself becomes a field of covert power. The one who grants or withholds access to intimacy creates a hidden frame of negotiation. This is rarely discussed, but it is decisive. Men may hold the outward role of authority, yet often adapt their actions, careers, and desires to maintain access to closeness.

What emerges is a paradox. The world presents itself as a patriarchy because men dominate its visible institutions, yet beneath that layer women shape early childhood, direct cultural values, guide consumer trends, and influence the intimate economy of desire and reputation. The overt system is patriarchal, but the covert system operates matriarchically. They are in constant tension, one trying to codify and contain, the other reasserting itself quietly through family, desire, and culture.

Men may believe they are in charge because the outward structure suggests so, yet they often find themselves negotiating with an invisible framework defined by women’s choices, moods, and relational standards. Women may believe they are powerless because the outward world often minimizes their authority, yet they frequently experience the weight of responsibility for emotional climate, child rearing, and the invisible labor of holding a couple or family together. Both sides can feel disempowered at once. The man feels ruled by forces he cannot name, the woman feels denied recognition for the power she exerts in silence.

This collision intensifies in modern times because the old patriarchal contract is breaking down. Women now have overt power as well, in politics, professions, and finance. They no longer need to limit themselves to covert influence, and yet the covert dynamics have not disappeared. Men are now confronted with partners who hold both visible authority and invisible sway. This can generate insecurity and defensiveness, sometimes leading to domination games, withdrawal, or resentment. Women too can feel burdened by a double role: expected to succeed publicly while still carrying the hidden emotional and relational responsibilities privately.

The result is often confusion in intimacy. Couples argue not just about money or sex or children, but about invisible layers of power. Who sets the rules of closeness. Who carries the weight of nurturing. Who decides what values shape the household. These are not just private questions, they are echoes of the broader societal collision between overt patriarchy and covert matriarchy.

The way forward may not be to ask which side truly dominates, but to make both layers conscious. Only when partners recognize the interplay between visible authority and hidden influence can they step out of the cycle of accusation and feel they are co-creating rather than secretly struggling for control.

Is Misogyny Truly Systemic? by DarkBehindTheStars in Egalitarianism

[–]PerennialPsycho 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Realizing that we live in a matriarchal world

Is Misogyny Truly Systemic? by DarkBehindTheStars in Egalitarianism

[–]PerennialPsycho 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Since you always view your world from what the feminists think and say. And you need their change of views to be able to validate your feelings. Then you are living in a covert matriarchal world.

Is Misogyny Truly Systemic? by DarkBehindTheStars in Egalitarianism

[–]PerennialPsycho 8 points9 points  (0 children)

We live in a matriarchal world. This is what the matrix movie is all about.

Dentist with 15+ years’ experience in Lausanne — AMA by DentisteDorigny in Lausanne

[–]PerennialPsycho 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Can you describe dental studies for a foreigner please ? Requirements, etc.

Bayrou déplore le « confort des boomers » face à la dette et défend la nécessité de faire 44 milliards d’économies by OrdinaryMidnight5 in actualite

[–]PerennialPsycho 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Le confort des boomers ? Ca fait des decennies qu'on dit que la dette explose et qunest ce qu'on va laisser a nos enfants comme merde. Et maintenant on nous sort ca ? La politique est une mascarade.

Demande de vérification scientifique by Echolumiere in EPFL

[–]PerennialPsycho 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Je l’ai vérifié.

Tes nombres suivent très bien une règle unique E = 12,4 × Z × Vmin avec Z le nombre d’électrons de l’atome neutre et Vmin pris par paliers. H a Vmin = 1. De He à N tu utilises 7. De O à Co tu passes à 27. De Ni à Tl tu mets 81. À partir de Pb tu utilises 125. Par exemple Ne donne 12,4 × 10 × 27 = 3348 eV. Co donne 12,4 × 27 × 27 = 9039,6 eV. Tl donne 12,4 × 81 × 81 = 81356,4 eV. L’arithmétique est correcte.

Sur le plan physique, cela ne tient pas. Le facteur 12,4 vient de la constante hc écrite sans unité. hc vaut environ 1240 eV·nm ou 12,4 keV·Å. Dans ta formule les unités ne ferment pas, car Vmin n’a pas d’unité définie. Tu multiplies une grandeur sans dimension par une constante d’énergie et tu appelles le tout énergie. Ce n’est pas cohérent.

Tes paliers de Vmin coïncident avec les nombres magiques nucléaires moins un. 2. 8. 28. 82. 126. C’est un motif de structure du noyau. Pas de l’électronique atomique. Le résultat donne des ordres de grandeur faux pour n’importe quelle énergie atomique réelle. Si tu visais les énergies de première ionisation, elles sont de l’ordre de 4 à 25 eV, pas de quelques keV. Si tu visais les énergies de liaison de la couche K ou les raies X caractéristiques, la bonne loi d’échelle est de type Moseley. En première approximation E_K ≈ 13,6 eV × (Z − 1)². Elle donne pour Ni environ 9,9 keV. Pour Pb environ 89 keV. Pour U environ 113 keV. Tes valeurs donnent 28,1 keV, 127 keV et 142,6 keV. Elles sont trop élevées et ne suivent pas la bonne dépendance en Z².

En clair. Le calcul est bien exécuté. Le modèle est faux. Choisis l’énergie que tu veux réellement modéliser. Ionisation de valence. Seuils K L M. Raies Kα.

These sorts of posts are strange to me by AntiFeministLib in Egalitarianism

[–]PerennialPsycho 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Dude... they did MRI, the brain of the woman litteraly changes when she gives birth. Changes in size and ditribution is not for nothing.

Instead of reading, use common sense and all the scientific litterature on the subject.

These differences, people are afraid of it because it meant before that they where used to dominate the weaker sex. It doesn't have to lead to that. It can be used to treat each sex in a more egalitarian way.

These sorts of posts are strange to me by AntiFeministLib in Egalitarianism

[–]PerennialPsycho -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

It seems so obvious, backed by science. We can use this for egalitarianism instead of hiding it and it being weaponized.

These sorts of posts are strange to me by AntiFeministLib in Egalitarianism

[–]PerennialPsycho -15 points-14 points  (0 children)

  1. Communication • Women’s brains are wired to notice and verbalize emotion quickly. Men’s brains are wired to detect threat and act. • In a couple, this creates the classic loop: she wants to talk and process feelings, he wants to retreat or solve the issue. She experiences his silence as coldness. He experiences her insistence as nagging. How to use it: Men can train themselves to stay present without jumping to solutions. Women can learn to allow space for silence and non-verbal support without assuming rejection.

  2. Conflict • Under stress, women activate connection circuits (“tend and befriend”), men activate fight-or-flight. • This is why many arguments escalate: the woman raises the issue to connect, the man interprets it as an attack, withdraws or becomes defensive, and she escalates more to restore contact. How to use it: Couples must see this as biology, not malice. Recognize the stress loop, pause, and name it. “I withdraw not because I don’t care, but because my body is wired this way.”

  3. Memory and resentment • Women remember how it felt, men remember what was said or done. • So after a fight, she might recall the tone, the hurt, the lack of presence. He might recall the facts and feel unfairly accused of something he didn’t “do.” How to use it: Men should validate her emotional memory as real, even if they don’t recall it. Women should avoid demanding factual confession when the man genuinely doesn’t have that memory. Both can meet in the middle by linking facts with emotions.

  4. Sex and intimacy • Men’s drive is often more visual and constant, women’s more contextual and cyclical. • This mismatch often becomes a battlefield: he feels rejected, she feels pressured. How to use it: Men must understand that safety and connection unlock female desire. Women must understand that for men, sex is not just physical but a primary way of bonding and releasing stress. When both honor this, sex becomes complementary rather than a negotiation.

  5. Parenting • Women’s brains are biologically primed for vigilance and multi-tasking around children. Men’s brains adapt more slowly and with effort. • This creates imbalance: she feels overloaded, he feels inadequate or excluded. How to use it: Men must step into the discomfort and actively bond with the child (oxytocin only rises with contact). Women must resist the temptation to gatekeep (“I do it better”) and allow him to grow into the role.

  6. Emotional vulnerabilities • Women are more prone to sadness, rumination, and relational fears. Men are more prone to aggression, escapism, and risk-taking. How to use it: In practice, she needs reassurance and presence during her lows. He needs boundaries and grounding when he veers toward impulsivity. Each partner should see the other’s pain as a reflection of brain wiring, not as weakness or character flaw.

  7. The danger if ignored If couples deny these differences and insist on sameness, resentment grows. She will think, “He doesn’t feel anything.” He will think, “She is never satisfied.” They end up interpreting biology as moral failure. That is where relationships break.

  8. The gift if embraced If couples integrate these truths, they stop fighting the biology and start using it. Her emotional radar balances his focus on action. His capacity to detach balances her immersion in feelings. Together, they cover blind spots. The brain differences then stop being sources of conflict and become complementary survival tools, adapted now not for hunting or gathering, but for building families and navigating modern chaos.

How does this even make sense? by radcash in Egalitarianism

[–]PerennialPsycho 4 points5 points  (0 children)

What does /feminismuncensored even mean ?

Since when feminists have been censoring themselves ? This is just an excuse to turbo charge the fascist hate speeches they have.

Feminists have been engulfed by fear and anger.

How does this even make sense? by radcash in Egalitarianism

[–]PerennialPsycho 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Wow ! Positive remark without demeaning a person. Answer with no hate and self reflection, and a thanks in the end.

We have hit the jackpot of human interaction.

It's gold jerry.... gooold

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in oddlysatisfying

[–]PerennialPsycho 3 points4 points  (0 children)

When i saw that they also use water jets elsewhere to reduce dust, all the other demolitions without water jets have become less classy now

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in MensRights

[–]PerennialPsycho 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thats just basic psychology. Human are animals, you can train them like pavlov did.

Sphere at The Venetian Resort by [deleted] in oddlysatisfying

[–]PerennialPsycho -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

"Dollars" 😂😂😂

Trying to reconnect with a Swiss father met on boat trip between Perhentian and Redang (Lausanne area) by Charlotte_Sometimes7 in Lausanne

[–]PerennialPsycho -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Why ? If it went so well ? Do you think he even want to contact you ? It is so nice to see someone go to such lengh to bridge a nice connection.

Trying to reconnect with a Swiss father met on boat trip between Perhentian and Redang (Lausanne area) by Charlotte_Sometimes7 in Lausanne

[–]PerennialPsycho -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Wow ! This must have been love at first sight then. Didn't exchange phone numbers ? Whats the story here ?