1. The way a relationship starts is the same way it ends

I know a couple who used to tell a story about how when they moved to California they were introduced to a few couples. One night they were out at dinner hanging out as a big group. One of the wives said that they all get together for brunches on Sundays and invited the new couple to join. The wife instantly said that they can’t make it on Sundays because that’s the day her husband plays soccer all day and she goes out there to support him. One of the other husband’s said, “Dude, how is it possible your wife lets you play soccer all day on family day?” He said that his wife doesn’t let him do anything, that he has played soccer every weekend since they met. He said that it was an important part of his life and he never considered giving it up.

Where some men go wrong is they give themselves up right from the start. They deny their own needs and let women blow past their boundaries. They don’t own who they are and they start a relationship trying to please her. The resentment instantly starts to build so the presence and connection she wants can never make it into the relationship. Also, the respect and admiration he wants never makes it in either. Then it ends.

Somewhere along the way men were convinced that being a ‘yes, man’ is the way to go and I can see the frustration when they realize its not. This brings me to number two.

2. Disagreeableness in Men is a Strong Predictor of Success

I saw an interesting stat via Rob Henderson:

Among white males who grew up in middle and upper income families, who is most likely to be a successful entrepreneur by age 35? One of the strongest predictors was whether they as teenagers engaged in delinquent behavior (source).

I’m not saying that delinquency in and of itself is a good thing, but it is a sign of not being amenable. I like the word amenable because it can be clearly defined as ‘easily controlled or manipulated.’ I think it’s better than using ‘nice’ because being nice is close to good and there’s nothing wrong with that. Being amenable on the other hand is not good or nice, it reflects a weak sense of self. Someone that can be easily controlled or manipulated cannot provide safety for others. So disagreeableness creates safety which then creates respect. It’s not about being disagreeable just for the sake of it, but holding the line when it matters. The truth is that women crave to hear ‘No’ from men.

This brings me to number three. Typically people who are amenable have a disconnection with themselves and when that exists, addiction is close by.

3. Addiction is not a problem, it’s a solution to a problem.

People, but especially men, have so much shame around their addictions, but that shame is what keeps them stuck. The addiction is not a problem, it’s a solution to a problem. It’s not a very intelligent solution, but a solution nonetheless.

When we can approach our current solution with compassion and curiosity, things start to change. That’s what I support men with in my coaching.

People that come into my world are addicted to all sorts of things (the most common ones being food/alcohol and sex/porn). The problems beneath these addictions are loneliness and disconnection which are deeply painful and have typically been there for years, even decades.

That disconnection from self is what causes the urge to want to be so amenable in the first place. It becomes quite understandable once we connect back to our early childhood development and the beliefs we created about ourselves and the world during that time. This is what I’m passionate about helping people work through and release.

_____

All of this relates to a feeling of powerlessness. If there’s one thing I know very well, it’s this: men that feel truly confident and powerful internally do not cause harm, it’s the powerless ones that do. When we reject and demean maleness in the culture, we exacerbate the powerlessness and then we wonder why the suicide rates are so high, why the porn use is so high, why the fatherlessness is so high, and where all the good men have gone…

(longer essay on power and powerlessness coming soon)

This week’s podcast episode is related to this too. I talk about the heartbreak of Paris burning and why masculine principles matter.

Episode 167 - What Happens When We Reject the Masculine? Enjoy (Spotify). Watch the episode on YouTube here.

Have a great rest of your week into the weekend,

-Anya

It’s due to this lack of a working culture that people are so mentally unwell and unstable. I saw this statistic that people ages 20-29 are nearly three times more likely than people over 65 to meet criteria for Narcissistic Personality Disorder (source).

Connor Beaton (ManTalks Founder) said recently that “we are living inside the collapse of the modern psyche” due to the rise in psychosis. What does psychosis mean? Simply put, it’s a disconnection from reality. It’s a mass hysteria, but the way I see it everyone is hysterical in their own little dream world inside their head. Me, me, me reigns supreme over objective reality.

It’s insidious because it sounds good, it feels like ultra-personalization. It almost feels luxurious, like getting a garment made to order for you instead of buying off the rack. Thats how it’s been sold. The techno-optimists still feel excited by the idea that pretty soon the AI will be able to make “made to order” movies fit for everyone’s personal tastes.

You might have guessed - I am not a fan of this.

While maybe a garment is not meant to be shared, a culture is. Culture is collective. According to a recent PEW study, 47% of U.S. adults believe public behavior has become ruder since Covid-19. This is another result of the erosion of our culture due to mass psychosis and goes hand in hand with narcissism.

The other important result is that people are not happy (this probably goes without saying). An environment where there is no acceptance of capital T truth creates distrust, loneliness, anxiety, and feelings gloom and doom. I watched a video yesterday of a 29 year old big, tough MMA fighter sharing about how he eats alone, walks alone, he’s always alone with his thoughts and he started crying.

The distrust piece matters. In the past when there was political, social, and economic unrest and anxiety, families would ban together and focus on getting good matches for their children, they would focus on marriage. There was an innate understanding that the best shot anyone had at weathering the storms was man and woman getting together and building a stable family.

This is why the gender war is so painful, because the solution to many of the problems we face starts with the union and partnership of man and woman (micro and macro). Imagine if there was no gender war, but a harmony. Many of the issues we face would go away and the ones that didn’t, we would have a much stronger desire and willingness to fight them - because we’d have our ‘why’ intact.

Xx

I get more in depth into what’s happening with our culture in last week’s podcast episode. As for this week, I had Shah Mirza from his channel This is Shah to talk about the cultural, familial, and more pragmatic implications for building love and partnership. It was great, we also discussed the original mythology of love and why it causes people so much distress. Check them both out below.

Episode 165 - Why the World Feels So Chaotic Right Now? Enjoy (Spotify). Watch the episode on YouTube here.

Episode 166 - The Mythology of Love with Shah Mirza. Enjoy (Spotify). Watch the episode on YouTube here.

Have a great weekend,

-Anya

I share a parable rooted in the Talmud that I heard last week. Another observation I’ve made is that it seems like myths and folk tales really connect us to our humanity and to other people, while news stories separate us (yes I used that term intentionally because most news sources no longer report facts but narratives).

Read more myths and folk tales. Enjoy this one.

The Parable of the Woman in the Desert

A woman is walking through the desert. She’s on a journey to go home to her father and she comes across this big pit. There’s water at the bottom of the pit and she’s extremely thirsty. So, she makes her way into the pit, drinks the water and she realizes it’s too deep. She can’t get out. She’s screaming for help.

A man walks by and notices her in the pit and says, “I’ll save you if you marry me.” She says yes. He saves her. They are about to make their engagement official but realize they don’t have witnesses (you need two). They decide this big pit will be one. And then there’s a feral bobcat that walks by, he will be the other. The man says, “Okay, let’s consummate the marriage right here, right now.” She says, “We can’t do it that way. Let’s do things the way they’re properly supposed to be done. How about I go home to prepare. I’ll tell my parents. You go home. You tell your parents. And then you make your way to my village and then we’ll get married?” It’ll be official. They agree and part ways.

She goes home and instantly starts preparing. She tells her parents and waits for him to arrive. He goes home and forgets what happened. He doesn’t follow through. Time goes by and it was out of sight out of mind and he ends up meeting someone else. He marries her and they have two kids. A few years later, his first child falls into a large pit and dies. Not too long after that, the second child is killed by a feral bobcat.

His wife says, “I wasn’t going to say anything after the first child died, but now the second child is dead. What’s going on here?” This prompts him to remember the story of the young woman in the desert with the pit and the bobcat. He tells his wife this story and she says, “It’s clearly divine, the match between you and her.” He promptly divorces her and makes his way to the village of the girl in the desert all those years before.

He meets her father and says, “I’m here to marry your daughter.” The father says, “Well, she’s gone crazy ever since she came back from the desert those many years ago. No one can approach her. She rips people’s clothes off, she’s a maniac, a wild woman.” He says, “That’s okay, even still I want to see her.” He goes to meet her and she starts to act crazy. He says, “Wait, it’s me, from the desert.” She stops, looks at him and says, “I’ve only been pretending to be crazy so that no one else would marry me because I’ve kept the faith that you would come. I just knew you’d come.”

The End

Pod episode here. Enjoy (Spotify). Watch the episode on YouTube here.

Have a great weekend,

-Anya

Before telling the story, the Inuit man said, “Those who lived long before our day did not know how to store their words in little black marks as you do. They could only tell stories and they told many things. Therefore, we are not without knowledge of these things.”

When the World Was Made

A long, long time ago when the earth was to be made, it dropped from the sky. Earth, hills, and stones came down and thus the earth was made. And when the earth had been made, came men. It is said that they came from the earth, from among the willow bushes, out of the ground came little children, all covered with willow leaves. And there they lay among the bushes, lay and kicked, for they could not even crawl. And they got their food from the earth.

Then there was something told about a man and a woman, something not clearly known. When did they find each other? Where had they grown up? The woman sewed, made children’s clothes, wandered forth and found the little ones, dressed them and brought them home. And in this way, men became many. Being many, they desired dogs. So a man with a dog leash in hand stamped on the ground, crying, “hok, hok, hok.” And the dogs came hurrying, each from its tiny mound, and violently shook themselves, for their coats were full of sand.

In those days, a long, long time ago, nothing was known of death. Children were born and grew to be old, and they were increasingly many on the earth, until at last they could neither walk nor lie down. They went blind. Nor did they know the sun. They lived in the dark. There was light only inside their houses, where they burned water in their lamps, for in those days water would burn. Then there came from the sea a mighty flood. Many were drowned, and men became fewer. The marks of that flood can still be seen on the high hilltops, where mussel shells are found.

And when men had thus become fewer, two old women debated. “Better to be without day,” said one, “If thus we may be without death.” “No,” said the other, “let us have both light and death.” And as she spoke, it was so, light came and death. It is said that when the first man died, others covered the body with stones, but the body not rightly knowing how to die, tried to come back. It stuck out its head and tried to get up, but an old woman thrust it back saying, “we have much to carry and our sleds are small,” for the people were about to set out on a hunting journey.

Having got light, they were able to go on journeys and to hunt. They had no longer to eat of the earth. And with death came also the sun, the moon, and stars. For when men die, they ascend to the sky and become brightly shining things up there.

The end.

I thought this was quite poetic and full of themes that resonate for us today (some of which we ignore to our detriment).

• The mystery of the masculine and feminine

• The wisdom of the grandmothers/ old women

• The connection between mother and child

• Man’s inability and struggle to deal with death

• Man’s love and devotion to his best friends, dogs

• Life is full of tradeoffs (we had to die to get light)

I also thought the visual of water being burned in their homes was wild. I guess if there was no sun or light yet then the idea of wood creating fire just wouldn’t be available yet. What themes have I missed?

Xx

Within I-It life is disconnected, the person sees another as a collection of qualities, traits, or attributes i.e. race, status, wealth, sex. Other people become ‘Its.’ The focus is what can I get, it’s pure objectification, and it’s where all the -isms of our world originate (sexism, racism).

True relationship is impossible in ‘I-It.’ Much of our media these days is people operating this way.

Within ‘I-Thou’ the world is connected, the person sees another being as connected via relationship to others, to everything the person has seen and felt throughout their lifetime. There is no extraction, only presence. Here there is no demand of the other person, only the possibility of relationship through creating openings.

This framework set the foundation for later work within attachment theory, understanding childhood development, and numerous other psychotherapeutic models (including Gestalt therapy which I utilize in my 1:1 work with clients). The life’s work of my trusted mentor in psychotherapy, Duey Freeman, is based on this foundational framework.

Martin Buber is also a highly mystical and poetic man who was raised as an observant Jew, but broke away to pursue secular studies in philosophy. Throughout his life’s work he’s always maintained a reverence for Jewish mysticism and folk and recently I came across the book he wrote about the Baal Shem Tov (also known as Israel ben Eliezer). He lived in the early 1700s in Eastern Europe, founded the Hasidic movement, and was rejected by the Rabbinical establishment of the time. His followers were the commoners and the mystically inclined.

Here are 5 pieces of wisdom attributed to the Baal Shem written by Martin Buber (then translated into English from German) followed by my modern interpretations. I think 300 years later these are things I definitely need to be reminded of:

“We have not stepped into the limits of the day, rather the day has stepped into our limits, and we need not give way before it.”

Our only limitations are the ones we place on ourselves.

“From every deed an angel is born, a good angel or a bad one. But from half-hearted and confused deeds which are without meaning or without power, angels are born with twisted limbs or without a head or hands or feet.”

Don’t half-ass things. Don’t hesitate. Go all in. Even if it turns out badly, you have moved forward.

“No prayer is stronger in grace and penetrates in more direct flight through all the worlds of heaven than that of the simple man who does not know anything to say and only knows to offer God the unbroken promptings of his heart.”

No flourishes, no circle talk. Just say the thing in it’s simplest form, raw and real.

“One should speak words as if the heavens were opened in them. And as if it were not so that you take the word in your mouth, but rather as if you entered into the word.”

Our words hold our creational power, they do much more work than we think.

“He who lays hold of the rung of his companion and lets go of his own rung, through him neither the one nor the other will be realized.

Don’t self-abandon under the guise of pleasing another. It does no one any good. It is not humility, instead its pure selfishness.

On the Pod:

This week was a solo episode diving into masculine and feminine principles and female dignity. Enjoy (Spotify). Watch the episode on YouTube here.

Last week the interview with one of my favorite couples went live and it was beautiful, a conversation about men’s and women’s work as it pertains to building a devotional partnership. Enjoy (Spotify). Watch the episode on YouTube here.

Happy Beginning of Fall!

-Anya

P.S. I have space this fall to work with 2 new clients 1:1 - if you feel the call, you can book a consultation here.

It started the conversation in my world this week about what makes a safe woman. We talk about men being safe spaces for women. We discuss what it looks like when men are present, unwavering, and pillars in the storm. We talk about men as rocks and women as waves. We talk about men as mountains.

But what about the reverse?

This doesn’t mean that she has to be a mountain right? It doesn’t have to be apples to apples. Safety in a woman can look different. But what does it actually mean?

There’s this idea I heard about called man-points. It refers to the amount of success, respect, or accolades a man has stored up in his metaphorical bank. Only after a certain amount of man-points, can he break down a little. It’s like he has to earn his space for vulnerability, but not too much. The man above said his life changed when he realized he didn’t have to check off ten to do list items before he could allow himself to open up. Of course that wouldn’t have worked out so well if his woman wasn’t a safe space during that time.

I asked some men this question throughout the week and here are some real responses:

“we don’t want to talk about our issues. The safe woman is a woman who uses her femininity naturally that softens us and calms us down. No communication required. Just be soft. That’s a safe woman.”

“She's authentic. She has emotional intelligence. She's accountable for her actions.”

“This is a pleasant fantasy.”

“I have never seen nor heard of such a thing. None of the women in my life are safe spaces. The biggest thing is accountability. Grounded accountability.”

“When a man is with a woman he has to mask. The stoic everything is fine mask and the second mask is to show just barely enough emotions to make her feel special and only she gets to see that side while also not showing all the emotions he has so she doesn’t get upset and needs to be comforted.”

“Safe women are not sneaky or manipulative. Safe women don't follow the trends of what other women are doing. And she never shares his secrets with anyone and she never uses what he tells her against him. And she never betrays his trust.”

“Doesn't really exist, at least among people who are somewhere within the realm of traditional gender roles. Some women will def be good about a range of emotional expression, but even then if you look weak in the wrong moment it will affect things.”

It’s a mixed bag conversation but I think accountability seems to be a big theme. As a woman, being able to say, “I messed up, that’s on me, I will not do that again” And then proceed to actually not do that thing again. There’s a lot more to it of course, but what do ya’ll think makes a safe woman?

For this week’s episode I get into the ‘Nice Archetype’ in both men and women and 3 tips for recovering nice guys and gals to consider. Enjoy (Spotify). Watch the episode on YouTube here.

Also - the episode I did on the Deep & Ridiculous podcast is doing so well - check it out if you haven’t yet.

The Feminist Contradiction Hurting Women - YouTube

The Feminist Contradiction Hurting Women - Spotify

Have a lovely and meaningful weekend,

-Anya

One observation I made this week is something I find quite endearing about men - your desire to be in relationship with directions and navigation at all times and express it. I was traveling this past week and when my friend was driving, he would audible share where we are, where we’re going, and where we could be going but aren’t actually going also. He’d say, “Hey we’re headed south on I-95 now,” later he’s say, “hey do you see that road, we could have taken that road to where we were yesterday - it would have gotten us there.”

Meanwhile I’m thinking, I’m never going to remember that and actually I don’t need that information, I’m not really interested in it! I thought it was so funny and I’ve experienced this over the years from other men as well. I asked him why he shares that information as well as letting him know that I don’t really need it (I’m not going to remember it anyway). His response was quite primal and interesting.

First, he said that he found it terrifying that I didn’t care about that information because when he shares it with other men they always thank him in a serious thoughtful way. This is because this information makes them feel safe. He then said that on a primal level he’s sharing it because if something happens to him, he wants me to know where I am so I can get home. What I realize is that as women we live in the micro - we want to connect and be in relationship, while men are living in the macro - they are constantly connecting the dots around them in order to create safety for everyone in their container.

It’s pretty cool and something we don’t acknowledge men for enough. This is the masculine ‘mental load’ that gets ignored. While our culture is so focused on trying to get men to focus on what women care about, we never stop to wonder if there’s an entire world of things that men naturally tend to that never crosses our minds?

I get into this more deeply in this week’s episode as well as other fun sex differences. Enjoy (Spotify). Watch the episode on YouTube here.

Also, about a month ago I recorded a great episode with Anthony Marino from the Deep & Ridiculous Podcast live in Austin - it’s out now. It’s a great conversation and we’ve been getting some great feedback about it, it’s also so fun being interviewed live in a podcast studio. You can watch it on Youtube or Spotify - enjoy!

The Feminist Contradiction Hurting Women - YouTube

The Feminist Contradiction Hurting Women - Spotify

To those who celebrate, Shana Tova - may your new year be filled with blessings!

-Anya

Dr. Dani has been making the rounds this year with an explanation for why our culture is experiencing low birth rates, anti-male sentiment, antinatalism, “body positivity” towards obesity, and more insanity like this.

At surface level you might think that the feminists of the last few decades have just taken a turn against the family, children, men, and health? Dr. Dani offers a better explanation and it’s much deeper than “feminism.” Her theory is that high status women are actively suppressing the reproduction of lower status women for their own reproductive benefit (apparently Roman women did the exact same thing during the late stages of the republic so it’s nothing new).

To get this, we need to understand that this isn’t a human only thing. In primate species high status females have more babies than lower status females. Researchers found that it wasn’t just because the high status primates had more access to food and resources, but they were actively suppressing the low status primates reproduction by stressing them out.

How are women being stressed out?

By receiving messaging and signaling that tells them to do everything that goes against their biology and is bad for them while dressing it up in a ‘Girl-Club’ approved pink bow. Meanwhile the women sharing these messages do not follow their own advice. It’s why we have op eds titled, “Is Having a Boyfriend Embarrassing Now?” or “How to Not Catch Feelings When Having Casual Sex.”

Women like Alex Cooper (Call Her Daddy Podcast) have been doing this for years. She tells her young female listeners to find the soft, nice guy meanwhile her own boyfriend is buff and strong or she tells them to have as many one-night stands as possible and focus on their career, while she plans her wedding and children.

Now a lot of this is unconscious, Alex Cooper herself thinks she is supporting women’s empowerment, but is too privileged and wealthy to understand that she has all the resources to “have it all” while 90% of women will not get that luxury. They will be left with nothing so she ends up winning the reproductive game.

I read a quote by Megha Lillywhite that goes “Feminism is ultimately a philosophy of rich women oppressing poor women and calling it liberation.” I think she’s right, but I’d go deeper. Reproductive suppression is the driver of this oppression with feminism as simply the vehicle (based on Dr. Dani’s theory). It’s exactly like an MLM scam. The people at the top know it’s a scam, but they are selling it with the “inspiring” messaging. The people beneath think it might be a scam, but they want to fit in so they promote the messaging anyway (groupthink). The third and largest group are the ones beneath them that are fully bought into the message - men are trash, abortion is healthcare, career over family as they are mostly the younger ones.

Dr. Dani Sulikowski and I get into this more deeply in this week’s episode in addition to understanding how this all fits into the lifecycle of a civilization. Enjoy (Spotify). Watch the episode on YouTube here.

Have a great week!

-Anya

I remember an experience at the gym a few months ago where a woman brought her 8 year old son to sit and wait while we did our group workout. At one point his ipad lost power and he asked the coach if he could borrow his charger. The coach (a Marine Corps Veteran) said, “sure you can bud, but it’ll cost you 15 pushups.” The kid then proceeded to do his pushups as we all counted and cheered. That moment was possibly the highlight of his week, maybe his month.

This is a masculine approach and it’s just not something women can do for boys. The way men engage boys is unique. It is one-of-a-kind. And boys need it desperately.

In his seminal book within the mythopoetic men’s movement Iron John, Robert Bly outlines the five stages of male initiation:

1. bond with, then separate from mom

2. bond with, then separate from dad

3. the arrival of the male mentor (not dad)

4. Apprenticeship / Building himself

5. Marriage with the feminine

If the first four steps happen correctly, then the fifth one happens from a place of wholeness rather than fear, lack, approval seeking, or dependency. The third step is what I’m talking about here and it is essential.

This is why we need more male teachers in schools. In 1980 33% of American K-12 teachers were male. Today that number is 23% is falling, year over year it continues to decline. Men don’t want to work in environments that demean them and expect they do things the way women would. Boys also feel disregarded as they are forced to fall in line to a gynocentric system that dismisses their needs.

I spoke much more about this on the podcast this week with a great guest, Evan Campbell aka Existential Evan. He is a men’s rights activist and researcher from Tasmania, Australia. He mentioned that even though there were still more women as teachers in the 1980s, outcomes were better because anti-male narratives weren’t ‘in the air that people breathed’ like it is now. Even still, based on the data it turns out that boys do much better at boys schools with male teachers and girls do much better at girls schools with female teachers. What do you know.

We also discussed predatory female teachers, fluid intelligence of boys, how curriculums target boys specifically, the disadvantages boys and men have within dating and more. Enjoy (Spotify). Watch the episode on YouTube here.

Have a great week!

-Anya

There was a point made about how dare the dad’s friend shame her, he should be the one ashamed. While that’s a fair point, it misses a larger truth of humanity.

Women are the ultimate influencers.

Women can either seduce men like sirens and bring about destruction, or they can inspire men like muses and bring about flourishing.

Either way, what women decide will affect society. Like one of my favorite teachers Gillian Pothier always says, “While male action leads, feminine frequency drives that action.”

They don’t have power like men via authority, but they have it like women have had it since the beginning of time - via influence.

I interviewed Dr. Dani Sulikowski this morning (cannot wait for that to come out) and she reminded me of a quote that went something like…Rome once ruled the world, but then women ruled Rome. We know how Rome ended. The point is that women have always had far more power than we’ve been allowed to imagine since feminist ideology took over the mainstream.

Didn’t the mom in ‘My Big Fat Greek Wedding’ once say it really simply? My husband is the head, but I am the neck and I can turn the head whichever way I want.

Bring back grandmother wisdom please. It’s simple and it’s often right on.

My take is that severing sex from relationship is bad for both sexes, morally and spiritually as it undermines healthy long-term relationships (which are the ultimate determining factor of life satisfaction).

But a moral and spiritual argument doesn’t really land for everyone and that’s completely fair. Strictly biologically speaking we can make the case that severing sex from relationships is at least really really bad for women - it makes us self destruct.

The data is not confusing and it is plentiful - study after study shows that a large sexual history correlates to depression for women (no correlation found for men). They have also found that it correlates to lower levels of purpose and authenticity for women (it doesn’t do that for men interestingly). Louise Perry cites research in her book where women were interviewed at a college campus and only 8% said they were happy with their hook-ups. The other 92% reported regret, low self esteem, mental distress, and loneliness.

This is not new - it is exactly was was going on with Roman women towards the end of Rome….implosion.

I talk more about this on this week’s podcast episode: Enjoy (Spotify). Watch the episode on YouTube here.

As well as on that panel I mentioned - you can watch it here.

Have a great week!

-Anya

“The purpose of life is not the search for truth: it is the application of truth.” - David Baum

This resonates with me and can help us explain why there’s been such a religious revival recently too. People are sick of seeking, they want something to show for their lives. Since the 60s there’s been a romanticized ideal of the soul searcher, the lifelong seeker and wanderer. The one who travels the globe, sits atop mountains alone, attends meditation retreats, seeks out wise men, and reads anything and everything to try and find the truth.

For most of my life I thought this was “it.” What we were supposed to do, how we found meaning. More recently I’m becoming convinced that the life of such a person never actually begins. Perhaps, this person is even avoiding his life with a smokescreen of experiences. He is avoiding the true spirituality that exists right under his nose. He is avoiding what happens when we put a stake in the ground and devote ourselves to one path, one community, one person. He is avoiding where the rubber truly hits the road.

In his book about Orthodox Judaism, David Baum says this man is no different from the man deciding what to eat and never eating or deciding what to wear and never dressing. It’s no symbol of great wisdom to be seeking truth and never getting down to actually taking action and serving your community. This insight reflects my journey back to my Jewish roots. One of my favorite things about Judaism is the focus on the here and now, the actions we take in the real world. It doesn’t focus on the deep enlightenment that may be possible on the side of a mountain or the rewards that will come to us in the afterlife if we do good. The focus is, what will you do today with what you have?

I share this to be open and to highlight something I’ve been noticing. In the media landscape I see a lot of people putting stakes in the ground, which I celebrate, but they don’t stop there - they try to make other points of view null and void. This is where polarization thrives. In the same week I heard a Christian creator (that I’ve spent countless hours with in my ears) talk about the heresy of Judaism while an acquaintance at a Jewish event asked me why I would ever choose to have a pastor on my podcast. Both were so disappointing!

Can we not hold two ideas in our minds at once? Can we not choose our path and firmly stand in it, while loving the other without trying to change them? I love my Torah sessions with my favorite Rebbetzin and my afternoons with ‘Pints with Aquinas.’ I love my deep dives into Kabbalah and my deep dives into philosophy with my Christian friends.

I say all this to try and combat the separation and polarization happening in many more religious or spiritually inclined spaces both online and in real life, as well as the idea that in order to be tolerant you have to be a ‘spiritual seeker / agnostic’ with no real stake in the ground. Can you be fully committed to your religious path, while being open to learning from someone on a different one? I truly wonder about this question.

On the Pod This Week: A solo episode surfacing the importance of masculine presence and four specific signs of when it is lacking. Enjoy (Spotify). Watch the episode on YouTube here.

Have a great week!

-Anya

Here’s how I’ve come to think about it. Modesty isn’t dogma, it’s dignity. It’s about decorum and elegance and it’s not just about what you wear, but when and how you wear it. I would ask her how she wants to influence others? I bet she’d say things like her creativity, her curiosity, her interests, and more. She would not say, through her body.

And yet at a coffee shop just this morning I saw a woman wearing a nude colored spandex body suit. I could see the outline of her belly button and her nipples (you can imagine the rest). Because this is “normal” now, we’re supposed to pretend like it’s no big deal. But it’s a huge deal and it is not normal.

“It is no measure of health to be well-adjusted to a profoundly sick society” - someone said this, I forget who.

How did this happen? In three steps over the last few decades.

1. Subtle implementation

2. Calm any outrage while creating distraction

3. Quietly continue the implementation

And there you have it, a “new normal” that we accept because we’re too stressed, inundated with distractions, and overwhelmed to focus on it.

Female empowerment is somewhere in between a spandex body suit and a burka. The truth is that both of these extremes deny a woman her dignity, creativity, expression, and her positive influence. Both extremes are the opposite of beautiful.

It’s interesting how feminists claim that modesty is oppressive and sexist yet say nothing about radical Islam’s complete denial of a woman’s personhood via the Niqab or Burka. Many people lump all religious women that cover their hair into the same category with women whose faces have disappeared from public life. Covering hair can be a sacred ritual observed by different religions, covering a face is a complete denial of a woman’s personhood and dignity. They say these are just ‘cultural differences,’ but these are not the same and only reflects the moral relativism of our era.

Regardless of your religion and level of spirituality, modesty says “I am valuable.” Modesty says, “I am a soul and I have a body that I care for and honor” (as opposed to I am a body and I need everyone to know it). When you wear a sports bra and booty shorts everywhere, you are telling the world that all you are is a body and nothing more. And isn’t that boring? Skin tight spandex on everyone, everywhere. Then add in the botox and plastic surgeries a few years down the line and individuality truly vanishes. How different is that from the burkas really?

Isn’t it interesting how the far left and the far right end up running headfirst into each other? There’s no dignity at the far ends, the fun stuff happens right in the middle. That’s where you play with shapes and textures and colors and style archetypes. That’s where fashion lives and breaths, right in the middle.

Here are three examples of modern women whose styles are worth looking up to (each with a uniqueness all her own). Rest in Peace Caroline Bessette Kennedy.

Eva Mendes exudes sensuality through pieces that hug her body in just the right places. Caroline Bessette is the ultimate 90s icon of New York City minimalism and coolness. Duchess Kate Middleton is timeless and elegant no matter the occasion.

Modesty is play and fun and most of all modesty is dignity, no matter your background. In that beautiful space between skintight spandex and a burka is the place where your face is shining bright. Your arms and legs are free to play, create, dance, and run barefoot in the sand. Your spirit soars.

***Note there is a time and place to wear a bathing suit (even a bikini) and that place is at the beach or the pool. When we live in a high trust society that honors the dignity of both men and women, we can make agreements that protect these spaces and enforce respect. When we blur the lines and erode our dignity in everyday spaces (we do this differently with men and women) then the agreements begin to collapse and chaos ensues.

Modesty is your playground. You flirt with the world through your fashion, your creativity, and your style. Have fun with it. You do not get naked in front of it, nor do you disappear from view.

On the Pod This Week: Pt 2 of my 2 part series on men’s style, this episode will help men understand and discover their unique style archetype and why it matters in living a fulfilling life. Enjoy (Spotify). Watch the episode on YouTube here.

Have a great rest of your week,

-Anya

The Hebrew word for seed is zera, it has the same numerical equivalent as the word, zicharon, which means “memory.” Additionally the word, zachar, which means “male,” shares the same root letters as zecher, “to remember.”

The seed, before it is given to the woman, is a memory of the previous generation. The male function is to be a bridge between the generations. A seed carries the memory of the past: if you cut open a small seed, you won’t find a compressed tree inside. What you’ll find it the compressed essence of the tree - it’s meaning, distilled and that’s enough to grow a new tree.

In more new-age circles there is an understanding of masculinity as ‘consciousness’ which can be defined as bringing order to chaos, creating something from nothing (the void), and to hold presence and awareness. This makes me think of a Jewish teaching I once heard. The old sages used to say that the spiritual health, temperament, and wellness of a child was determined by the consciousness of the father at the moment of conception. Makes sense to me.

This also makes me think that there is a deeper meaning for why we give children the last name of the father. In the recent past we can explain it away with practical things like property rights and inheritance, but clearly in the past it was about spiritual lineage. The father is the bridge between generations.

On the Pod This Week: A solo episode exploring the philosophy of men’s style with a a brief history of menswear - this is Pt 1 of a 2 part series, next week’s episode is on style archetypes and how to identify your unique, individual style. Enjoy (Spotify). Watch the episode on YouTube here.

Have a great rest of your week,

-Anya

We’ve got to learn to disagree with decorum. The art of rhetoric and gracious debating is getting lost so I decided to do something about it. First, there is no way to make change in the collective without first making it individually. Second, collecting information is all well and good, but it means nothing without application and implementation - this is why rhetoric matters so much.

With those two points in mind, I have officially become a salonniére. This past week I hosted my second salon and though it might not be the end all be all of societal disruption, it’s a start. Salon is French for gathering (usually literary, poetic, or educational). It’s hosted in a private home and it’s purpose is discourse, debate, and to exchange ideas.

I’m going to share a framework that I’ve implemented to create the space for vibrant discussions full of disagreements that do not shy away from the most difficult questions about politics, society, religion, and culture - while maintaining kindness and grace.

It’s called Machloket. It’s a Hebrew concept that comes out of the Talmud and it translates directly to ‘disagreements for the sake of Heaven.’ There are three steps and four underlying assumptions that make this possible.

In the Talmud there are many depictions of the two main houses of Judaism that were present around 2000 years ago, Hillel and Shamai. The sages say they disagreed on almost everything; what to eat and when, how to marry, how to pray, how to lead, the list goes on and on. And yet they maintained strong friendships, married each other, and would dine together laughing, dancing, and debating ideas late into the night.

The truth is that ideas come and go, but humans are forever. Most public discourse these days is completely dehumanizing, lacking in nuance, and completely disregards to other person’s origin story and/or come from.

So here are the four assumptions:

• We’re debating issues, not people (kinda like marriage counseling)

• We’re solving problems, not winning

• We’re open to admitting that we may be wrong

• We’re open to considering that both people may be right

In my salons I’ve given people the opportunity to take 8-10 minutes to express a point of view, teach something, or make an argument then we open up the space for questions and critiques. This gives everyone the opportunity to practice crafting arguments and gives the listeners the chance to practice Machloket which follows these three steps:

1. The challenger must summarize the ideas they heard and very importantly, the intention behind the ideas of the other person (like what does the other value)

2. The challenger must get buy in from the other person. The original speaker must say, yes that is what I was saying

3. Finally the challenger can go ahead and engage, offer critiques, and debate his/her point of view

This takes time, and is not easy, but it is extremely rewarding to create these opportunities for growth for everyone. A chance to practice listening better, building environments of respect, sharpening ideas and thoughts, and ultimately disagreements with decorum.

We do not have to agree with someone to love, value, and accept them. We won’t always get this right, we’re imperfect humans that will mess this up, but we can try our best and that is my intention. Maybe this will inspire you to start your own salon?

The theme for the ARC conference this year is, How do we save the West? Here are a few of my favorite speeches from it, maybe some further inspiration.

This is a Civilizational Failure

The Utopian Dream that’s Destroying Society (on Purpose)

I Escaped Somalia. Now I See the Same Mistakes in the West

On the Pod This Week: A solo episode exploring three core desires written into female nature. Enjoy (Spotify). Watch the episode on YouTube here.

Have a great July 4th weekend 🇺🇸

-Anya

I’m going to be participating on a panel tonight and the question being posed is, has feminism failed or succeeded?

In order to answer that question, we need to a. define feminism then b. lay out the “what” (failed or succeeded at what)?

Femin - ism. Femin from feminine or femme meaning woman. Ism comes directly from Latin which turns root words into a noun that signifies a system of belief. It’s a linguistic tool to group complexities into a single cohesive concept.

Feminism created a binary trap of thinking by capturing ‘women’s rights’ into it’s ecosystem resulting in the idea that if you believe women should have rights then you must stand for feminism, and if you don’t stand for feminism then you automatically believe women should not have rights.

The way I see it, women’s rights should be looked at on a case by case basis, like everyone else’s rights. Like men’s rights and children’s rights. When child labor laws were passed, they weren’t grouped under an ideology of ‘childism.’ When the right to vote was extended to the black man, it wasn’t grouped under an ideology of ‘masculinism.’ These are examples of good progress thanks to a developing society moving away from survival, plain and simple.

One of the best examples of good progress for women is the ‘Married Women’s Property Act’ first passed in 1870 in England. This was passed to directly combat negative circumstances in which abusive husbands would leave their wives with nothing if they tried to divorce them. This was good protection for a woman if she found herself in a devastating situation such as this.

*Caveat - even this act created an impression that abusive situations happened far more often than they did. Gail Hamilton writes, “No law exists which cannot be made the instrument of injustice.” In marriage character matters more than anything and law or no law, a malicious and abusive man will be a woman’s downfall just as a frivolous and entitled woman will be a man’s downfall. The way I see union is that man and wife become one economic unit - this is not possible without properly vetting character and building trust. Things happen but generally if people are good, then things work out.

Another bit of good progress thanks to further development, wealth, and as a result leisure time is Title IX - the law passed in the United States prohibiting sex-based discrimination in educational programs and activities that receive federal funding. Women’s access to sports and education is a good thing. I say good progress because there is such a thing as bad progress.

I’m sure there are more examples but these two can and should be decoupled from feminism. When people say they define feminism as a movement to give women equal rights to men, then I say well rights come with responsibilities therefore do we want women to have equal responsibilities as men? Then who takes on women’s responsibilities? That’s where the mind games begin, with blank slate theory and the ideological gymnastics of feminism.

Feminists have straddled this question for decades hemming and hawing while creating the most anti-human, anti-family, anti-child, anti-well being narratives (and laws) all under the guise of promoting women’s rights. It’s created a cognitive dissonance so big, it’s driven the western world nuts. What is good for women ≠ feminism. And what is good for women is incomplete unless it’s also good for children and good for men.

On the Pod This Week: A guest episode with one of my favorite authors, Stephen Jenkinson, celebrating Ancient Intelligence’s 150th episode. Enjoy (Spotify). Watch the episode on YouTube here.

Tune into the panel tonight at 5:30 CT / 6:30 ET on the Ask a Brotha Channel

Have a great week!

-Anya

I used to know a man who would only allow himself five hours of a sleep a night, unless he beat everyone else on his sales team at work. As I was thinking about this I watched the new hit show on prime, Off Campus. Like many other films and shows before it, it features a jock meets artsy girl romantic relationship. I thought to myself, beyond the beautiful pairing of masculine and feminine attributes, there is a larger cultural insight here that comes with some deep healing for both men and women. I talk about the what and the how in this 10 minute video here. Enjoy.

On the Pod This Week: A solo episode exploring how our culture traded ritual for performance. Enjoy (Spotify). Watch the episode on YouTube here.

Have a great weekend,

-Anya

Eisler argues that before androcracy (male-dominated hierarchies) took over, we lived in a gylandic world and the hope is that we return to it once again. Eisler created that word by combing the Greek roots of man (andro) and woman (gyne) with an ‘l’ to represent balance and partnership. She’s talking about the Neolithic cultures living in and around present day Turkey and the Balkans who worshipped goddesses and fertility around 4,500 BCE. This is not new, many have done research about this time including Marija Gimbutas, but Marija simply called this a matriarchy with ‘mother-worshipping’ people.

The basic claim is that humans, men and women, are innately peaceful and loving and therefore any claims about men being naturally drawn to battles, warfare, militarism, and hierarchies are false. They are all socialized and specifically due to the thirst men have for power. Androcracy Greek for andros (man) + kratos (rule/power). If it wasn’t for androcracies coming in and taking over, we wouldn’t actually need to fight for resources (food, land, wealth) and therefore need constant protection.

I do not think this claim is true. It all sounds nice, and it might work in a group of 30-50 people, but with more than that it becomes hell on earth. Much like communism and isn’t it interesting how young women report more positive views of communism than capitalism these days? Oh how quickly people forget or they just don’t know. Side note: I wish these young women had more former USSR or Cuban immigrants in their lives to wake them up. We’ve got stories.

I believe this entire idea of ‘gylandry’ or ‘mother-worship’ is probably the earliest known example of the ‘women are wonderful’ bias in full effect. First, how truly equal are the men in a tribe that only worships women? I’d say, not so equal. Second, is it true that the male drive towards fighting necessarily equates to power hunger? I don’t think so.

While women create life, men create the means for living. If we honor the former, don’t you think we should honor the latter too? I have way more questions than answers today but I’m really interested in answering the question: is the archetype of the warrior innate to men in a way that goes beyond the battle for resources and survival (food, land, wealth)?

Viking lore tells us that battle is central to the meaning of life, in Sparta the same was true. In John Eldredge’s widely read book, Wild at Heart, he wrote “Deep in his heart, every man longs for a battle to fight, an adventure to live, and a beauty to rescue.”

What do you all think? Leave a comment or reply back to this email - I’d love to hear your thoughts.

On the Pod This Week: A solo exploring the core masculine pillar of space. Enjoy (Spotify). Watch the episode on YouTube here.

Links and Updates:

• For fun, I started reading Kristin Lavransdatter by Sigrid Undset. It won the nobel prize in literature. It’s an epic coming of age tale of a girl in 14th century Norway. Highly recommend for anyone with a daughter (At least 16 yrs and older)

• True North is back: my 3 month mastermind dedicated to helping men awaken their power and crush their goals. Next cohort begins in July. There’s truly nothing like being in a supportive group with like-minded people and accountability. The quantum leaps are pretty epic. Get on the waitlist here (first access, discounts, and the best bonuses)

Have a great rest of your week,

-Anya

In the episode I mention that one of my biggest concerns is the rise in the percentage of young men having a negative view of women as they get younger (from 4% - 25-30 year olds to 15% - under 25 year olds). The question raised is why aren’t I more concerned about the fact that the majority of young women already have a negative view of men (66.6%)?

Note: these statistics reflect university educated men and women in the United Kingdom

My answer to this is the tendency women, especially young women, have towards groupthink and consensus. The truth is that women change their minds all the time based on the latest ‘thing.’ In studying men and women, something I’ve learned is that men can be more thoughtful and rigorous about forming an opinion. Men typically stand behind their opinions because they have been carefully formed over an extended amount of time, research, and experience. Men identify with their specific opinions, whereas women identify with the approval they get from their opinions.

If men don’t have enough information or experience to form an opinion, they will typically pass on answering the question. Female friendships don’t typically survive too many differences in values and beliefs, whereas male friendships can go the distance. This is because women’s safety with other women is found through consensus.

When you ask a woman her opinion, she will instantaneously try to share something (even if cobbled together with little rigor). This is because the purpose for female communication is much more related to connection, whereas for men it’s about relaying information. Connection often times for women is found through consensus and agreement (which in a small tribal or familial setting is totally fine, it’s when it goes global and then becomes a driver for changing laws and policies that it becomes problematic).

So what’s happening is these young women are finding some sort of connection buying into bad ideas about men, dating, and life’s purpose. But if for some reason tomorrow all the influencers they follow and media they subscribe to disappeared and all that was left was Evie magazine for example (the femininity focused, man-appreciating equivalent of what Cosmopolitan was in the early 00’s), then that 66.6% number would start to go down really quickly.

Though most young men are still not buying into the ridiculousness of having a disdain for an entire sex, the statistic at hand about young men tells me they have had enough personal experiences to justify forming a negative opinion of young women. It means the online craziness has made it’s way offline into their lives, and quite honestly, there’s much less coming back from that.

On the Pod This Week: A solo episode three big problems I see happening with young women today. Enjoy (Spotify). Watch the episode on YouTube here.

Links and Updates:

• Beyond Polarity: Women, Men, and… - by Duey Freeman (an important reminder from my mentor)

• The Male Gaze - by Working Man Substack (this was just so good)

• True North is back: my 3 month mastermind dedicated to helping men awaken their power and crush their goals. Next cohort begins in July. There’s truly nothing like being in a supportive group with like-minded people and accountability. The quantum leaps are pretty epic. Get on the waitlist here (first access, discounts, and the best bonuses)

Have a great rest of your week,

-Anya

*Also this entire essay is full of spoilers so if you want to watch the film first then come back here, I’d suggest you pause reading now. Section one focuses on laying out the story then in section two, I get into the analysis.

1 - The Story

Shame focuses on Brandon, a young-ish (maybe late 30’s) man living in New York City with an extreme sex addiction. The only time he’s not thinking about, watching, or engaging in sex is while he sleeps and the minimal amount required at work to not get fired. Early in the film we do see his computer get confiscated because of a virus, which we later learn is due to all the porn on it. He watches porn all day, he masturbates many times throughout the day, and he has prostitutes comes to his house at night. This is his life.

Read more

The New Statesman published ‘Angry Young Women: Across Britain a radical new feminism is rising.’ While this is talking about young women (25 and under) in the UK specifically, I think it reflects the sentiments of other Western nations including the USA and Australia. Here are my notes (This is all based on qualitative and quantitative research i.e. polling and interviews):

• Young women have more negative views of capitalism than of communism (substantially more than men)

• They are more pessimistic about their personal prospects than young men

• They are much less likely than young men to say they are proud of their country

• They are more likely to say their country is racist and sexist

• The prioritize reducing inequality over growing the economy

• Only 1 in 3 women under 25 holds a positive view of men. Meanwhile only 4% of men 25-30 hold a negative view towards women, but it jumps to 15% for men under 25 years old

• Women under 25 are considerably more negative and pessimistic than those that are older

• Young white women are more likely to say the country is racist and less likely to feel valued by society than young ethnic minority women

• Anti-men sentiment operates at the level of small talk in these young liberal white female spaces

• The more liberal a young woman is, the more she is likely to report a diagnosed psychiatric condition

• Young women report that political stances and stances on social issues are dealbreakers

• Young women report that one of the biggest problems with men is they lack empathy

There is a lot to say on this. I just recorded a podcast episode providing three takeaways that I see as root causes for these sentiments - look out for that next Monday on the channel.

One of the most alarming stats is the way that in 5 short years young male Brits negative attitudes towards women went from 4% to 15%. If we don’t turn that around it’s going to continue to grow.

Another piece to this is the ‘women are wonderful’ bias. This is the cognitive tendency to view women favorably and therefore be incapable of criticizing them. It’s given these young women a false sense that what they choose to do is inherently good.

This takes me into another important story this data tell us - it debunks the notion that feminism is just about gaining and protecting women’s rights. If that was the case, we wouldn’t have all of these problems. What did happen was femaleness was pedestalized and maleness was dismissed, breaking the balance men and women held for most of history.

What’s interesting is all these sentiments are nothing new, it’s history repeating itself. The mid 19th century feminists like Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Co. said the exact same things but for their time.

I have this inkling that this is something to do with misplaced love. These young women are trying to get love in this very backwards way (via suicidal empathy) because they are unwilling to sit with, “hey we’re unhappy, sad, frustrated, lonely, angry. Maybe we rethink things, maybe this latest version of feminism is screwing me over?”

Instead they are doubling down.

On the Pod This Week: A solo episode unpacking the truth behind the well known phrase ‘Behind Every Great Man Stands A Great Woman.’ (And yes, of course, I mention the Churchills as I love to do) Enjoy (Spotify). Watch the episode on YouTube here.

Have a great rest of your week,

-Anya