The Princess Paradox.

I was thinking back to the post I wrote about the relationship between men and women that governed society throughout human history (link here). Comparing that situation to the modern one, I found myself truly bewildered.

We have moved from the '60s and '70s — years steeped in a debate as destructive to old patterns as it was constructive for the results achieved (divorce, abortion, and family law reforms) — to a violent climate that is leading to nothing concrete, other than the ever-increasing alienation of the two sexes.

If you look at the gender struggle in this historical moment, you see a woman who, in public debate, hates, diminishes, and ridicules the man, fueling the idea that "it's all his fault," and a man who avoids the discussion, seeking comfort among his own kind and moving away from the female world. Why is there a perception that women have become, from a communicative point of view, the "perpetrators" and men "the victims"?

At first, I didn't have an answer worthy of discussion. But the more I wrote, the clearer the truth appeared to me: often, the woman knows perfectly well that what she claims is not attainable, simply because it does not exist. She is so confused in looking at reality that she contradicts herself, hitting herself with "friendly fire" without even realizing it. Besides, when you scream lies to create a non-existent problem, you always end up exaggerating.

And what would this problem be? The Patriarchy. That dark male power that supposedly locks women into a "gender role," allowing them nothing else but to be a mother and a wife. A systematic and immutable situation according to which the woman is condemned to an eternal disadvantage.

This will be a journey that I hope provokes reflection and discussion... or perhaps it will just be the fastest way to get myself labeled as an "honorary member of the toxic patriarchy."

Disparity?

Let's start from a fundamental premise: between men and women, there is no legal asymmetry. Biological differences exist, of course, but that is another matter. I know it sounds incredible, given the volume of voices shouting about legal inequality, but we have reached a point of total equality of rights.

Let's do a test: list just one thing that a man can do that a woman is barred from by law. I dare you to find one. Excluding countries where religion dominates the civil sphere, in a State governed by the rule of law where Reason is the founding pillar, a woman can do — and in fact does — exactly what a man does.

Look around you. A woman can vote, be self-determined, buy property, found companies, undertake any career, choose her own partner, and practice any sport. There is nothing forbidden to her. According to the civil and criminal codes, there are no cages imprisoning her.

And yet, women still feel secluded. For some reason, they perceive a transparent prison that makes them feel oppressed, sometimes manifesting a distress that seems to exceed that of the women of ancient Athens or the Renaissance—eras in which they were truly relegated to ornamental objects at the service of men.

What if the cage had been unconsciously created by women themselves? Not out of malice or a dark secret plan, but as a consequence of an internal projection that women have of themselves?

The Drama of the Princess.

From the very beginning, for centuries now, every little girl is born immersed in the archetype of the "Prince and the Princess." We all know the story: the imprisoned princess and the prince who fights to save her. From the earliest stages of her existence, the girl is raised with the sweet voice of a father who convinces her she is perfect—like all princesses—and that she deserves the perfect man: the famous Prince Charming. I am not making this up. How many scenes have we seen of fathers preventing their daughters from interacting with boys, solely to protect that "delicate little flower"?

Within this paradigm, however, two enormous problems exist.

Expectations of themselves.

Let's start with the basic concept every woman has of herself: that of perfection. Growing up with the archetype of the spotless princess, the automatic conviction of being flawless develops. In reality, we know that the human essence is imperfection; it is what makes us unique.

This illusion of perfection leads the future woman to have unrealistic standards. If you feel perfect, you feel infallible; and if you are infallible, you feel you deserve everything by birthright. When a man, in a professional or private setting, points out a gap or an error, the woman immediately goes on the defensive, accusing him of "belittling" her as a woman. It is as if she cannot accept that a human being can make a mistake, claiming a sort of right to always be right.

The other "glitch" is passivity. The princess of the fairy tale is always waiting to be saved. Even in modern versions of "warrior princesses"—who claim to be strong on their own, fueling the idea of male uselessness—a man almost always appears at the key moment to resolve the situation, even if only morally.

Projecting this into the modern world, where the law allows a woman to do everything, the conflict explodes: the woman can, legally, walk on her own two feet, but her imprinting still suggests that someone (the State, the man, society) must "free" her or "validate" her to make her feel truly free. In a cell that, in fact, does not exist.

Let's think on a small scale: how many women in a relationship expect a "handyman" man? Despite the rhetoric of strength and autonomy, the man must still save her from small chores: burnt-out light bulbs, heavy grocery bags, engines that won't start. She could do it herself, yet she looks for someone to act for her. In this short circuit, independence becomes selective: it applies to rights and power, but magically disappears in the face of effort or daily responsibility.

Expectations of men.

Speaking of "handymen," the second problem concerns the male ideal that is administered from childhood. A girl's education passes through the forced idea of deserving "Prince Charming": the perfect, strong, and spotless man. This fairy tale holds up until a girl starts getting serious and looks for a life partner. Here, the short circuit explodes.

Let's look this "Prince" in the face: he possesses exactly all the qualities the princess desires, whatever they may be. He is the only possible man; all others are mere scraps, unfit for the role. Small spoiler: real men are fallible human beings, not fairy-tale heroes. Every man has flaws, fragilities, and limits. When a woman collides with reality, she feels a resentful frustration: she realizes that what she has always believed in does not exist, and she ends up seeing her partner not as a human being, but as a "prince who failed his task." Once the deception is over, the woman leaves, becoming free and available again, desperately hoping for the future appearance of her perfect savior. A figure who will never appear, simply because perfection is not of this world.

I said "hoping," not "searching," because the princess retains a passive nature. It is not up to her to move: she must be found, courted, and saved.

If one observes the current rhetoric, one understands why so many women are desperately single: they are waiting for a savior to pull them out of a room to which they already hold the keys. They ignore the most bitter detail: the best man for them is already there, outside the door, but he cannot enter because the woman herself has locked the door from the inside, clutching the very key she refuses to use.

Performance that doesn't deliver.

The other great pillar of modern feminist rhetoric, the one that transforms man into a tyrant, lies in the concept of competition. The widespread perception is that in sports there is a systematic disparity, orchestrated by men, to relegate women to a marginal and diminished role. To analyze this point, I will use football and basketball as references: two glaring examples of what I would define as a true female "selective blindness."

I take Alisha Lehmann, a Swiss footballer, as a reference point to analyze this phenomenon. She, like many other colleagues, has often acted as a spokesperson for the protest regarding the earnings disparity between men and women in football. Her most famous statement, which went viral and became the subject of heated discussion, was: "My boyfriend and I play the same sport, we do the same job, but he earns ten thousand times more than me!" This single statement, if analyzed with intellectual honesty, dismantles the idea of the oppressed woman in just two logical steps.

The first point is provided by Lehmann herself: "My boyfriend and I do the same sport!" Let’s reflect on this. This sentence means that Lehmann, a woman, is practicing the exact same discipline as a man, with the same rules and the same rights.

That very same right that she and millions of other women exercise today is guaranteed by a society that feminist rhetoric defines as "patriarchal," but which has not only created those sports but has also opened up the possibility for women to play them in total freedom and autonomy. Looking at history, it is the first time since ancient Egypt that a woman can publicly state: "I do the exact same thing as a man!"

Today it is taken for granted, but it is a monumental achievement if one considers a female history made of real and extremely tight social prisons. Far from an oppressive patriarchy: this is the proof of having moved past it.

The second blow is dealt by the public, composed of both men and women. In football, if you ask who Cristiano Ronaldo is, anyone can answer; even my mother, who has never followed a match, knows his name. If you ask who Alisha Lehmann is, many will hesitate, and those who do answer often do not do so because of her sporting merits.

Is it the fault of a toxic patriarchy that wants to see women fail? I wouldn't say so. If the patriarchy truly had the goal of annihilating the female presence, it would never have allowed them access to professional sports. Men have historically excluded women from voting; excluding them from the playing fields would have been child's play. Instead, the opposite happens: in football or basketball (WNBA), the male sector often subsidizes, partially or totally, the female one to guarantee its survival. This speaks volumes about why a woman does not earn as much as a man: sports revolve around the interest generated. It is a rule that affects men too. If we compare European basketball leagues with the MALE NBA, the gap is abysmal: the NBA pays players ten or twenty times more. Does a "geographical patriarchy" exist that oppresses Europeans? No, simply the NBA attracts more attention, more sponsors, and therefore more capital.

The same mechanism regulates the gender gap. In football, women generate less interest. And it is a lack of attention that comes from both the male and female audience (the same audience that then screams for pay equity). Men and women, in equal measure, prefer to watch male sports. Whether it is due to the lack of global superstars (marketing is king here) or the different intensity of the game, the result is that the female product is less attractive on the market. Less attractiveness means less investment, and less investment means less money to be shared. If the women complaining about inequality were the first to fill female football stadiums every Sunday, the economic problem would disappear in an afternoon.

Can more be done? Certainly, but it doesn't depend on men. At the moment, much of women's football is operating at a loss. Clubs, managed by men who look at balance sheets, see that "red" and notice no improvements, wondering what the utility of such an investment is. As the icing on the cake, from the other side come only complaints about low salaries and a lack of spotlight. If the women's sporting movement found a way to make itself media-attractive, no entrepreneur would be so masochistic as to say no to profits. Expecting "men to think about it" is the perfect definition of the princess archetype: an intrinsic passivity waiting for someone else to solve their problems.

Do you know what the funny thing is? It's that women often complain about a problem they have already proven they know how to solve. Volleyball and Tennis are perfect examples.

In volleyball, the male and female sectors travel on parallel tracks of enormous success; in fact, in terms of media, female volleyball often enjoys attention and a following even higher than the male version. In tennis, history is studded with legends that men and women have loved without distinction: from Serena and Venus Williams to Steffi Graf, from Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal to contemporaries like Aryna Sabalenka and Jannik Sinner. All these figures sit in the Olympus of sport with the same level of dignity and prestige.

The same happens in track and field, cycling, surfing, but also in disciplines like poker, chess, or padel, where women reach visibility, interest, and earnings comparable to those of men.

The key to success? It arrived when they stopped mimicking the male model and created a specific product with its own superstars. In these sports, women understood that their way of competing was different, they promoted it as an added value, and they won the market challenge. If the same happened in football and basketball, the results would be incredible.

A healthy female sport is a movement that understands its own diversities and promotes them as uniqueness. This uniqueness generates curiosity, attracts capital, and builds that autonomy that women say they dream of. Continuing to scream at a "tyrant" who effectively does not exist—like modern Don Quixotes against windmills—does not attract sponsors. Creating superstars, entertainment, and identity, however, does.

The Stolen Salary.

Sports are certainly not the only sector where cries of protest rise over the scarcity of resources allocated to women. In almost the entire productive sector, a universal gap between the sexes is denounced. According to various studies and statistical reports, a wage gap exists between men and women for the same task, in which women are supposedly constantly disadvantaged. And it is a matter of fact: if we limit ourselves to mere numbers, this gap exists. However, true intellectual honesty would require going into the merits and understanding why this gap manifests itself. It is too convenient to simply scream "I earn less" without having the courage to analyze the real causes.

Missing Time

A woman earns on average less because, statistically, she works fewer hours. It is not a question of incompetence or laziness, but of actual time made available. In an economic system where remuneration is linked to time and productivity, those who work more, earn more. If the male statistical average is 40 hours per week while the female average stands at 32, the gap is not an injustice: it is mathematics. The claim that often emerges from the feminist debate is to increase female hourly pay to compensate for the less time worked. In other words: "I want the same monthly salary while working fewer hours." It is the paradigm of "rights only, no duties." I find this position deeply unfair: one cannot ask for a salary privilege to balance a choice (or a necessity) of reduced hours. That is not equality; it is a gender subsidy. Instead of encouraging women to cover the same number of hours as men, an attempt is made to force employers to create a new Gender Pay Gap, this time to the detriment of males. It is a reasoning of retaliation, almost as if to say: "If it happens to me it is oppression, but if it happens to a man it is acceptable; he made us suffer it for decades, now it's his turn." But social justice is not built by avenging the past with new discriminations in the present.

The question now is: why does a woman work less? According to the dominant narrative, the woman is burdened by the exclusive weight of childcare; when she is pregnant, she supposedly receives less or nothing, and she often finds herself forced to give up her career because she is deprived of her freedom of choice. All this leads to the statistical reduction of hours worked. Society, in short, supposedly forces her into a cruel crossroads between professional fulfillment and family. These are said to be the factors that make the Gender Pay Gap a structural and insurmountable problem. The conclusion seems obvious: it is always and only the fault of the man, who chains the woman to an archaic gender role. In this scenario, there would seem to be no way out or hope for change.

And yet, there is hope. And it lies, paradoxically, in the very reality that many prefer to ignore.

For example, a woman and a man could talk within the couple. If equality is sought, it must first be sought within the couple, putting oneself in a position to discuss as equals and find a common solution to give both the woman and the man that equality they desperately seek. Many will now think "it will never happen!". Are you sure? Do you know how many new fathers would like to stay home and enjoy their child, but cannot? There are men out there who would throw everything away just to be with their son or daughter. Men are not insensitive and selfish animals. I know it's easy to think so, because it's easy, but it's not like that! Just as not all women are opportunists and social climbers.

Why don't they do it? Well, if a man does not provide financially for the family, he is not a man to be considered for having a family, because he does not interpret the role that women expect. This is not said by men, but by women themselves. For many women, "my money is my money, your money is our money!" (along the lines of the princess expecting the prince to defeat the dragon). Morally, they obligate the man to go to work, because if he doesn't provide, he is half a man. It doesn't matter if he would be an excellent father; if he doesn't pay the bills, he is not "a real man." Heaven forbid a woman pays the bills. It is clear that if he is at work all day to get the money needed for the couple's survival, she must stay at home, because someone has to look after the child. At that point, she feels frustrated and she divorces. Until women start choosing partners based on their ability to be "good fathers" instead of "good salaries," the gap will never close.

Or—and I’m just throwing this out there—a woman could simply choose not to have children. No one forces a woman to get pregnant. If a woman doesn't have children, she works more, earns more, and the gap closes. If a woman views her personal freedom as something absolutely vital, having a family takes a back seat – whether one likes looking at it that way or not. No! It’s just a joke! Don’t pull any funny business! Have at least three kids! Otherwise, we’ll end up with a problem where there aren't enough children to pay for pensions, and the economy will collapse!

"Eh, but it's politics that must give us the opportunity to close the Gap! They will never do it because they are all patriarch males!". This is the standard objection. Of course, we could impose identical and mandatory maternity and paternity leave by law, or multiply free nurseries. But are we really sure that would be enough to change things?

Let's play a little game. Let's look at how many women are in positions of power. Every year their numbers are growing. Many of them are wives and mothers. Theoretically, if this feminist struggle exists, women in government should raise their voices and fight for other women against oppressive males. Yet it doesn't happen. Strange that those same women do not expose themselves for other women. It should be in their interest! Could it be that successful women don't care at all about the gender struggle? If you think about it, the women at the top played the male game by male rules, fought against them, and won. Those women achieved money and power, even though they are often mothers. Did they have a hand? Absolutely. Their families certainly helped them. What they accepted, however, was sacrificing something along the way. If you want to be a good mom, that is time you sacrifice to your career, and if you are in a career, that is time you sacrifice in being a mom. The same thing applies to men. A compromise must be found, always. Being away from home is a price to pay if one wants to work. This has nothing to do with politics or gender. We are only one person and we have limited time. It doesn't matter if there is a nursery or parents; if one is focused on work, one is not focused on the children.

Are we really sure that men are so evil? I have a vague feeling that many women do not want to accept the idea of sacrifice: that sacrifice that every man is forced to embrace because the woman herself, with her expectations, pushes him to do so. For too many women, it seems that everything is owed and that there should be no consequences to their choices. I'm sorry, but that's not how the world works. The battle that women should fight is not against men, but against time. The human being, by nature, does not have the power to split in two: every "yes" said to an ambitious career is a "no" said to motherhood, and vice versa. It is a biological and physical limit, not a male conspiracy. As long as an external culprit is sought to avoid admitting that every choice entails a sacrifice, the debate will remain sterile and victimistic.

Male Jobs vs. Female Jobs.

The other problem looming like an anvil over women is the choices they make. No, we are not talking about OnlyFans; the blue and white site has nothing to do with this paragraph. I am talking about job choices.

Women, in the world of work, play it safe and look for an occupation that doesn't stress them too much. An example is Education and Training, where over 70-80% of school personnel (especially primary and early childhood) are women; Healthcare and Social Assistance, where nurses, psychologists, and social workers overwhelm their male counterparts; and Personal Services, such as aesthetics, wellness, and retail trade. All jobs where the pressure is not high, the routine is always the same, avoiding that physical wear and tear and sacrifice of time. It is clear that this stability and comfort have a price to pay: those jobs are poorly paid.

I know women might say "eh, but even in an office or a shop the work can be tiring!" Are you so sure?

On the other side, however, men choose Construction and the Extractive Industry, where 80-90% of workers are men; Transport and Logistics, where almost all are men and only a small fraction of heavy vehicle drivers or couriers are women; the STEM Sector (Science, Technology, Engineering), where men represent 80%; and the Armed Forces, where the male presence oscillates between 87% and 92%. Now, between folding a t-shirt or answering the phone versus working in a mine or paving a road in July with 40 degrees, which of the two jobs is more wearing? These jobs are more dangerous and require a lot of time away from home, but they are the ones that pay the most. Certainly better paid than a shop assistant in a shopping mall.

Now, keeping in mind that a woman has the right to self-determination and to choose the career she wants, why doesn't she go into the mines, onto oil platforms, why doesn't she drive buses and trams, and why doesn't she enlist? No one forbids it. In fact, men would even be happy. "Eh, but a woman is not physically as strong as a man!" True, but she still has a body to use. Even if she lifts half the weight, it is still weight that a man does not have to lift. Furthermore, today technology (exoskeletons, machinery, automation) reduces the physical strength gap, opening new job opportunities for women, making the choice not to do certain jobs purely cultural or attitudinal, not biological.

"Eh, but my man will never accept me being away for days?" Are you sure about all that? If the woman is in an equal relationship with a man, a solution can be found, given that to do certain male jobs you have to study a lot and it's a task you learn long before becoming a wife or mom, which means the partner is aware of the woman's work and adjustments can be made if they want to start a family.

It is truly funny to think how women, who so badly want to make money, do not go where the money is. And what if they didn't want to? What if that little princess inside their mind whispered to them that "they deserve to have perfect nails while sitting on a company's Board of Directors, not have hands ruined by coal!" At this point, it explains why women scream and take to the streets to have gender quotas on Boards, but don't say a word about gender equality on oil platforms or container ships. The equality being requested seems to be a 'top-level' equality, never a 'trench-level' equality.

"Eh, but men could also not do those jobs! No one forces them!" Sure, and then we complain that the roads are terrible, the sewers are clogged, you can't refuel, and the supermarkets are empty. Another thing, every time you go shopping online and buy a pair of jeans, that piece of cloth doesn't magically appear inside the closet, but is delivered. Who do you think moves those jeans? Almost certainly not a woman. Furthermore, who produced, transported, and assembled that piece of furniture; who built the house where you live? A man... the most despised being by the female gender.

The entire modern society is built on the invisible sacrifice of men: deaths at work, debilitating physical wear, extreme social isolation on oil platforms or construction sites. Claiming the economic results of this system without wanting to share its physical costs is the very negation of the concept of equality. It is evident how the struggle for equality too often focuses only on the "rewards" of society, ignoring its heaviest "burdens"; those same burdens that, in fact, constitute the basis of everyone's wealth.

The Cage.

The other major aspect of the Gender Gap is that invisible glass cage surrounding a woman. According to the rhetoric, a woman cannot pursue a career, or only up to a certain threshold. What is said is that a woman is not reliable, given that one day she might become pregnant; therefore, an employer cannot make long-term plans, as she "might disappear" for months or never return. Apparently, a man, if forced to choose between a man and a woman, chooses the man.

Here, there are two problems.

The first is that women like Kamala Harris and Giorgia Meloni—regardless of how much one can debate their political side or ideology—are women who reached the top of the pyramid in very important countries like the USA and Italy... both of these women are mothers. Furthermore, there are countless examples out there of women who reached the top and had children.

If we want to be truly precise, the glass cage exists for men as well. It has nothing to do with biology, but with compromise. If a woman fights the prejudice regarding motherhood, a man fights against a system of co-option and nepotism where the winner is often not the most capable, but the one most "aligned" with power. The injustices are different, but the effect is the same: merit is trampled upon.

Women have the womb; men have nepotism. If we truly want to see injustices, they are on both sides.

The second problem, regardless of the womb and nepotism, is that perhaps one is not worthy of that position. Perhaps the social cage exists because one is not sufficiently prepared for that role. When one wants to pursue a career, one must demonstrate a certain level of preparation and aptitude. This is where the great "tilt" occurs. A man, if he realizes he is not up to the task, does not flinch and accepts the outcome. A woman screams gender discrimination when, in truth, she lacked the personality, talent, or preparation to fill that role. This is the classic manifestation of the "perfect princess, therefore infallible, without flaws" idea.

Perhaps it is time for many women to leave the princess locked in the castle and live among ordinary people, given that she, like men, is a fallible being and anything but perfect. And she should also stop screaming against men in business. A man who is not "aligned" or who is not part of the "right circle" suffers an equally violent exclusion, but unlike a woman, he does not have a ready-made social narrative to defend or justify him. A man who fails is just "a failure"; a woman who fails is "a victim."

The Carnal Contradiction.

There is one last major aspect that fascinates me. I mentioned OnlyFans earlier. This is the moment to talk about it. I am using OnlyFans as the great "culprit," but this reasoning applies to social media like Instagram or to advertising campaigns.

A small premise: I will not speak about the platform itself or the choice women make. Freedom is personal and must be respected and protected, even if it goes against personal or social ideals. None of us has the right to say what a woman can or cannot do. What can be done is to act accordingly, based on our own ideals and convictions, and to judge that choice. That is a freedom each of us possesses. If one does something, one must also be able to accept the judgments that follow.

However, OnlyFans is the perfect example that describes modern feminism.

Carnal Business.

Before any argument on the matter, let's start with the cold numbers. The platform hosts approximately 4.6 million active content creators globally. Women represent the overwhelming majority, with estimates fluctuating between 70% and 84%. We are talking about approximately 3.2 - 3.8 million women using the platform as creators. Therefore, out of one hundred people, 75 (on average) are women and 25 are men.

It is clearly a world controlled by women. No one can say otherwise. What is even more interesting is the history surrounding OnlyFans. Timothy Stokely founded OnlyFans in 2016 as a subscription site to allow creators (artists, fitness influencers, musicians) to monetize their relationship with fans, exactly like Patreon. It was not a platform for adult content. What happened is that women transformed the very nature of OnlyFans, bringing pornography into it, changing it into what it is now. When the platform itself tried to eliminate and ban that content, everyone (men and women) rebelled en masse, forcing OnlyFans into a colossal U-turn.

Women agreed to sexually stimulate men, objectifying themselves, for a purely economic reason. Wait a second: isn't that what feminists are fighting for—to make the world understand that women are not just tits and ass? It’s something to see how feminists are hit by friendly fire... a fire that burns very bright.

"Eh, but men do these things too!". Fair point. What gives it away are the motives.

Women want to be naked to appear, to tease, to excite, and to make money in the process. And they make a lot of it. The entire adult industry is based on willing and exhibitionist women who invoice based on the commodification of their own image. Women know this perfectly well, just as they know perfectly well that having sex with one or more men pays well, so they "hire" men to enrich themselves.

Men didn't start any of this: they simply showed up in response to a demand that women themselves created. If there weren't so many naked women, there wouldn't be naked men. Men have little interest in that universe. They go where the money and available women are, and since the women on OnlyFans are available and moving billions, men try to get a slice of it.

The thing that really makes you think is that much of the content on OnlyFans doesn't even feature a man, but only women. Theoretically, OnlyFans could survive without men: there are categories where men are hidden (like POV videos) or aren't there at all (I'm thinking of content with two women or just women playing with their own bodies).

In a world so dominated by women, something is happening that no woman talks about: a naked woman invoices millions, a man a few thousand euros. Huge difference, don't you think? Wait a second, though! Women are paid ten thousand times more than men (quoting Alisha Lehmann). This is a clear case of the Gender Pay Gap. Why aren't women complaining about the inequity? Right, it should be the men complaining. So, why don't men complain? Are they crazy?

No, they simply know how the world works. They know that demand creates supply and supply creates money. We see it in sports. Therefore, we know the mechanism and we accept what happens, because we are aware that the "naked body" market is not a male market, given that the audience (males and females) wants to see female bodies.

Impossible Love?

In this world made of cascades of money for women, something very particular happens. Those same women, who sell themselves as objects, try in every way to be considered as women who, as such, have the right to a chance at a happy family and to live a healthy romantic relationship with a man. You can't have your cake and eat it too, or play the role of judge and jury. It is at the very least unfair to expect a man to change his nature (the desire for an "exclusive" partner) just because the woman has decided to change hers (transforming intimacy into a business).

No man likes to be with a woman who has sex for money with other men. For this reason, many men refuse to start a relationship or break it off if the woman wants to pursue this career. The woman must make a choice: either sex for pay or love. For many men, the fact that thousands of strangers can see or interact with the body of their partner destroys the concept of "exclusivity" that lies at the foundation of the romantic bond.

"Eh, but this is pure patriarchy, because a man shouldn't decide about a woman's body and career!". Okay, so the idea is that a woman can cheat for money—because having sex with another man or woman, even if for money and publicly, is still cheating—and it must be accepted by the man regardless?

If that’s the case, then a man can have sex weekly with his female boss or colleague to gain workplace advantages. This seems like a good compromise, right? Or is having sex to obtain benefits supposed to be a female prerogative, just because she is a woman?

Fake Self-Determination.

The thing that fascinates me about this whole discourse is the justification given when a woman decides to have sex in front of a camera.

The justification given is always the same: "women's empowerment." For those who don't know, this is a definition women use to justify another woman being half-naked in public. The more a woman is undressed, the more that woman is "confident and independent."

Where is the strangeness? The reaction they have toward men. Let me explain.

If a woman is naked on the internet and a man gives her money or pays her compliments—even direct and unfiltered ones—women are happy about it because "they are entrepreneurs of themselves" and "men appreciate me." If, however, they are half-naked in public and a man does the same things, he is defined as a degenerate, a pervert, and is reported. So, if a man appreciates behind a screen it’s fine, but in person, it’s a matter for the criminal code?

This is a gigantic "tilt" that women constantly propose. Women want a man's attention only when they want it and in specific contexts. Nowadays, a compliment is based on economic interest and context: if you are on OnlyFans and the compliment is worth 5 dollars, it is highly appreciated; in the gym, it’s worth a report for catcalling. What’s even worse is that the context changes from woman to woman, and the same woman changes it at will, depending on whether she likes the man or not. The double standard is so large that it is difficult to manage without serious consequences.

"Eh, but on OnlyFans there is prior consent (by paying, you enter a sexualized space), while in public there isn't!" A fair observation, if there were a clear line. If a woman were naked on the internet and not in public, then I could even understand the logic. It’s still strange, because that woman is still masturbating publicly on the internet, but I could live with that mentality. The problem is that the line between public and private is blurred, because the woman shows herself undressed in public citing empowerment.

Now, given that a man knows a woman can only be appreciated on the internet and under payment, while in public it is an act to be reported, the man has decided—among other reasons—to do nothing. He has no desire to pay for a digital prostitute (because that’s what we’re talking about), and even less desire to pick up soap in prison; so he simply stays silent, eyes downcast, and completely ignores the female gender.

The funny thing? Women complain about this ignoring. Women are shocked that men don’t look at them anymore. They say, "Heck, I show myself half-naked in public, but nobody looks at me! What happened to the world?" Well, what happened is that man has been humiliated and confused so much by this "empowerment" that he prefers to stay away and drink beer with other men. In a world where a compliment can become a police report, silence is not just a choice of spite, but a strategy for social survival.

I know that modern morality tends not to accept the idea that a man can be hurt or confused by female choices; it is expected that man be a robot that adapts without feeling resentment. But this is the modern world, a world that women left a long time ago to live in a universe that doesn't exist, made of total freedom, protection, and rights, and no duties.

Short Conclusion.

Ultimately, the Gender Gap is not a mythological monster created by men to crush women, but a faithful mirror of a society made of choices, sacrifices, and market dynamics. If we want to talk about numbers, we must have the courage to look at the entire graph, not just the column that proves us right.

Equality is not an à la carte menu where one chooses the privileges of corporate boardrooms or the naked body while discarding the mud of oil platforms or the risk of the front line. As long as the struggle for equality knocks only on the doors of Boards of Directors and never on those of the mines, it will remain a class struggle disguised as a gender struggle.

In the same way, one cannot expect to dismantle the objectification of women in the morning if, by the afternoon, it is transformed into a million-dollar business on OnlyFans. It is a logical contradiction that no activism can ever heal: you cannot complain about a system that you voluntarily fuel because the economic return suits you.

True victory will not be having identical paychecks for different efforts, but reaching the point where a man and a woman are free to choose their own path, knowing that every choice has a price. A woman's freedom to be a mother must not be a burden only she carries, but a man's freedom to be a father must not be a social taboo.

Let's stop doctoring the data to feel like victims. Honest, hard, and real equality is built with the same shoes on our feet and the same mud on our hands. Everything else is just background noise to avoid admitting that, in the end, we are the ones who decide what our time is worth and what we are willing to give up for money.

M.