And for you anti-porn feminists, Log Cabin Republicans, and modesty/purity culture Christians, let me assure you. No amount of compliance will keep you safe from the kind of person who is willing to shame or force you into sexual compliance.
Even that, however, isn’t my main objection. My main objection to that advice is that I think it’s most likely — as has been the case with regard to DEI, environmentalism, and most other corporate efforts to do anything other than maximize returns to shareholders — to accomplish neither.
I enjoyed the recent Bloomberg analysis of nine podcasters who are “mobilizing America’s men to lean right.”
I also think it misses a point that is at least as important as the one it makes.
It is true that women killed marriage. I wrote about it.
But “female affluence” as Winship writes, can’t be the main culprit. We know this because the richest women are most likely to get, and stay, married. It’s poor women who end up single. Single mothers are overwhelmingly poor.
I don’t expect many bottom-half men are reading me. Imagine a guy saying “Gotta go [insert slur here], there’s a new Sex and the State” as he puts down his Xbox controller. If I were smart, I’d try harder to build and monetize an audience of bottom-half men.
The “intellectual” backbone of “blackpill” ideology is that this fact, combined with women’s super high looks requirements, means ugly men will never receive the sex, love, and connection they crave, no matter what they do.
We’ve known for decades that poverty is an adverse childhood experience, as is growing up in a low-opportunity neighborhood and being raised by a single parent.
The fact that these disadvantages impact boys more than girls is a more recent finding.
I’m not going to stand idly by while you try to co-opt and rebrand “women’s sex appeal.” I’ll be damned if I let the idea that “hot women are right-coded” stand. Hot women are left-coded, damn it. Who’s with me?
Maybe my whole project of trying to understand and empathize with authoritarians is really, or at least equally, me trying to understand and empathize with that part of my younger self, and with the parts of myself that arose to keep her alive and don’t always know whether they’re still needed.
The only place these men feel like they can safely show vulnerability is an incel forum. Other self-described incels are the only people with whom these men feel safe discussing their feelings. They have no one else in their lives with whom they feel like they can talk about their uncomfortable, un-masculine feelings.
More often than not, I find that once I understand another person’s context, their “bad decisions” start to look a lot more like a person doing the best they can under constraints I couldn’t necessarily see or appreciate from the outside.
“So tell me why Men would want to get married again?” The average married man lives longer, is healthier, is less lonely, earns more money, and has more sex than the average single man. When the average man marries, his income increases.
Rather than make marriage more appealing or find another institution to support, conservatives want women to just go back to when we had less say in the matter.
To understand how equality killed marriage, it’s important to know that declining marriage is a primarily bottom-half phenomenon.
My high school interest in feminism mostly consisted of reading BUST and Bitch magazines along with my mom’s copies of Backlash and Reviving Ophelia. Reading feminists circa 2011/2012 led me to believe that a lot of women (or at least a lot of feminists) seemed to care a great deal about the gender pay gap.
I recently realized that if there’s one thing I’ve learned from being a feminist and an internet public intellectual it’s that other feminists and internet public intellectuals are definitely to blame.
You know how people who need more to do are constantly defining and redefining “white,” “straight,” and even “queer?”
In the same way, radfems love to fight about the definition of “a woman.”
Many, if not most, radfems reject people for femaledom based on the genitals they were born with and what they choose to do with their genitals in adulthood.
Instead of helping to build a world in which a person’s character is more important than their genitals and every person has value and is safe even when what they have to offer the market economy isn’t as valuable as it once was, the right is telling these men that they only way they can hope to have decent lives is to be able to say “Your body, my choice” to the women around them.
You can tell it’s mostly men talking, because they’re not really talking about how much ass pregnancy, childbirth, and taking care of babies fucking sucks. And unlike microchips or televisions, there’s no clear path whereby technological innovation vastly streamlines the making-more-humans process. Romanian orphanages tried to improve productivity. The results were pretty fucking bad. We would need a Westworld level of robotics and AI for that to have any possibility of working.
The problem with positive masculinity is that it can’t solve the underlying problem that Whippman kept seeing in her interviews with boys for her book. Men and boys are under constant, severe pressure to consistently, flawlessly perform their gender. To solve that problem, we’re going to need to abolish masculinity.
It’s come to my attention that some of you bitches somehow believe that, without feminism, you’d be married to an aristocratic landowner and not a subsistence farmer like 99.999% of people before the Industrial Revolution set in motion a chain of events that led to your email job. Listen, sis. No ones likes meetings. But being an exhausted weaver of mediocre talent with nine surviving children out of 15 births is not an upgrade. As Freddie de Boer recently put it, “We live in a country with boz
according to datepsych, the fact that average family size is shrinking worldwide explains more of the TFR declines than childlessness. (I’d actually already read that somewhere else and apparently forgotten it.)
Which means non-breeders (whether male or female, bottom- or top-half) can’t be the main culprits behind the baby bust.
I can’t believe it’s been almost two years since I published Men need women more than women need men. Since then, many more prominent thinkers have begun talking about the facts, causes, and consequences of male malaise.
Until someone makes a good argument otherwise, I’m personally over gender as a concept. I don’t understand what the ROI is on assigning a genital configuration to bathing, dressing nice, and going to therapy. It seems, to me, like everyone could benefit from doing these things on a pretty regular basis.
But if you do support the concept of gender and the institution of marriage, this is a problem you would probably do well to solve. Good luck.
No amount of gay-bashing will get us back to a post-war economy. You would need to bash the entire developing world’s manufacturing capacity to do that. And not with tariffs. With bombs.
I’ve heard it said that the past is foreign country. The thought occurred to me a little while watching the Ryan Murphy version of the Mendendez brothers case, and then screamed at me while watching the Netflix documentary afterward.
Since intelligence is linked to innovation and innovation creates wealth, you could reasonably predict that a majority-female society would be poorer. Then again, maybe the quality of the soil is more important than the quality of the seed.
And I fundamentally disagree with the notion that if people don’t live in mortal fear of missing one paycheck they simply won’t work. People want to work. People want to be productive and make money and contribute to society and have a sense of purpose for their lives. They do not want to have to work alongside their rapists.
Over the past 15 years, parental estrangement has rapidly become a focus for research. In most cases, adult children distance themselves from their parents.
And yet at the same time I would like to, shall we say, problematize the narrative that the important dichotomy is centrists/moderates/corporatists versus anarchists/radicals/progressives.
Fear-based messaging is very popular in public health, despite the paucity of compelling evidence that it works (like many aspects of US healthcare). While this isn’t great for public health, it does mean that we have reams of data on it.
And then, it hit me (unlike a certain someone). I’m writing what is, at least to some extent, a national politics blog while at the same time genuinely believing, and mostly living, the idea that I and the vast majority of everyone else should spend 99% of the time, energy, and money we’re currently putting toward following national politics toward either actually participating in local politics or some other more fun, less harmful hobby.
But what if women are starting to act more like men, on average? Won’t that eliminate our advantage? It would. But I don’t see good evidence to indicate that’s the case.
I did find a 2019 study showing that, if anything, women’s social advantage over men is actually growing.
A 2010 study showed that adding more intelligent people to a group doesn’t measurably change the group’s collective intelligence. But groups with more women had higher collective intelligence.