I may be wrong about this – it’s been years since I was a student – but I have the very strong impression, rightly or wrongly, that a great many policies to address historical discrimination against women have had negative effects for young men, men who had nothing to do with that discrimination and feel (rightly or wrongly, again) that they are being discriminated against because they’re men.
This leads to a curious paradox. Seen from above, men wield most of the power; seen from the POV of Joe Bloggs, a 15-year-old student in high school, men are facing discrimination. He is told that men have all the power, but his lived experiences don’t bear that out. He feels powerless and poor – the idea he is actually rich and powerful is a sick joke. To him, his teachers are (at best) wrong and (at worst) openly lying. Once he gets the idea the teachers are lying about one thing, it’s a short hop to believing they’re lying about everything.
It gets worse when he goes for a job. It may be a decent response to historical discrimination to give women an edge, but from Joe’s POV – again – the playing field is tilted against him … and he needs that job. It is not in his self-interest to sacrifice his own career to help another, particularly when his lived experiences suggest woman are not suffering from any discrimination. He may be wrong about that, too, but his lived experience disagrees.
Put crudely, when Alan and Alice raced, Alice had a ball and chain attached to her ankle and had to work twice as hard to get half as far. This was blatantly unfair, and so when Ben and Bella raced the chain was removed; Ben still won. This also seemed unfair, so Charlie got the ankle chain when he was racing Catherine and (of course) lost.
Why would Charlie be happy about losing, under such circumstances? How fair is it to blame Charlie for Alan having such a huge advantage … and why is Alan still allowed to claim victory, when he had that advantage?
The thing is, you cannot resolve historical discrimination by engaging – intentionally or not – in present discrimination. That just stores up trouble for the future.
You are hilariously wrong. Alice, Bella, and Catherine were *not allowed to race at all.* Alan, Ben, and Charlie had gotten together the night before the event and decided it would only be the boys racing against each other.
Men invariably perceive the situation as a game of men vs women, despute how obviously wrong this is. While it can be correctly characterized as a game, the game is played exclusively between men. Women are the ball.
But pretending it's somehow men vs women is a near-universal psychological dodge that men seem to retreat to directly in the face of cognitive dissonance. This nonsense helps men avoid the truth that the game was originally and still is played quite literally by men. At some point men realized that they could cooperatively engage in an alternative to violence against other males in competition for sexual access to females. Economics took the place of and eliminated that violent competition with other men, by making the original form of currency women. Bride price or dowry, some male sold and another male purchased sexual access to a female, and regardless of who was buying and who was selling, it was and is **always** a male on both sides of that transaction. The goods being transacted are always a female person being exchanged for whatever crap those two men have agreed represents the total and utterly finite sum of her human person.
This is why men have universally - literally across the world - striven so hard and continue to strive to this moment to prevent and/or expel women from being able to benefit from economic activity.
Fun fact: the 9th Commandment has a funny habit of either changing dramatically or being omitted entirely in various incarnations of the Old Testament. It has for a couple thousand years, as far as artifacts tell us. The original movie "The Ten Commandments" should be renamed "The Nine Commandments" - if you pay any amount of attention, the movie skips from #8 directly to #10 (and for some reason, nobody ever notices this.) Do you remember what Number 9 is? Number 10 is "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's goods."
Number 9 is supposed to be, "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife."
Can you correctly determine why it is so frequently abrogated, edited, replaced or omitted?
Because it singles out and identifies the wife as being completely distinct from and not a part of a man's possessions.
Like the Wikipedia entry page for "Woman," of course that's the one men simply can't stop editing, modifying, and occasionally deleting entirely even though doing so invalidates calling them "The Ten Commandments."
Fun fact about what the worthless males down thread are whining about:
Men invariably throughout history reserve the best (easiest, safest, cleanest, etc) jobs for themselves, in any industry. The hardest, most dangerous, most difficult jobs were invariably relegated to women and children. This holds true today. Most of the survivors from the Titanic were male passengers; the bullshit about "women and children first" is men's cognitive dissonance in action, as usual.
Mining is a perfect example of the sex-segregated division of labor: young men yearned for a strong wife, not a pretty one, because they looked forward to keeping her wages and a pretty wife would not earn as much as a strong one. Women and children were sent into the pits to mine coal - and it was so hot down there they typically stripped to the waist to work. It was this- sexualization of women's bodies, scandalized moralistic outrage of men in power upon discovering this, that women were barred on the basis of gender from working at or applying to work at any mine and mine bosses forbidden to hire them. (Children still could foe quite a while, of course; this wasn't about safety for anyone, of course.) But yeah, this dynamic was universal in every industry.
The only reason men get to pretend women weren't there doing the worst jobs etc is because men were recorded as collecting their wives' pay directly.
"retarded" oh look, an illiterate bigot resorting to using hate speech. How charming. And then he demands free work from the exact person he feels entitled to address with hate speech - attempting to leverage his prodigious male supremacist, ableist privilege, lol. (Hey everybody - get a fucking load of this guy)
Anyway
Because ridiculing you for your laziness and ignorance brings me a special joy, I spent all of 7 seconds grabbing a couple of links because as you've indicated, you're incompetent and therefore incapable of achieving the same results on your own; you require someone to spoon-feed you.
But we both know that you are, without question, entirely the puling coward who demands these resources but lacks the strength of character to endure being set straight, so we both know you won't actually follow any of these.
However, I know that people who aren't stupid, hateful, worthless wastes of time will very much appreciate and benefit from them. So for the sake of literally everyone except for you, here's a couple to get people with cojones started:
Here's some from the modern day and age that demonstrate literally nothing has changed and this behavior is universal across cultures, countries, and the mining industry in general - by which you could reasonably begin to suspect that it's just universal across industries
Note the Afghani coal mining boys are being made to mine coal the most dangerous way known to man - by hand - and that girls and women are not present because they have been excluded by men from existing in public in any way.
Oh of course 😂 “crazy” is a favorite insult by misogynists. They used to threaten their wives with it when they wanted to get divorced they would just have her locked up for being crazy.
I think this is all true, I mean, if you want to compare things now with 100 years ago and not 20. But Chris's emphasis was on the age cohort thing and that matters. Basically OLD men hoard all the wealth and power. So when we adjust things until the average outcomes of old and young men = the average outcomes of old and young women, knowing how much above-average outcomes old men have, the only possible way to achieve that if young men will have below-average outcomes.
Basically what is happening is that old women, young women and young men are competing for whatever scraps of wealth and power old men are leaving on the table.
Yes, this indicates young men should be angry mostly at old men. Strangely, they vote for them instead.
It is common for hiring committees to preferentially hire women and know they are not supposed to put any reference to that in any emails because it's illegal. They will wink and nod about it. It has happened at my own institution. An old-girls club if you will.
This is completely untrue, they don’t like to hire women because women take maternity leave and then they have to fill her spot temporarily which is a huge pain.
Especially if it’s a company that self insures they definitely don’t want to hire women because then they have to pay for child
When we hire a man we have to also try to find a placement for his wife if he requests. There are burdens to hiring both sexes. I can name the woman who was hired in the way I described. It happens with black people and now “queer” people as well. Don’t call people liars without evidence. It makes you sound crass.
This is delusional. Fields that are female-dominant often reflect jobs that men historically have not wanted because they’ve been taught such jobs are “women’s work”. These fields typically pay lower wages as a result. The idea that men are shut out of, as you put it, secretarial jobs is simply not true on average, since men have almost never historically wanted those jobs and women were typically segregated into such positions rather than offered executive leadership opportunities in these same companies.
It seems like universities are predominantly female now. I know my own grad program in Biochemistry had many all female labs. Males definitely underrepresented in staff and students. "Secretarial" jobs are just administrative jobs. These have predominantly been done my men in the past and are now predominantly preformed by women.
Any time women take up 30% of any conversation, men perceive them as "dominating" it. Similarly, now that roughly half of college students are female, the perception is that it's all women.
When the majority does in fact become women, you'll be able to tell by the sudden, steep devaluation in college degrees in general.
Is it because you’re the wrong gender or because you don’t know how to properly convert a word document into a PDF, you can’t be polite on the telephone, and you think you’re above making coffee and doing the office dishes?
Do you have experience in running an office or do you think it’s an easy job that you could just jump in and do? There’s a lot more to it than just answering the phone and typing you know.
I have no doubt its lack of skills. Also lack of secretarial jobs. Fucking worthless entitled male feels entitled to a job that was beneath him in his prime and no longer exists for the most part nowadays
Well women smartened up and stopped having babies because we were tired of having to do all the work and pay for all the things. So you don’t have to worry about daycare much anymore the only kids that are going to end up there are the ones that nobody wants that were forced to be born. And they’ll need 24 hour daycare. Y’all can legally force women to remain pregnant for now, but you can’t force women to take care of babies they don’t want. I see what happens to those kids on the news all the time when they are left with parents who don’t want them
And the effect are in worse when it’s about “working” in cushy government job.
Not only it’s always positions that create no value and only exist because of taxation but they feeling entitled to doing as little as possible on their self approved schedule with as many advantages one could imagine. And then they will complain how hard their “work” is.
But wait, they’ll have a totally illogical, manipulating, narcissistic explanation of how that is not true at all, even though it is experienced by exactly everyone…
I hear that you are dissatisfied, and that is certainly valid. What I fail to see is how any of that is women's fault. "Politicians saying" things is just that, words. Not discrimination. Politicians say a lot of vile shit, see couch-fucker Vance and his childless cat ladies diatribe. They haven't, say, passed laws about mens bodies. They've only done that to women.
As far as business loans go, your data sounds like conjecture at best. A quick google search shows that 42% of businesses are owned by women in this country...still not the majority, or even an equal distribution. Check out the distribution of CEO jobs between the genders. Tells a different story!
Cherry picking a supposedly female-dominated profession as proof of discrimination against men is also not logical - I could just as easily point to all the professions where women cannot get hired as easily; dockworker, electrician, auto-mechanic, you get the picture.
It shows that only 16% of police officers in Seattle are female.
In short, if the world is tilted to favor women over men, it's doing a piss poor job, no? I haven't even started on sexual assault statistics, homicide of women by male partners, etc.
You sound frustrated and angry. I am too! But I believe our frustration and anger has one cause, which is the grotesque imbalance of power and money between like, 5% of the population and the other 95%. We should work together, in shared rage, to make things better for people like us who keep getting screwed by rich sociopaths.
a state rep in New Hampshire had to sponsor a bill to make it illegal for doctors to refuse to treat conditions we have when it might affect our fertility if we don’t care about our fertility.
I was held back at work my whole life by the fact that I usually missed a day every month because I throw up when I bleed because I have a condition called endometriosis. The best way to treat it is to get a hysterectomy but because I was Childfree because I never wanted children I couldn’t get a hysterectomy. I am still suffering monthly Because now that I’m old they will do the hysterectomy, but since it should be almost over I don’t want to go through that whole entire surgery.
I threw up one or two days of every month for 37 years because I didn’t have kids because I didn’t want kids.
I saw a gynecologist in six different states in this country. I didn’t ask all of them for a hysterectomy in my youth because sometimes I couldn’t take that much time off of work, but I never found this gynocentric society you claimed is here in the US.
Where is it so I can tell the young ladies here who want to go get tubal ligations? We’re still waiting for the bill to cycle through committee even though it was introduced back in March. I would love to hear where women can get medical treatment not determined by their family status.
"Gynocentric" must be why men persisted in infringing on women's human right to the franchise until 1920
Fucking whiny crybaby males perceive anything remotely approaching equality as an infringement of their right to exploit women and profit from abusing women's time and labor.
If anything were actually gynocentric, the last 47 presidents IN A ROW would have been women, stupid.
I'm saying that I hear your dissatisfaction and pain. But you continue to cite only your perception, not facts. We aren't citing 'a different set of statistics." The statistics are the statistics. They are easily verifiable. Only 12% of police officers nationwide are female. Most CEO's are men. One out of 4 women are sexually assaulted as children. Now that we have ancestry websites, DNA has proven that 1 out of every 7000 births is due to incest, overwhelmingly fathers, brothers, and uncles fucking their little girl relatives. And those are just the ones that resulted in live births! Women have been sexually violated by men for thousands of years, and we were only given the right to vote or own property in the LAST CENTURY. Even what you cite about unemployment is incorrect, as you can see in the latest data here https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/womens-databook/2022/home.htm#:~:text=The%20unemployment%20rate%20for%20women,percentage%20points%20over%20the%20year.
You continue to tout what you see on LinkedIn, or what you feel when you walk into a bank. Your feelings are your feelings, and I'm sorry that you seem not to have an outlet other than rage at women. Again, I'm enraged too, but women haven't 'stolen' your jobs, even if your goal in life was to be a bank manager or secretary, and not, say, a police officer or firefighter or construction worker. (See, I can cite anecdotal evidence of gender discrimination in specific jobs as well.)
We have yet to gain any of the parity you 'feel' you see in the world, and men have had control for about 6000 years. We get 50 years of controlling our fertility and getting the jobs and education we want, 50 years out of 6000, and already you guys are crying like babies because you 'feel' you can't be bank managers?! Christ on a crutch, perhaps you aren't getting the jobs you want because you are whiny fucking babies. 50 years out of 6000, we have yet to achieve parity, our bodies are on the line and we are still dying in childbirth, which our government now wants to force, and that's all it takes for you guys to lose your shit and threaten us with handmaiden status. Jesus, buck up, buttercup.
Your weird promise of "Women will be back in the kitchen" and the underlying, pulsating rage in your tone makes me think you are too lazy to rise up against our real oppressors, preferring the low-hanging fruit of misogyny, and the prospect of enslaving women to be your masturbating accessories. You sound like the sort who is always looking for an excuse to hurt a woman. Unfortunately for men like you, that toothpaste isn't going back in the tube anytime soon. Women contribute far more to the GDP than ever before, and to rip them out of the workforce to be handmaidens for your violent fantasies would crush this country economically. Additionally, the second amendment applies to all, and I taught both my girls how to shoot. Girls also now learn self-defense in elementary school, what with all the raping your gender enjoys. Maybe if you stopped spending so much time blaming women, threatening them with enslavement, and raging at random people on a site for writers despite having no body of work yourself, you would get that bank manager or secretary job you want so badly. Or are you trying to be a DEI hire? Just hoping to slide in on your old, white, male pity status? I thought we all agreed that corporations should hire 'the best people for the job'? How about you try being good at something other than whining and punching down on women? Or is that too hard?
I have to go do actual writing now. Gotta get a piece done before I go to my bank manager job in the morning. I wish you well.
Wow! Women have STOLEN your jobs? That language says you do not believe any woman is capable or worthy of holding a job. Women have EMASCULATED men? So, in your own words, you are admitting that women are actually stronger than men, then, right? Or are you implying that the only way for men to "feel manly" is by subjugating all women? That's where your "women will be in the kitchen cranking our babies" comment is headed. Who the HELL originally decided MEN were the only ones worthy of holding jobs? Or the only ones capable of starting families? That statement right there proves you view women and children as nothing more than objects to flaunt as evidence of your "masculinity" to other men. How truly pathetically ignorant and downright VILE of a person you must be to believe that all the other humans on the planet born without a penis do not belong anywhere those who were do.
This is my favorite thing about them claiming Kamala used sex to get ahead. If that’s true then men cannot be trusted in positions of power. If they’re going to give it all away for a BJ they can’t be in power positions. I mean we already know they do this that’s why honeypots exist, But it sounds like they all do this so maybe we need to re-organize society a little bit.
Yeah I went to the bank recently I had to deal directly with the manager to open an estate account. It was a man, and I don’t know what he did he screwed it up so bad I had to spend two days on the phone getting online access
So never again. If I see a bank manager is a man I’m leaving and going to a different bank. It was a horrible experience I couldn’t pay for the headstone because I couldn’t do anything with the account. I was in his office for like an hour and a half I have no idea what he did
You might want to reconsider some of what you just said. The US population is, more or less 330 million, of which people under age 18 are about 20%, or about 75 million. There are about 55 million people over 65. Which leaves a total adult (19-64) population of about 200 million people who could possibly be employed. The most recent unemployment rate is about 4.3%, which does NOT represent 106 million people, or anything close to that (4% of the TOTAL possible working age population is about 8 million). I could go on, but you can look up any further specific numbers by sex, race, etc for yourself.
Bottom line: your numbers are so bigly wrong that any conclusions/arguments you make on the basis of those numbers wrong numbers are also bigly wrong!
> Seen from above, men wield most of the power; seen from the POV of Joe Bloggs, a 15-year-old student in high school, men are facing discrimination. He is told that men have all the power, but his lived experiences don’t bear that out. He feels powerless and poor – the idea he is actually rich and powerful is a sick joke.
From Joe Bloggs' point of view he is being told "some other people, who happen to have the same genital configuration as you, are rich and powerful, therefore it is virtuous to treat you with contempt".
> To him, his teachers are (at best) wrong and (at worst) openly lying. Once he gets the idea the teachers are lying about one thing, it’s a short hop to believing they’re lying about everything.
Indeed. Or that *society* is lying about everything. Which is how citizens of the USSR felt, because of the mismatch between their lived experience and the propaganda they were being told. Once people get that cynical, they are likely to disbelieve *everything* that comes from mainstream sense-makers and may well believe things that're truely nuts.
I think the age cohort thing needs more emphasis. Old men hoard all the wealth and power and no one can do anything about that. So we adjust things are around until outcomes are equal between old+young men vs old+young women. Because old men have so much above-average outcomes, it stands to reason this can only be achieved if young men will have below-average outcomes.
The concept of the ‘ball and chain’ was something of a metaphor, but I think it fits.
My grandmother, who was born in 1918, had some horror stories about growing up as a young woman, then a single mother (my grandfather died when my father was seven), and how about how difficult life could be for a lower-middle-class person who was both a mother and the sole source of income for a small family. She worked in a profession that was classically female - she talked what we would now call home economics - and she made no bones about just how difficult it was. Women could not get promoted past a certain point, if they were lucky enough to get a job at all; the vast number of women who worked in factories during the war was seen as a temporary measure, not a permanent shift in gender roles and relationships.
Women faced discrimination at all levels. There was a perception that a working woman was taking a job from a man. There was a perception that men would not take orders from women, no matter how qualified, which meant it was difficult to promote women and easy to justify not doing so. There was a belief that a woman would quit as soon as she got married/pregnant (which is still common in some parts of the world) which again made it difficult for a woman to have a serious career, certainly outside female-dominated professions. Even in the house, a wife was expected to obey her husband and physical discipline was not uncommon.
To call this brutally unjust is a great understatement. My grandmother was the smartest and strongest person I have ever met. And yet she was held back by society itself.
How far could she have gone, if she have been a man? I think she could have gone right to the top.
The problem here is not that the metaphorical ball and chain has been removed; the problem is that it has been transferred to young men (or at least they believe it to be so), which is just as brutally unfair as it was to the woman of a century ago. From their point of view, they are being penalised for the crimes of their forefathers; they are being told something that contrasts sharply with their lived experience. To them, the idea that women still face discrimination is extremely dubious; even when they accept that is true, they wonder why THEY should be punished to make up for crimes they didn’t commit. We are caught in a situation in which the gains of feminism are suddenly at risk, because the situation is being framed as a zero-sum crisis where men think they are being held back (rightly or wrongly) and they see no reason to respect a society that is brutally unfair to them. This creates a vacuum, which is then filled by people like Andrew Tate.
Instead of redistribution, we should be creating new jobs, and new opportunities. But that requires people to acknowledge these problems exist, and - put bluntly - concede that their opponents have a point.
If she'd been a man she could have also gone straight to the war, she would have been 20 in 1938. My grandfather was probably liberating Auschwitz after years in the European front around the time your grandmother was being oppressed by home economics.
The difference is that I literally never think about that, it only occurred to me as I started writing this comment, while women seem to have been habituated into this litany of cherry picked historical complaints as if the whole of human existence has just been women getting screwed over.
Exactly right. The vast majority of men have had the "privilege" of being forced to do hard manual labour in the mines, farms, factories and battlefields of the world while women were being oppressed by being allowed to stay safe at home.
But the modern woman hates their fellow men and so will never acknowledge the fact that they were always privileged when compared to the men of their time. That they were gullible enough to buy the lie of the rich and powerful and it was her brother/father/husband who was the cause of her "suffering".
I think you guys are segueing into fiction Rohan P., which is a disheartening reaction to see on an informative post. Women were not paid to “stay at home” and often worked gruelling jobs outside of the home to make ends meet, they were just paid less to do that than men were. Women have also fought in many wars and served in a whole range of roles outside the home, even if they weren’t allowed to fight on the front line — they serve now in Ukraine — but wars like that should be obsolete. Women didn’t get together to invent lethal warfare or impose it upon the world, upper-class men tended to create and foster that injustice, and they still do.
It’s as if there’s a whole narrative now that says the feminist movement was about dominance. Women’s liberation was exactly what it said it was — it was about liberation. It wasn’t about hurting men’s interests, it was about freeing women up to pursue theirs. The MW reference at the end of the article captures the misrepresentation perfectly.
Did I say that women did not work? Or are you foolish enough to believe that the only work important or worthy enough to do was that which was monetarily compensated? How do you think they got food, clothing and shelter? Oh wait, they were paid, directly or indirectly.
Everyone worked. My point is that the vast majority of men weren't privileged when compared to their fellow women; most were significantly worse off. Most men did not even have the right to vote themselves, even when conscripted into war. That is the great lie of feminism and always has been. With that lie, the rich convinced the women to turn on her fellow men and label them all oppressors.
And you are a fool if you think there wouldn't be violence in the world if women are in power; there are studies proving that queens started significantly more wars.
my father was in WW2 as were everyone his age. don't toss that around the way you are. it's literally everyone. women went to work and then were kicked out of jobs so "the boys" could have them back. please give the whole history of the time, not just cherry-picking, as you called it.
he was in the Army Air Corps. he survived and when he got back, just like every single man who served*, he got a free ride to college. they all did in the US. (the G.I. Bill which is googleable.) it included living expenses, tuition, a low cost mortgage, and one year unemployement. * you just had to serve for at least 90 days - active duty - and not been dishonorably discharged. and that put him in a position to go to graduate school (my mother supported them as he was married at that point.) oh and somewhere in there he made time to go to Korea and fight there too. (he was in the Air Force by then founded in 1947 if anyone's interested.)
that education and cheap mortgage would not have happened if he hadn't gone to war. he probably would have ended up dead in his 40s after working as a physical laborer which is what happened to my grandfather.
we're also talking about a time when women weren't allowed to have checking accounts are bank accounts in their names. women couldn't buy a home. look up the Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1974.
I could go on and on but instead, just crack open a book if you're interested.
I don’t know why your grandfather didn’t know any women in the military, my grandmother was a higher rank than my grandfather who also helped take down Hitler. She outranked him in the military and she worked as much as him when they went to work at the pentagon after.
You write and articulate well, although you hedge a bit with things like rightly or wrongly. You know which of the two it is.
Anyway, what I wanted to say is that men today don’t just believe they’re being penalised for ‘crimes’ of their forefathers. It’s much worse than that. They’re being penalised for crimes that often no one in their lineage committed. The vast majority of men in the past had no power, money or influence. 99% of men toiled away and lived shitty lives. Their offspring now are being told they’ve have generational privilege which they don’t. And are being told we’ll take away some of what you got to make up for what your forefathers never actually had. That’s the reality for most men. Also the children of actual elites are not even in this equation. They go to their own private and elite schools and have generational assets they manage and aren’t competing for a job with Catherine or Alice.
That’s the point the author of this piece doesn’t get and most feminists after the 1st wave don’t get (or are dishonest about). You’re trying to instill reparations and redistribution to equalise what advantages the 1% had by penalising the 99% (whose ancestors mostly didn’t have those advantages). Of course those 99% of men will be pissed.
I don’t live in the U.S. but you refer to ‘reparations’ or ‘redistribution’ which I’ve not heard of happening anywhere for women. What do you mean? What sources are you referring to on that?
You’ve heard of it. You’ve just heard it called “DEI policies” or “affirmative action” or “something equity” or “representation quotas” or some such. I’m just calling it what it is.
Can you give any examples of quota-type ideas leaving the drawing board because I have heard of no such thing.
When I read up on it, mainstream articles say ‘For years, the idea of quotas in the workplace has been touted as the obvious solution [to a lack of diversity]’ BUT then the suggestion is invariably ‘retracted for all manner of reasons.’ e.g. they consider doing it… & they decide not to!
The only country in which I heard of quotas being used was in post-apartheid South Africa to address the crimes of the apartheid era (and I would imagine probably also to prevent civil unrest in apartheid’s aftermath.
I have never heard of hiring quotas being used in the context of feminism and still don’t see what you’re talking about. Never personally come across any such system.
I mean I wasn’t looking for any help, so no none of that helps me with anything I wasn’t looking for help for. I hope it helped you convince yourself of something you seem to need to proclaim to yourself. You’re getting into acrobatics about quotas vs targets which really is telling. I just called a spade a spade and you didn’t seem to like it.
i was thinking the same thing, daaaang. not only examples of misogyny but of internalized misogyny. i just done understand how you read something like this, including the citations, and still fix yourself to type some of these responses 🤦♀️
I'm a female,at least in biological terms. I've never evolved into a woman and never inspired any sexual interest in me from anyone of any gender or proclivity so I would seem to embody the desired feminist ideal of a woman who can live a totally unmolested life and work to myself pay for everything I do and have. Except real life doesnt work like that. Strangely I've found,indeed I could be an experiment, that if you have no sexual allure or element of interest in your psyche other people dont connect with you. Both men and women. Men ignore you,or rather don't even see you and other women despise and laugh (in a cruel way) at you and certainly do not want to be friends,or Sisters,with you. Thus in the field of employment ...well who would you want in the office all day,that pretty girl who makes mistakes but is so lovely,smiles,is entrancing,is kind and empathic,often funny and makes the place feel a good place to be OR Miss Hannigan/Fanny Squeers. I should start a feminist campaign of my own,LOL,DOUBLE LOL....Equal Rights For Ugly Old Bags... Oh I don't think I'll bother. I'm more misogynistic than most men.
Right?! To be fair, most of these Chuds have no posts or photos or body of work. I suspect the real names are along the lines of Boris or Sergei. And that one woman is just your cookie cutter, racist, British terf.
Oh, blocking, why didn’t I think of that. There are a couple in here that I would rather never read this newsletter again then have to read that nonsense. Thank you for reminding me I can block here I’ve got some work to do
This article was recommended to me sandwiched between two anti-feminism (and of course transphobic) pieces with nothing but agreement from their commenters... starting to worry about where else their rhetoric is spreading
I agree so much with the overarching argument here. There are cultural entrepreneurs and opportunists, especially among the financial and political elite, who delight in pitting men and women against each other. Zero-sum gender conflict distracts from the way the wealthy and politically powerful are often exploiting us all. Young men men need to realize that the true targets of their outrage and disappointment aren’t women or feminists or the “woke left”, but politicians who deny us fair pay and a robust social safety net while weakening labor laws, rich corporate tools who try to suppress wages and worker movements and create unsafe working environments while refusing to pay their fair share of taxes, etc. Young men should be demanding a better deal from those above them in power, not seeking to reinforce some meager social status over women.
Yup. Pitting men against women, which then forces women to be on perpetual defence, only serves to distract us. But this shouldn't be a fight for dominance over others but for a fairer society for everyone.
There was this Obama era political ad about the “Life of Julia”. In it Obama talked about how at every stage of Julia’s life there was going to be a government program to subsidize her in some way. Even after she had a kid, there was no husband in her life.
Naturally, the taxes to pay for all of these things come from men.
Taxes Paid - Benefits Received = Net Fiscal Impact
If you pay $2,000 and get $10,000 your an $8,000 drain on the system.
Men are net payers, women are a drain.
Another way of thinking about it is that married people of both genders and unmarried men vote republican. Only single women vote democrat, but they do so overwhelmingly. Julia sells her vote to the government in exchange for the government giving her a fiscal windfall.
Ok and…… why do the women receive those benefits? Is it maybe……. to care for the…… children?
Listen I am fine with us putting this to the test. Some countries are already doing it. It’s fine. Don’t give out any benefits, marry your bros, and leave women alone.
Yeah because that’s how retirement benefits work, we pay for the older generations, future generations pay for us….. where’s the confusion? Why are childless women getting benefits? What are you even talking about? Billionaires doubling their billions each year and you’re concerned some poor person got to eat???
Yeah I started working at 14 and I didn’t pay taxes that year because I don’t think I was legally allowed to work so it was cash. But I did pay taxes for 25 years, and I remained Childfree so I didn’t use any public schools after I turned 18 I didn’t get any benefits . . .
The real conflict isn’t between men and women, but between everyday people and the powerful who manipulate these divisions for their own gain. By keeping us distracted with zero-sum gender conflicts, the wealthy and politically elite can continue exploiting us all.
It’s time to shift the focus upwards, not sideways.
So close. Blaming it all on business misses the true villain in human history, big government. It has the guns and taxation to make you do whatever it wants. It’s the form of greatest murder and torture in human history.
Relying on that group to save you from the rich that use the Govt to outlaw their competition is not going to save you.
It’s all about finding the correct target for the justified palpable outrage in society right now.
I have never read a more misguided article. The author imagines how she thinks young men think. In reality, young men are not upset at women doing well. They are upset at being looked down on for being male while white ladies exploit marginalized groups for their own benefit, or sometimes, just for kicks. Furthermore, they dislike seeing women demand "equality" then ask for special treatment, something that has become so common that most white women cannot even see it.
There would be no problem if the loudest activist women wanted equality. The problem occurs when these priviledged white women want special treatment, then call it equality. Most preferences for white women are inherently unfair. Furthermore, many changes to the American educational system over the last fifty years do appear to be directed at harming poor black and brown boys. Almost all of these changes were made by rich white ladies who directly profited off of them. They benefit only these rich white ladies, and come at a massive cost, but lazy teachers like it, so why not? Similarly, urban school districts waste so much money on "consulting" charlatans who often justify their scam by claiming that "women should get rich too." We are happy to see female entrepreneurs, but not at the cost of poor children's education. Entrepreneurs belong in the private sector using private capital. Any programs to set aside business or favor the disadvantages should not be available to white women, only those who truly need them.
No reasonable men are upset at female achievement. They are upset at preferences that favor white women when these women are the most priviledged group. Any programs benefitting white women are apartheid, pure and simple. The number of hand-outs given to rich men's wives and daughters, at the expense of minorities, is incomprehensibly cruel and has become that last bastion of white supremacy.
We are creating a bizarre overclass of rich white ladies who imagine that their lives are hard, when in reality they are exploiting marginalized groups to enrich themselves, and then glow in their Progressive Glory. I will go out of my way to single out white women. There is no problem promoting black women or Latino or Asian women, but white women stealing from marginalized groups needs to stop, Even more so, rich white ladies smearing and denigrating the LGBT community needs to be recognized for what it is, pure bigotry and entitlement.
This article is criticizing an imaginary straw man. If you want to look for problems, look at the white women going out of their way to exploit and harm marginalized groups. There are no men's groups decrying female literacy or employment. Men and women should work together for a better world. Title IX is no longer relevant in female-dominated universities. If anything, we need to re-set our educational system to better benefit everyone, not only rich white ladies.
You conveniently leave out the obliteration of males’ legal rights.
When a female can proclaim without any evidence whatsoever to have been raped/sexually assaulted/ harassed and the targeted male has little to no chance of true justice, things get ugly fast.
My sons don’t hate females. They hate unjust, irrational law that makes them de facto second class citizens.
you are aware that fewer than 3 in 100 rapes recorded by UK police last year ended up with convictions? that's just the rapes that were recorded. think of how many women and femme people were too afraid to even report them because they saw the failings of the justice system to defend them. i'm sure it's a similar situation where you are in the world too.
I think you're writing from the UK, so perhaps that colors your economic analysis. I appreciate your willingness to try and come up with rational reasons for this, but at least in the US, you can not point to economics for the young men because they are doing a lot better than Gen X did at their age. Yes upward transfer of wealth and the oligarchy gobbling everything for themselves and all that is true, but it has been true for many decades now. Reality Bites and many movies from 30 years ago were about how no one in their 20s could get a job other than working at the Gap and were struggling with debt etc, and Millennials have done much better than we did at their age, yet none of this misogyny was happening.
So I really don't think that's it. That would be a weird projection anyway, since males as so much more into wealth and income extreme inequality in the first place...they actively support those policies.
IMO there are two reasons for their bitter, self-pitying misogyny: the first is that they are no longer getting beat up by other men. As in, literally beat up. Prior to roughly the 80s or 90s, if you were a man you were going to experience direct violence from another man at some point, and frequent threats of it. It was basically unavoidable. First of all your dad probably hit you. And second of all you were going to get into a fight at least once at school or even just on the street or whatever. Most young men today have never been hit. When there are other men literally punching you in the face, it's a lot harder to project your whining and complaints on women.
Now most male violence is sublimated into fantasies and video games and keyboard jockeying. And apparently that isn't enough for them, because so many young guys have utterly fantastical delusions about societal collapse and impending civil war or revolution and they just really get off on that idea. So consider the possibility that in fact most young men have an inherent attraction to and desire for some level of violence, and if they don't get any of it in real life (which most don't), they need outlets or fantasies or they start just turning into paranoid conspiracy minded bitter haters. Many examples on this site.
It's actually highly annoying to me that I know people will disagree and bristle at the notion that most young men actually crave and need a bit of violence in their life, even though a trillion dollar market in fake warfare and death via video games has sprung out of this demand, and most young men choose to spend half their free time playing at fake war.
The second reason is that even though young men now have material abundance unrivaled by any group of humans in history, and FAR more access to sex than any group of humans in history...the offerings are beyond the wildest dreams of kings and emperors of the past...it doesn't matter because mass media and the internet is just shoving fantasies about other people's better lives in their face 24-7. This is a problem for everyone, of course, not just young men. But even though for 99.9% of men who ever lived, they only ever got to have sex with one woman their whole life and maybe not even one, and there was only like a couple dozen even available in the first place, while nowadays they're likely to have 5-100x as many, and millions more options...it doesn't matter. Because porn is telling their lizard brain every day that there are massive numbers of ultra hot women engaging in every sick and depraved act known to man, constantly all the time, with someone who isn't them.
Why do they project all their grievances and woes on to women? Because they're a soft target. Their moms and most women are generally sympathetic and will try to persuade or cajole or reason with them. At the very least, they aren't going to punch them in the face.
Which in a sense is too bad because they don't appreciate the soft touch, AT ALL, and if anything it just further fuels their resentment. Try being nice and you just get hostility reaped upon you from these guys.
TLDR version: they're suffering from a mental disease of affluence and media-induced fantasies shot into their brain 12 hrs a day every day, and not having any real violence in their life. Most would be cured if dropped off and forced to live in a third world country for a year, and the ones who do suffer actual deprivation and violence don't form most of this group, at least in the US. Mostly they're thoroughly middle class and overly comfortable.
This is a very interesting point. As someone from a country that has gone through war I can tell you that it is a bit of an awakening to common sense and it does bring a sort of grit you don’t always see in the more comfortable societies. I am not a proponent of hitting children but I am a proponent of manufacturing some struggle if no real struggle is available, because being spoiled as a child is annoying but being spoiled as an adult is insufferable.
I know you like to exaggerate the numbers, but « 99.9% » with only 1 woman or less? « 5-100x » as many and « millions » of options? You do realize that if it was actually the case, the average number of sexual partners would be close the one of gay men? And that there would be no talk of « sexless generation » or incels right? Also what about the frequency of sex and the quality of women (mainly talking about body fat here)?
Not saying that the average quality of young men did not decrease, but the 1980 era does look much better sexually for men in many metrics, even though I did not live them.
Your take on lack of violence for men is interesting and probably explains part of the problem. I always found that there was a huge aesthetic problem with progressives and I don’t think there is much they can do about it
Well I said 5 to 100x as many to capture the range. Recent studies say that the median number of women a man has slept with by the time he marries is about 10. And certainly there are a few guys with counts of 100 (or even higher who claim like 1000 but I was trying to leave out outliers).
Most men historically getting 1 or maybe even none I think is correct. At least in the western and far East world, I don't know much about ancient southern hemisphere societies. But even just if you talk to or read letters/memoirs of typical guys in the US from silent generation or older, most of them only ever slept with their wife. Half of them barely knew what sex was when they got married and had never seen a naked woman. And most people lived an agrarian lifestyle where they never left a 50 mile radius of their home and just would never even meet very many people. Women were either pregnant or breast feeding most of their lives from teenagers to 40, and most would already be taken, so a man would just have very few untaken, non already pregnant women to even meet or choose from. And then you'd have a portion living in convents who were off the table entirely. It's not like now when boys and girls go to school and are around hundreds of others for years, most people didn't go to school 100+ years ago and if they did it was for a short period and they were already working by adolescence.
So I think yes, opportunity wise there are so many more options today it's almost impossible to exaggerate. In fact, it's possible that that alone is a source of the psychological angst and instability...brains were not evolved for a context where there are just thousands of unattached, non-pregnant fertile females walking around everywhere you go. Like access to sugar and easy calories has warped metabolic systems designed for scarcity, perhaps abundance of sexual opportunities warps psychological functioning that was designed for similar scarcity and a motivation to immediately capture every opportunity.
As for appearance, sure people are way fatter now. But also better looking on a lot of other measures from teeth/oral health to simply looking much much younger for much much longer. I suppose everyone gets attached to their own coming of age era so maybe you have fondness for the 80s, but I often hear elderly people remark on how astonishing it is that people are so much better looking today than they used to be. A 30 year old from a few decades ago looks like a 50 year old today. Plus you have to take into account that people just didn't take many photos pre late 20th century, it was expensive and difficult, so photos were reserved for special occasions where people were looking their best, or for subjects considered particularly attractive or important. We don't really have many or any photos of what regular people looked like from before the mid 20th century. If you go off painted portraits, which were all done to be as flattering as possible for the richest people, they don't look so great. But anyway I'm not sure what appearance has to do with this anyway, at all times people make their judgments based on what's around them. What's different today is that everyone has images of impossibly hot people...most of whom aren't even real or are heavily modified illusions...who bear little resemblance to the people around them.
I have never considered that men are inherently violent or that they need inherent violence, because that always felt uncharitable. But honestly, a lot of present evidence supports that theory. You may be onto something.
It's like anything, there's a spectrum. Plenty of them certainly are not. But a sizeable minority are very much attracted to it and it's very obvious. That group has run and been the source of demand for all kinds of horrific violence as entertainment throughout history...dog fights, bull and bear baiting, cock fighting, boxing. They love their fake war video games. Plenty of young men throughout history and some still today have dreamed about and looked forward to going to war and doing battle (though often get an enormous reality check once they go), etc.
Psychologically healthy women generally have a very strong aversion to these things. The few who seem into it were generally raised to be that way and strongly encouraged by their fathers and brothers to live up to and meet their standards for male "toughness", and spend their life trying to to be the son their father wished they were.
Unfortunately, it appears that the world we've managed to create, with an actually nice standard of living as the base level, and one relatively free of violence, has left them with a psychological itch they can't scratch. This is why I think it's basically pointless trying to be understanding or empathetic or reasoning with them (even though I stupidly do it all the time). You can see what you get for your good faith attempts, in some of these comments. And this is not even remotely the worst of it!
I've started this reply many times but given up. Why? Because it requires such a long post to disentangle what you consider to have been a clever riposte. And at the end of all my hard work you will not be in the least bit interested in what I say as is your right. On that basis, I will leave you with your sense of smug satisfaction, enjoy :-)
There has never been a time when everything is right in the world. Things are mostly better for most than they've ever been. Humans and especially males are built to struggle, however, so perhaps they can't handle things being too nice and easy.
Well that's going to be fixed quite soon when we're all plunged into war. Especially now I hear the USA is requesting us Brits to bomb Iran,typical as usual we get deputed to do the dirty work.
The one thing men can depend on from feminist women is a complete lack of empathy. At least feminist women don't have to waste any time on caring for anyone other than themselves.
It is always a pleasure to read an article with a logically clear structure like this: a well-supported point of view, several data to compare, fluid readability with many really intriguing insights and deep reflections that bring historical data and counter-views as well as possible counter-arguments. Thank you so much for sharing, in addition to being a very relevant and well-argued topic, the way you treated it is inspiring.
The question that no one seems to be asking is: Are we using merit in our decision making as to who is being admitted to top universities, hired or promoted the best jobs or are we currently discriminating against whites, Asians and men in an attempt to compensate for past discrimination against others?
If we are currently discriminating based on race and sex and recent Supreme Court cases suggest that we are then don’t those currently being discriminated against have a legitimate grievance just as women and blacks did in the past? Just asking.
Fascinating. Are all these so-called manfluencers too busy mansplaining to see that raising up their women (read: wives, mothers, sisters, daughters and granddaughters) and seeing them as equals doesn’t diminish, but strengthens them in the eyes of more than 50 percent of the world’s population?
Thanks for the great article, putting into words something that I was already frustrated about but can't express as eloquently. It does feel like the root causes of young men's issues are being blamed on women as a scapegoat, which is unsurprising given how often this strategy is used in politics.
I find the statistics around women being more educated than men but earning less very interesting. I wonder if some of this is the unfortunate self-selection out of higher paying jobs that women are likely to do (not applying to jobs unless meeting 100% of the criteria, compared to 60% for men). Of course there are important systemic reasons for this too but it is so interesting that on paper women may be more qualified but not compensated accordingly.
When women work the same hours at the same job, they are paid the same (or more, as the article even admits). Women value time off and other things more than men and take less pay for those benefits.
I fully agree with what you say in this article. In one of my previous articles, I wrote that we might need to rebrand 'feminism' and prioritise addressing this anger felt by young men because it's not going away and only increasing. Dismantling the patriarchy is good for all of us, but it can only come if we all understand the benefits of doing so. You can find it here: https://femmefactale.substack.com/p/mind-the-generation-gap-a-crisis
>Dismantling the patriarchy is good for all of us, but it can only come if we all understand the benefits of doing so.
Literally no young males will believe this. And we also aren't as prone to the propaganda as women. I had a group of 22 male friends my age and if any of them voiced political opinions along these lines they would instantly be kinda treated like a weird crazy person. I'm sorry this narrative is just never gonna work, so find a new one. Have you tried just blaming men again? I don't know maybe this time it'll work.
“We aren’t as prone to propaganda as women”. Interesting, since according to stats, men are more likely to believe conspiracy theories and fall prey to far right parties. Do you call fighting for a more equal society propaganda? I’m interested to know what friends you have because all my male friends, including my partner, would agree that the patriarchy hasn’t served them or women (obviously). Maybe instead of accusing me of trying to find a suitable narrative for everyone, you can come up with some ideas. Or maybe you prefer sitting in a patriarchal bubble and calling women who voice their opinions “weird crazy” people. By the way, nothing in my mind directly blames men… I love the men in my life. I blame a patriarchal society.
My friends are all young and around my age: 20. I call fighting for an unsustainable society post-human; My problem with equality is that it is unsustainable and bad. Something something Kurt Vonnegut. I don't care about "propaganda". That can be good or bad depending on whether it's me getting to spread it. It is a very woman-pilled thing to do to fall for normative connotation. Or maybe I'm just autistic.
Consider that men are more likely to get in fatal car crashes. This doesn't stop literally ALL current F1 drivers from being male. Sure we'll fall for more propaganda! I'd bet on it!
And I said men aren't as prone to THE propaganda. The post-human urban monoculture colloquially called "woke" propaganda. This doesn't stop a woke dork from lighting themselves on fire over an inter-ethnic/religious conflict half a world away. Men are the best and worst of humanity, typically. We're the psychopaths and the diplomats. The male bell curve is typically wider. Your inability to understand this fact and it's logical fallout is a large reason why you're a feminist (and more importantly, wrong about most things). Of course we're going to believe more dumb shit. And be more retarded. We're men. We're also going to discover and then split the atom.
I love the women in my life. And there are many women I seriously respect for their intellect and intellectual contributions. I can scarcely think of someone I properly hate in general. I blame a post-human society.
But you don't hate just a *patriarchal* society. You hate society. Maybe you don't MEAN to hate society, but functionally "impact matters more than intent" right? Because the only sustainable societies are patriarchal, thus you're condemned to hate the only societies that will exist. Beyond that you hate natural selection. But I'm reminded of Carl Sagan, though I'm paraphrasing: "It would be silly to hate the world for being explained by evolution, so the Christians hated science, which was the thing that told everyone that the world was explained by evolution."
It's funny you should propose providing alternative narratives. I have precisely such a thing.
“Men are the best and worst of humanity, typically.” What bloviating bullshit. Get your head out of your arse. And while you’re at it, provide the definitive proof of the greater male variability hypothesis. You know, the evidence that proves the “facts” you’re asserting.
Then we can talk about Marie Curie, the woman on whose work Rutherford depended in order to split the atom.
“the only sustainable societies are patriarchal” Sure bro, if “sustainable” refers to crashing/ burning/ imploding/ collapsing. Which is what *numerous* patriarchal societies have done over the past millennia.
And speaking of Marie Curie, she was a single mother, who raised her two daughters alone after their father passed away. While overseeing their education, she continued her research and ended up winning 2 Nobel prizes. Her oldest daughter became a scientist alongside her and won her own Nobel prize. Marie’s younger daughter was a journalist and author who won the National Book Award for a biography on her mother. So a far cry from "jail inmates of the future"...
Marie Curie was an awesome woman. I think more woman should be like her. It is an impressive and wonderful feat to contribute to humanity both by having and raising productive kids and by making intellectual contributions of your own!
I somehow knew someone would reference Curie. I just got this tingly sensation and viola someone did it. I thought "well curie did somewhat discover radiation but that is a bit of a stretch and we wouldn't say that darwin discovered genes just because he discovered evolution...". I suppose when you've got to stretch to find evidence of your worldview that's what you'll do.
But it doesn't disprove anything I said. I did not say women could not be geniuses. I did not say women were even less mentally capable of being geniuses. Your reading comprehension could use some work. I only said males would inevitably achieve more. Both good and bad. Many women have a very easy time agreeing with this when it comes to man's inherent propensity to commit violence.
The REASONS for greater male variability in ability across almost all fields and subjects and quantifiable statistics are up for debate. But they're hardly deniable. I gave you an example: F1 drivers are male but so are basically all extremely reckless and dangerous drivers. Hell, men are so good at their own sports now they're competing in women sports and winning those as well!
What I think explains this variation best has little to do with inherent intelligence, and more to do with inherent incentives. Men are inherently more interested in doing and being the extremes. We're far more likely to be autisticaly obsessive, at the very least due to the fact that we're far more likely to BE autistic. Its a sort of testosterone feeling it would be very hard for a woman to "get".
I think its quite funny you object that patriarchal societies are better at surviving. Its not just "numerous" patriarchal societies that have collapsed! It's ALL of them! But I'm laughing out loud typing this because it's like saying 100% of paralympic athletes are disabled. OBVIOUSLY! It's a prerequisite! The only societies that can really exist are patriarchal! And because all societies fall, all societies that fall will have been patriarchies.
You: “ The male bell curve is typically wider….. Of course we're going to believe more dumb shit. And be more retarded. We're men. We're also going to discover and then split the atom.”
Me, refuting your claim that Rutherford splitting the atom supports the theory of a wider male bell curve: Rutherford depended on the work of *a woman* in order to split the atom. To spell it out for you: This indicates equivalency of intellect, so undermines a claim of Rutherford being an example of a man whose intelligence outstrips the intelligence of all women.
You: “I only said males would inevitably achieve more.” Despite:
1. Me pointing out earlier that you haven’t provided evidence of GMVH being conclusively proven.
2. Me linking to a study undermining GMVH.
3. Me undermining the example you gave in support of GMVH,
You *still have not* provided evidence that GMVH is conclusively proven. GMVH is the crux of your argument and you *haven’t provided evidence that it is correct*. Can you not see how dumb that is?
This: “ F1 drivers are male but so are basically all extremely reckless and dangerous drivers.” is a fucking story with zero statistical analysis provided in support.
You’re arguing in favour of inherent male superiority (remember, you said “males would inevitably achieve more”) on fucking *vibes* - aka misogyny.
If men are more prone to believe conspiracy theories it's because they have better analytical thinking skills than women and can recognize the truth. The world is full of single mothers and their drecky sprogs because a man just has to say to these women,,"I love you,and I'll be in your life forever,you're beautiful,let's fuck" see,no analytical thinking skills there and another jail inmate of the future born.
Interesting. As a counter question, I'd like to ask you to give me evidence of how the patriarchy has benefitted you. I agree that poverty and increased inequality is a major issue, but I would ask you to assess how patriarchy and poverty are linked. According to Legal Momentum, 70% of America's poor are women and children. Women in America are still 35 percent more likely than men to be poor. This is due to women making up 60% of the nation's lowest paid workers, 0 maternity leave, lack of affordable childcare, lack of affordable maternity care, lack of pension payments due to childcare and often the fact that they are the ones more likely to be primary caregivers to vulnerable family members. On the other side of the Atlantic, the UK has seen a stark increase in violence against women and girls (37% in the last 5 years), recently prompting the UK Home Office to classify VAWG as "a national threat to public safety". Access to abortion and contraception is being challenged not only in the US but by far-right parties across Europe as well. And guess who they predominantly target? Young men and boys, by repeatedly feeding them this narrative that the frustration they feel with feminism is legitimate, that their rights are being jeopardised by the fact that women have gained more of their own, that the only way forward is to return to "traditional" notions of family (it goes without saying that they mean heterosexual family). This is happening in the western world; of course, there are more direct and horrifying examples to be taken from other corners of the globe, such as with the Taliban in Afghanistan.
(https://press.un.org/en/2024/wom2231.doc.htm) "In his opening remarks, United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres stressed: 'Patriarchy is far from vanquished; it is regaining ground'. Women and girls are also facing a war on their fundamental rights at home and in their communities. Autocrats and populists are promoting what they call 'traditional values' to attack women’s sexual and reproductive rights. 'We cannot accept a world in which grandmothers fear their granddaughters will enjoy fewer rights than they had,' he said, also noting that these power relations are being replicated in digital technologies. When technological systems are designed by men, they result in biased algorithms that ignore women’s needs and women’s bodies."
Now is not the time for complacency. We have to ask questions and find solutions that are fairer for both genders. Patriarchy is restrictive for men and women, and it is feeding the rising inequality we all suffer from (minus a select few). To reinforce my point: According to Statista, as of 2022, about 88% of the world's billionaires were men. In 2024, that number dropped to 13.3% women, or 369 out of 2,781 billionaires.
You are missing the point. What I’m saying is that contraception is key for both genders and, to put it less eloquently, it takes two to tango. These conversations are to be had together. That said, we can all agree that a pregnancy and the act of raising a child will mostly change the life of that teenage girl for all the reasons I wrote about above. It’s normal that she never be forced into a pregnancy. Unfortunately, with abortion under attack and now even access to contraception coming under fire, especially in the US, this is not the case for many women and girls. Throughout history, women’s reproductive rights have come under attack for the sole reason of controlling them.
WOW. That’s bold of you to assume. If only you knew… but, you’re right, I’d prefer not to engage with you. Can’t believe we’re still having to defend a woman’s right to choose what happens with her body in 2024. It’s even more of a reason for me to keep speaking up.
You didn't answer my question of how you think it's benefitting you, first of all.
Secondly, there are shifts in rhetoric that prove that this notion of the 'traditional family' is gaining ground, particularly pushed by far right parties and Trump in the US. It's obvious that they are gaining ground unless you live under a rock. France almost voted far right only a few weeks ago, which is unprecedented for the country. The far right is built on patriarchal values. This quote, however, was taken from the UN Secretary-General. There are also direct signs, such as what is happening with abortion in the US, and violence against women in the UK. I can go on and on with examples of how we still live in a patriarchy, especially as a young mother, having had nearly zero maternity leave, having seen many of my friends made redundant during their maternity leave, and having really suffered from a lack of affordable childcare. I was once told by my childless CFO, that having children is a lifestyle choice? Upper management was almost solely made up of men, who were not going to concern themselves with my maternity leave. Someone above said that men just don't care that much about abortion. I disagree. My partner and my male friends care, and they all should, because if your teenage girlfriend gets pregnant, for example, it's as much your problem as hers if you were raised right. I think I've shown how this has regained ground in my previous comment. What I would really like to know is how you think patriarchy has benefitted you, but you don't seem too keen to answer the question.
Relax buddy, polls from years ago show that men and women had very close opinions on abortion in the us. Only in the last few years has there been a shift, and men remained stable and it is women that shifted to pro-choice since change in legislature in many states. And men do just care less about this issue overall. Those facts are kind of expected given that men care in general less about anything and are less impacted by abortion laws.
Hopefully, you can now sleep better knowing that men as a group are not « crusading » against women as a group.
we may have ‘closer’ opinions but it doesn’t change the policies spearheaded by men that are being passed that hurt women’s health, sorry maybe you’re one of the ‘men who care in general less about anything and are less impacted by abortion laws’ so you should ‘relax buddy’ and sit this one out since you don’t give a fuck and are just in the comments to give your opinion you clearly don’t really care about dang. move out the way then
My fragile man heart was broken by your apparent hate/paranoïa of men so I could not relax sis. Abortion restrictions are pushed by the religious factions. Religions have more women amongst their believers in most religions. So can we really say « spearheaded by men » when abortion restrictions are the work of the Christian faction in the Republican Party for the us?
And I mean you should just accept that demographics that are not concerned by the negative side of some new rules/restrictions, would have less problem with it. This whole thing is just a debate between « are we killing a life? From which week? » vs « the freedom and the comfort of women is important ».
i don’t hate men at all, you don’t even know me to be making statements like that. i only responded to the things that you said and now you’re making things up about me to fit your narrative. religion may have more women in their factions (according to you, bc this is such a broad statement but suuure) but it doesn’t mean that the men aren’t in charge, esp when deferring to the man is built into certain religious practices. i don’t really understand your world salad, i think any rational person with eyes and ears and empathy can see what’s been happening. find a new hobby than replying nonsense to strangers on the internet.
The patriarchy is why my daughters have to carry mace at night but my friend’s sons don’t. The patriarchy is why rapists go free, so that 1 in 4 women get to experience rape firsthand, a number experts agree is severely underreported. The patriarchy is why most CEO’s are men. The patriarchy is why, despite a stunning report from the Atlantic citing that 1 out of 7000 births are due to incestual rape, no other news outlets reported it and nothing was done. The patriarchy is why black women go through the shit they do in my country, since it dovetails so nicely with racism. The patriarchy is why maternal mortality is abysmal in the U.S. and, despite there being easy fixes, no one implements them. The patriarchy is why there is no research put towards menopause, and why most doctors don’t talk about it or treat it. The patriarchy is the reason for intensely lopsided funding in all medical research towards men’s issues and men’s bodies. The patriarchy is why men decided to call an Olympic athlete a man who should be disqualified because she did not meet the standard of beauty that white men decided on. I’m also a Gen Xer, and I’m still catcalled and made to feel unsafe outside of my house. If you’ve known anyone with a tragic pregnancy involving birth defects, no, 15 weeks is not a reasonable place to be. Why should the government get to discard women’s humanity once they have sex? But not men’s? Have you read some of these comments from angry old men? Do you not feel their seething, violent rage? Abortion…“It seems to be the only issue…” you say. Well, yes, having the agency to decide when and if you have kids, when and if you get to live without permanent organ disability, or live at all, when and if you will be thrown into poverty trying to raise the kid you didn’t want seems like it covers many many aspects of a woman’s life, no? Neither side is being reasonable?! Why would the government need to legislate grief? The small percentage of abortions that happen after 15 weeks are tragedies. My government can’t properly legislate road construction or tax collection, but you want them in charge of millions of women’s bodies?! Why?! Do you believe that women are running around getting abortions for fun? After picking out cribs, and blankets, and having people pat your belly? You hate other women that much? That you wish to make them suffer further and plead a case to lawyers and a hospital board while their dead baby leaks out between their thighs?
Patriarchy is the reason men are looking to use women’s bodies in their freaky, pro-natalist quest to birth children instead of say, tweaking economic systems to adjust for normal, lower birth rates. Patriarchy is the reason women lose their last names, and in most parts of the world, patriarchy is the reason for last names at all. I won’t even get into sexual assault or femicide statistics across the globe. Or my First Nation sisters, who suffer disproportionately at the hands of men of all colors. And yes, it is classism at its core, because the only reason we have this version of patriarchy is feudalism. See, women used to do the same jobs as men, but when feudal lords noticed that the peasants didn’t produce enough children to staff wars and fend off invasion, they incentivized women to stay in the home. It is all connected, for sure, but to think the patriarchy went away, when we still depend on institutions and establishments designed by and for men, strikes me as naive.
Numbers are numbers. DNA also doesn’t lie. But keep soothing yourself. As an American, I don’t need a man to protect me. I have a gun for that, to protect me FROM men. And 20/20 vision. 2A all the way.
Social status *is* zero sum. By historical standards (outside of some cases of mentally ill/drug addicted homeless people), poverty has been eradicated in the United States - yet it still exists. 20% of the population still feels poor, as has always been the case. An example of social status or security being zero sum: Year 1900, a man and a woman get married. The man is certain that the woman he has married will not leave him - he can choose to commit a large amount to the marriage or decide to get married at all without a divorce looming over his head. Yet the woman has little to no recourse if the man mistreats or even abuses her. To improve the woman's situation divorces are allowed without justification, eroding the man's trust in the prospect of marriage - lowering his position and having him put half his assets on the line at the whims of emotion with no legal recourse. Women (at least by material metrics) won, men lost. In many ways gender relations are zero sum. The other example being scholarships and leadership positions. In order for women to rise, men had to fall. Exclusive awards and opportunities were granted to women and denied to men causing the proportion of female elite workers and leaders to rise and males to fall. Of course throughout history in all societies men were granted exclusive awards and opportunistic, which were denied to women, and so men made up all elite positions. This just further illustrates my point - for women to rise, men had to fall.
So I agree with you on basic principle. I think there is a handoff happening. You do have to reduce someone’s privilege in order to share it around. Like the pie from the text - if you’re used to wolfing down a whole pie every night for dinner getting a reasonable slice will definitely feel like a downgrade - because it is.
But the men investing in marriage thing is a little flawed because in most relationships today both sides work and invest in the marriage financially. I feel like a lot of men fall for these inflated stories of how women want their money when they don’t actually objectively have any money. Or as someone eloquently put it ‘you’re afraid of gold diggers but you ain’t got no gold.’
So there are some real losses, but some are just perceived or wildly inflated. Let’s not forget that statistically men are way more likely to walk out on their family than women and many of them end up just flat out not paying any child support nor being chased for it. I personally know multiple cases of women who are owed child support but are just letting it go and providing for themselves because it’s not worth the emotional hassle.
So yeah, there’s two sides and it would serve us well to untangle them from each other
>You do have to reduce someone’s privilege in order to share it around. Like the pie from the text - if you’re used to wolfing down a whole pie every night for dinner getting a reasonable slice will definitely feel like a downgrade - because it is.
You are missing my point. I'm agnostic towards gender equality - my point is strictly that for one group's status (in this case a gender) to rise, an opposing group's must fall. You claim that this fall in status is a necessary thing as groups should have equal social status, I never made any claims about this in my first comment.
I may be wrong about this – it’s been years since I was a student – but I have the very strong impression, rightly or wrongly, that a great many policies to address historical discrimination against women have had negative effects for young men, men who had nothing to do with that discrimination and feel (rightly or wrongly, again) that they are being discriminated against because they’re men.
This leads to a curious paradox. Seen from above, men wield most of the power; seen from the POV of Joe Bloggs, a 15-year-old student in high school, men are facing discrimination. He is told that men have all the power, but his lived experiences don’t bear that out. He feels powerless and poor – the idea he is actually rich and powerful is a sick joke. To him, his teachers are (at best) wrong and (at worst) openly lying. Once he gets the idea the teachers are lying about one thing, it’s a short hop to believing they’re lying about everything.
It gets worse when he goes for a job. It may be a decent response to historical discrimination to give women an edge, but from Joe’s POV – again – the playing field is tilted against him … and he needs that job. It is not in his self-interest to sacrifice his own career to help another, particularly when his lived experiences suggest woman are not suffering from any discrimination. He may be wrong about that, too, but his lived experience disagrees.
Put crudely, when Alan and Alice raced, Alice had a ball and chain attached to her ankle and had to work twice as hard to get half as far. This was blatantly unfair, and so when Ben and Bella raced the chain was removed; Ben still won. This also seemed unfair, so Charlie got the ankle chain when he was racing Catherine and (of course) lost.
Why would Charlie be happy about losing, under such circumstances? How fair is it to blame Charlie for Alan having such a huge advantage … and why is Alan still allowed to claim victory, when he had that advantage?
The thing is, you cannot resolve historical discrimination by engaging – intentionally or not – in present discrimination. That just stores up trouble for the future.
You are hilariously wrong. Alice, Bella, and Catherine were *not allowed to race at all.* Alan, Ben, and Charlie had gotten together the night before the event and decided it would only be the boys racing against each other.
Men invariably perceive the situation as a game of men vs women, despute how obviously wrong this is. While it can be correctly characterized as a game, the game is played exclusively between men. Women are the ball.
But pretending it's somehow men vs women is a near-universal psychological dodge that men seem to retreat to directly in the face of cognitive dissonance. This nonsense helps men avoid the truth that the game was originally and still is played quite literally by men. At some point men realized that they could cooperatively engage in an alternative to violence against other males in competition for sexual access to females. Economics took the place of and eliminated that violent competition with other men, by making the original form of currency women. Bride price or dowry, some male sold and another male purchased sexual access to a female, and regardless of who was buying and who was selling, it was and is **always** a male on both sides of that transaction. The goods being transacted are always a female person being exchanged for whatever crap those two men have agreed represents the total and utterly finite sum of her human person.
This is why men have universally - literally across the world - striven so hard and continue to strive to this moment to prevent and/or expel women from being able to benefit from economic activity.
Fun fact: the 9th Commandment has a funny habit of either changing dramatically or being omitted entirely in various incarnations of the Old Testament. It has for a couple thousand years, as far as artifacts tell us. The original movie "The Ten Commandments" should be renamed "The Nine Commandments" - if you pay any amount of attention, the movie skips from #8 directly to #10 (and for some reason, nobody ever notices this.) Do you remember what Number 9 is? Number 10 is "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's goods."
Number 9 is supposed to be, "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife."
Can you correctly determine why it is so frequently abrogated, edited, replaced or omitted?
Because it singles out and identifies the wife as being completely distinct from and not a part of a man's possessions.
Like the Wikipedia entry page for "Woman," of course that's the one men simply can't stop editing, modifying, and occasionally deleting entirely even though doing so invalidates calling them "The Ten Commandments."
omg let's be friends.
Fun fact about what the worthless males down thread are whining about:
Men invariably throughout history reserve the best (easiest, safest, cleanest, etc) jobs for themselves, in any industry. The hardest, most dangerous, most difficult jobs were invariably relegated to women and children. This holds true today. Most of the survivors from the Titanic were male passengers; the bullshit about "women and children first" is men's cognitive dissonance in action, as usual.
Mining is a perfect example of the sex-segregated division of labor: young men yearned for a strong wife, not a pretty one, because they looked forward to keeping her wages and a pretty wife would not earn as much as a strong one. Women and children were sent into the pits to mine coal - and it was so hot down there they typically stripped to the waist to work. It was this- sexualization of women's bodies, scandalized moralistic outrage of men in power upon discovering this, that women were barred on the basis of gender from working at or applying to work at any mine and mine bosses forbidden to hire them. (Children still could foe quite a while, of course; this wasn't about safety for anyone, of course.) But yeah, this dynamic was universal in every industry.
The only reason men get to pretend women weren't there doing the worst jobs etc is because men were recorded as collecting their wives' pay directly.
"retarded" oh look, an illiterate bigot resorting to using hate speech. How charming. And then he demands free work from the exact person he feels entitled to address with hate speech - attempting to leverage his prodigious male supremacist, ableist privilege, lol. (Hey everybody - get a fucking load of this guy)
Anyway
Because ridiculing you for your laziness and ignorance brings me a special joy, I spent all of 7 seconds grabbing a couple of links because as you've indicated, you're incompetent and therefore incapable of achieving the same results on your own; you require someone to spoon-feed you.
But we both know that you are, without question, entirely the puling coward who demands these resources but lacks the strength of character to endure being set straight, so we both know you won't actually follow any of these.
However, I know that people who aren't stupid, hateful, worthless wastes of time will very much appreciate and benefit from them. So for the sake of literally everyone except for you, here's a couple to get people with cojones started:
https://sites.baylor.edu/rhymeandreform/2018/08/15/iii-slavery-in-great-britain-employment-of-women-and-children-in-coal-mines/
https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1842/jun/07/employment-of-women-and-children-in
Here's some from the modern day and age that demonstrate literally nothing has changed and this behavior is universal across cultures, countries, and the mining industry in general - by which you could reasonably begin to suspect that it's just universal across industries
Note the Afghani coal mining boys are being made to mine coal the most dangerous way known to man - by hand - and that girls and women are not present because they have been excluded by men from existing in public in any way.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214790X20303154
https://www.npr.org/2022/12/31/1143143252/afghanistan-taliban-coal-mining-child-labor
Oh of course 😂 “crazy” is a favorite insult by misogynists. They used to threaten their wives with it when they wanted to get divorced they would just have her locked up for being crazy.
Yes this
May I join the too please?
#womanity you're already in
I think this is all true, I mean, if you want to compare things now with 100 years ago and not 20. But Chris's emphasis was on the age cohort thing and that matters. Basically OLD men hoard all the wealth and power. So when we adjust things until the average outcomes of old and young men = the average outcomes of old and young women, knowing how much above-average outcomes old men have, the only possible way to achieve that if young men will have below-average outcomes.
Basically what is happening is that old women, young women and young men are competing for whatever scraps of wealth and power old men are leaving on the table.
Yes, this indicates young men should be angry mostly at old men. Strangely, they vote for them instead.
In what way are men 'presently discriminated' against? Because truly, I can't think of any concrete examples.
It is common for hiring committees to preferentially hire women and know they are not supposed to put any reference to that in any emails because it's illegal. They will wink and nod about it. It has happened at my own institution. An old-girls club if you will.
This is completely untrue, they don’t like to hire women because women take maternity leave and then they have to fill her spot temporarily which is a huge pain.
Especially if it’s a company that self insures they definitely don’t want to hire women because then they have to pay for child
When we hire a man we have to also try to find a placement for his wife if he requests. There are burdens to hiring both sexes. I can name the woman who was hired in the way I described. It happens with black people and now “queer” people as well. Don’t call people liars without evidence. It makes you sound crass.
This is delusional. Fields that are female-dominant often reflect jobs that men historically have not wanted because they’ve been taught such jobs are “women’s work”. These fields typically pay lower wages as a result. The idea that men are shut out of, as you put it, secretarial jobs is simply not true on average, since men have almost never historically wanted those jobs and women were typically segregated into such positions rather than offered executive leadership opportunities in these same companies.
It seems like universities are predominantly female now. I know my own grad program in Biochemistry had many all female labs. Males definitely underrepresented in staff and students. "Secretarial" jobs are just administrative jobs. These have predominantly been done my men in the past and are now predominantly preformed by women.
Any time women take up 30% of any conversation, men perceive them as "dominating" it. Similarly, now that roughly half of college students are female, the perception is that it's all women.
When the majority does in fact become women, you'll be able to tell by the sudden, steep devaluation in college degrees in general.
Is it because you’re the wrong gender or because you don’t know how to properly convert a word document into a PDF, you can’t be polite on the telephone, and you think you’re above making coffee and doing the office dishes?
Do you have experience in running an office or do you think it’s an easy job that you could just jump in and do? There’s a lot more to it than just answering the phone and typing you know.
I have no doubt its lack of skills. Also lack of secretarial jobs. Fucking worthless entitled male feels entitled to a job that was beneath him in his prime and no longer exists for the most part nowadays
Well women smartened up and stopped having babies because we were tired of having to do all the work and pay for all the things. So you don’t have to worry about daycare much anymore the only kids that are going to end up there are the ones that nobody wants that were forced to be born. And they’ll need 24 hour daycare. Y’all can legally force women to remain pregnant for now, but you can’t force women to take care of babies they don’t want. I see what happens to those kids on the news all the time when they are left with parents who don’t want them
And the effect are in worse when it’s about “working” in cushy government job.
Not only it’s always positions that create no value and only exist because of taxation but they feeling entitled to doing as little as possible on their self approved schedule with as many advantages one could imagine. And then they will complain how hard their “work” is.
But wait, they’ll have a totally illogical, manipulating, narcissistic explanation of how that is not true at all, even though it is experienced by exactly everyone…
I hear that you are dissatisfied, and that is certainly valid. What I fail to see is how any of that is women's fault. "Politicians saying" things is just that, words. Not discrimination. Politicians say a lot of vile shit, see couch-fucker Vance and his childless cat ladies diatribe. They haven't, say, passed laws about mens bodies. They've only done that to women.
As far as business loans go, your data sounds like conjecture at best. A quick google search shows that 42% of businesses are owned by women in this country...still not the majority, or even an equal distribution. Check out the distribution of CEO jobs between the genders. Tells a different story!
Cherry picking a supposedly female-dominated profession as proof of discrimination against men is also not logical - I could just as easily point to all the professions where women cannot get hired as easily; dockworker, electrician, auto-mechanic, you get the picture.
I've never been divorced, but a quick look at that data ALSO does not support your assertion, as evidenced here https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5992251/
I live in Seattle, and a quick breakdown of our police department by gender is here https://publicola.com/2024/02/14/the-seattle-police-department-has-a-gender-discrimination-problem/#:~:text=Currently%2C%20just%2016%20percent%20of,assignments%20because%20of%20their%20gender.
It shows that only 16% of police officers in Seattle are female.
In short, if the world is tilted to favor women over men, it's doing a piss poor job, no? I haven't even started on sexual assault statistics, homicide of women by male partners, etc.
You sound frustrated and angry. I am too! But I believe our frustration and anger has one cause, which is the grotesque imbalance of power and money between like, 5% of the population and the other 95%. We should work together, in shared rage, to make things better for people like us who keep getting screwed by rich sociopaths.
"couch-fucker"...are you ok?
Sorry Sergei, I’m not biting. I don’t argue with idiots, otherwise people might think we’re the same. Byyeeee!
😂😂😂 WHERE SHOW ME WHERE THIS IS HAPPENING
a state rep in New Hampshire had to sponsor a bill to make it illegal for doctors to refuse to treat conditions we have when it might affect our fertility if we don’t care about our fertility.
I was held back at work my whole life by the fact that I usually missed a day every month because I throw up when I bleed because I have a condition called endometriosis. The best way to treat it is to get a hysterectomy but because I was Childfree because I never wanted children I couldn’t get a hysterectomy. I am still suffering monthly Because now that I’m old they will do the hysterectomy, but since it should be almost over I don’t want to go through that whole entire surgery.
I threw up one or two days of every month for 37 years because I didn’t have kids because I didn’t want kids.
I saw a gynecologist in six different states in this country. I didn’t ask all of them for a hysterectomy in my youth because sometimes I couldn’t take that much time off of work, but I never found this gynocentric society you claimed is here in the US.
Where is it so I can tell the young ladies here who want to go get tubal ligations? We’re still waiting for the bill to cycle through committee even though it was introduced back in March. I would love to hear where women can get medical treatment not determined by their family status.
"Gynocentric" must be why men persisted in infringing on women's human right to the franchise until 1920
Fucking whiny crybaby males perceive anything remotely approaching equality as an infringement of their right to exploit women and profit from abusing women's time and labor.
If anything were actually gynocentric, the last 47 presidents IN A ROW would have been women, stupid.
I'm saying that I hear your dissatisfaction and pain. But you continue to cite only your perception, not facts. We aren't citing 'a different set of statistics." The statistics are the statistics. They are easily verifiable. Only 12% of police officers nationwide are female. Most CEO's are men. One out of 4 women are sexually assaulted as children. Now that we have ancestry websites, DNA has proven that 1 out of every 7000 births is due to incest, overwhelmingly fathers, brothers, and uncles fucking their little girl relatives. And those are just the ones that resulted in live births! Women have been sexually violated by men for thousands of years, and we were only given the right to vote or own property in the LAST CENTURY. Even what you cite about unemployment is incorrect, as you can see in the latest data here https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/womens-databook/2022/home.htm#:~:text=The%20unemployment%20rate%20for%20women,percentage%20points%20over%20the%20year.
You continue to tout what you see on LinkedIn, or what you feel when you walk into a bank. Your feelings are your feelings, and I'm sorry that you seem not to have an outlet other than rage at women. Again, I'm enraged too, but women haven't 'stolen' your jobs, even if your goal in life was to be a bank manager or secretary, and not, say, a police officer or firefighter or construction worker. (See, I can cite anecdotal evidence of gender discrimination in specific jobs as well.)
We have yet to gain any of the parity you 'feel' you see in the world, and men have had control for about 6000 years. We get 50 years of controlling our fertility and getting the jobs and education we want, 50 years out of 6000, and already you guys are crying like babies because you 'feel' you can't be bank managers?! Christ on a crutch, perhaps you aren't getting the jobs you want because you are whiny fucking babies. 50 years out of 6000, we have yet to achieve parity, our bodies are on the line and we are still dying in childbirth, which our government now wants to force, and that's all it takes for you guys to lose your shit and threaten us with handmaiden status. Jesus, buck up, buttercup.
Your weird promise of "Women will be back in the kitchen" and the underlying, pulsating rage in your tone makes me think you are too lazy to rise up against our real oppressors, preferring the low-hanging fruit of misogyny, and the prospect of enslaving women to be your masturbating accessories. You sound like the sort who is always looking for an excuse to hurt a woman. Unfortunately for men like you, that toothpaste isn't going back in the tube anytime soon. Women contribute far more to the GDP than ever before, and to rip them out of the workforce to be handmaidens for your violent fantasies would crush this country economically. Additionally, the second amendment applies to all, and I taught both my girls how to shoot. Girls also now learn self-defense in elementary school, what with all the raping your gender enjoys. Maybe if you stopped spending so much time blaming women, threatening them with enslavement, and raging at random people on a site for writers despite having no body of work yourself, you would get that bank manager or secretary job you want so badly. Or are you trying to be a DEI hire? Just hoping to slide in on your old, white, male pity status? I thought we all agreed that corporations should hire 'the best people for the job'? How about you try being good at something other than whining and punching down on women? Or is that too hard?
I have to go do actual writing now. Gotta get a piece done before I go to my bank manager job in the morning. I wish you well.
Wow! Women have STOLEN your jobs? That language says you do not believe any woman is capable or worthy of holding a job. Women have EMASCULATED men? So, in your own words, you are admitting that women are actually stronger than men, then, right? Or are you implying that the only way for men to "feel manly" is by subjugating all women? That's where your "women will be in the kitchen cranking our babies" comment is headed. Who the HELL originally decided MEN were the only ones worthy of holding jobs? Or the only ones capable of starting families? That statement right there proves you view women and children as nothing more than objects to flaunt as evidence of your "masculinity" to other men. How truly pathetically ignorant and downright VILE of a person you must be to believe that all the other humans on the planet born without a penis do not belong anywhere those who were do.
This is my favorite thing about them claiming Kamala used sex to get ahead. If that’s true then men cannot be trusted in positions of power. If they’re going to give it all away for a BJ they can’t be in power positions. I mean we already know they do this that’s why honeypots exist, But it sounds like they all do this so maybe we need to re-organize society a little bit.
Yeah I went to the bank recently I had to deal directly with the manager to open an estate account. It was a man, and I don’t know what he did he screwed it up so bad I had to spend two days on the phone getting online access
So never again. If I see a bank manager is a man I’m leaving and going to a different bank. It was a horrible experience I couldn’t pay for the headstone because I couldn’t do anything with the account. I was in his office for like an hour and a half I have no idea what he did
He probably did it on purpose
You might want to reconsider some of what you just said. The US population is, more or less 330 million, of which people under age 18 are about 20%, or about 75 million. There are about 55 million people over 65. Which leaves a total adult (19-64) population of about 200 million people who could possibly be employed. The most recent unemployment rate is about 4.3%, which does NOT represent 106 million people, or anything close to that (4% of the TOTAL possible working age population is about 8 million). I could go on, but you can look up any further specific numbers by sex, race, etc for yourself.
Bottom line: your numbers are so bigly wrong that any conclusions/arguments you make on the basis of those numbers wrong numbers are also bigly wrong!
> Seen from above, men wield most of the power; seen from the POV of Joe Bloggs, a 15-year-old student in high school, men are facing discrimination. He is told that men have all the power, but his lived experiences don’t bear that out. He feels powerless and poor – the idea he is actually rich and powerful is a sick joke.
From Joe Bloggs' point of view he is being told "some other people, who happen to have the same genital configuration as you, are rich and powerful, therefore it is virtuous to treat you with contempt".
> To him, his teachers are (at best) wrong and (at worst) openly lying. Once he gets the idea the teachers are lying about one thing, it’s a short hop to believing they’re lying about everything.
Indeed. Or that *society* is lying about everything. Which is how citizens of the USSR felt, because of the mismatch between their lived experience and the propaganda they were being told. Once people get that cynical, they are likely to disbelieve *everything* that comes from mainstream sense-makers and may well believe things that're truely nuts.
I think the age cohort thing needs more emphasis. Old men hoard all the wealth and power and no one can do anything about that. So we adjust things are around until outcomes are equal between old+young men vs old+young women. Because old men have so much above-average outcomes, it stands to reason this can only be achieved if young men will have below-average outcomes.
How many scholarships are reserved exclusively for women, and how many exclusively for men?
The concept of the ‘ball and chain’ was something of a metaphor, but I think it fits.
My grandmother, who was born in 1918, had some horror stories about growing up as a young woman, then a single mother (my grandfather died when my father was seven), and how about how difficult life could be for a lower-middle-class person who was both a mother and the sole source of income for a small family. She worked in a profession that was classically female - she talked what we would now call home economics - and she made no bones about just how difficult it was. Women could not get promoted past a certain point, if they were lucky enough to get a job at all; the vast number of women who worked in factories during the war was seen as a temporary measure, not a permanent shift in gender roles and relationships.
Women faced discrimination at all levels. There was a perception that a working woman was taking a job from a man. There was a perception that men would not take orders from women, no matter how qualified, which meant it was difficult to promote women and easy to justify not doing so. There was a belief that a woman would quit as soon as she got married/pregnant (which is still common in some parts of the world) which again made it difficult for a woman to have a serious career, certainly outside female-dominated professions. Even in the house, a wife was expected to obey her husband and physical discipline was not uncommon.
To call this brutally unjust is a great understatement. My grandmother was the smartest and strongest person I have ever met. And yet she was held back by society itself.
How far could she have gone, if she have been a man? I think she could have gone right to the top.
The problem here is not that the metaphorical ball and chain has been removed; the problem is that it has been transferred to young men (or at least they believe it to be so), which is just as brutally unfair as it was to the woman of a century ago. From their point of view, they are being penalised for the crimes of their forefathers; they are being told something that contrasts sharply with their lived experience. To them, the idea that women still face discrimination is extremely dubious; even when they accept that is true, they wonder why THEY should be punished to make up for crimes they didn’t commit. We are caught in a situation in which the gains of feminism are suddenly at risk, because the situation is being framed as a zero-sum crisis where men think they are being held back (rightly or wrongly) and they see no reason to respect a society that is brutally unfair to them. This creates a vacuum, which is then filled by people like Andrew Tate.
Instead of redistribution, we should be creating new jobs, and new opportunities. But that requires people to acknowledge these problems exist, and - put bluntly - concede that their opponents have a point.
If she'd been a man she could have also gone straight to the war, she would have been 20 in 1938. My grandfather was probably liberating Auschwitz after years in the European front around the time your grandmother was being oppressed by home economics.
The difference is that I literally never think about that, it only occurred to me as I started writing this comment, while women seem to have been habituated into this litany of cherry picked historical complaints as if the whole of human existence has just been women getting screwed over.
Exactly right. The vast majority of men have had the "privilege" of being forced to do hard manual labour in the mines, farms, factories and battlefields of the world while women were being oppressed by being allowed to stay safe at home.
But the modern woman hates their fellow men and so will never acknowledge the fact that they were always privileged when compared to the men of their time. That they were gullible enough to buy the lie of the rich and powerful and it was her brother/father/husband who was the cause of her "suffering".
I think you guys are segueing into fiction Rohan P., which is a disheartening reaction to see on an informative post. Women were not paid to “stay at home” and often worked gruelling jobs outside of the home to make ends meet, they were just paid less to do that than men were. Women have also fought in many wars and served in a whole range of roles outside the home, even if they weren’t allowed to fight on the front line — they serve now in Ukraine — but wars like that should be obsolete. Women didn’t get together to invent lethal warfare or impose it upon the world, upper-class men tended to create and foster that injustice, and they still do.
It’s as if there’s a whole narrative now that says the feminist movement was about dominance. Women’s liberation was exactly what it said it was — it was about liberation. It wasn’t about hurting men’s interests, it was about freeing women up to pursue theirs. The MW reference at the end of the article captures the misrepresentation perfectly.
Did I say that women did not work? Or are you foolish enough to believe that the only work important or worthy enough to do was that which was monetarily compensated? How do you think they got food, clothing and shelter? Oh wait, they were paid, directly or indirectly.
Everyone worked. My point is that the vast majority of men weren't privileged when compared to their fellow women; most were significantly worse off. Most men did not even have the right to vote themselves, even when conscripted into war. That is the great lie of feminism and always has been. With that lie, the rich convinced the women to turn on her fellow men and label them all oppressors.
And you are a fool if you think there wouldn't be violence in the world if women are in power; there are studies proving that queens started significantly more wars.
OK honey you win the oppression Olympics. Where should I send your participation trophy?
You can shove it up yours sweetie. That's where it belongs. Just remember to take your head out first.
my father was in WW2 as were everyone his age. don't toss that around the way you are. it's literally everyone. women went to work and then were kicked out of jobs so "the boys" could have them back. please give the whole history of the time, not just cherry-picking, as you called it.
he was in the Army Air Corps. he survived and when he got back, just like every single man who served*, he got a free ride to college. they all did in the US. (the G.I. Bill which is googleable.) it included living expenses, tuition, a low cost mortgage, and one year unemployement. * you just had to serve for at least 90 days - active duty - and not been dishonorably discharged. and that put him in a position to go to graduate school (my mother supported them as he was married at that point.) oh and somewhere in there he made time to go to Korea and fight there too. (he was in the Air Force by then founded in 1947 if anyone's interested.)
that education and cheap mortgage would not have happened if he hadn't gone to war. he probably would have ended up dead in his 40s after working as a physical laborer which is what happened to my grandfather.
we're also talking about a time when women weren't allowed to have checking accounts are bank accounts in their names. women couldn't buy a home. look up the Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1974.
I could go on and on but instead, just crack open a book if you're interested.
I don’t know why your grandfather didn’t know any women in the military, my grandmother was a higher rank than my grandfather who also helped take down Hitler. She outranked him in the military and she worked as much as him when they went to work at the pentagon after.
You write and articulate well, although you hedge a bit with things like rightly or wrongly. You know which of the two it is.
Anyway, what I wanted to say is that men today don’t just believe they’re being penalised for ‘crimes’ of their forefathers. It’s much worse than that. They’re being penalised for crimes that often no one in their lineage committed. The vast majority of men in the past had no power, money or influence. 99% of men toiled away and lived shitty lives. Their offspring now are being told they’ve have generational privilege which they don’t. And are being told we’ll take away some of what you got to make up for what your forefathers never actually had. That’s the reality for most men. Also the children of actual elites are not even in this equation. They go to their own private and elite schools and have generational assets they manage and aren’t competing for a job with Catherine or Alice.
That’s the point the author of this piece doesn’t get and most feminists after the 1st wave don’t get (or are dishonest about). You’re trying to instill reparations and redistribution to equalise what advantages the 1% had by penalising the 99% (whose ancestors mostly didn’t have those advantages). Of course those 99% of men will be pissed.
I don’t live in the U.S. but you refer to ‘reparations’ or ‘redistribution’ which I’ve not heard of happening anywhere for women. What do you mean? What sources are you referring to on that?
You’ve heard of it. You’ve just heard it called “DEI policies” or “affirmative action” or “something equity” or “representation quotas” or some such. I’m just calling it what it is.
Can you give any examples of quota-type ideas leaving the drawing board because I have heard of no such thing.
When I read up on it, mainstream articles say ‘For years, the idea of quotas in the workplace has been touted as the obvious solution [to a lack of diversity]’ BUT then the suggestion is invariably ‘retracted for all manner of reasons.’ e.g. they consider doing it… & they decide not to!
The only country in which I heard of quotas being used was in post-apartheid South Africa to address the crimes of the apartheid era (and I would imagine probably also to prevent civil unrest in apartheid’s aftermath.
I have never heard of hiring quotas being used in the context of feminism and still don’t see what you’re talking about. Never personally come across any such system.
I mean I wasn’t looking for any help, so no none of that helps me with anything I wasn’t looking for help for. I hope it helped you convince yourself of something you seem to need to proclaim to yourself. You’re getting into acrobatics about quotas vs targets which really is telling. I just called a spade a spade and you didn’t seem to like it.
Holy shit this comment section literally proves why this writing is so relevant lol
This does tend to happen quite often under my essays.. 🫠
i was thinking the same thing, daaaang. not only examples of misogyny but of internalized misogyny. i just done understand how you read something like this, including the citations, and still fix yourself to type some of these responses 🤦♀️
I'm a female,at least in biological terms. I've never evolved into a woman and never inspired any sexual interest in me from anyone of any gender or proclivity so I would seem to embody the desired feminist ideal of a woman who can live a totally unmolested life and work to myself pay for everything I do and have. Except real life doesnt work like that. Strangely I've found,indeed I could be an experiment, that if you have no sexual allure or element of interest in your psyche other people dont connect with you. Both men and women. Men ignore you,or rather don't even see you and other women despise and laugh (in a cruel way) at you and certainly do not want to be friends,or Sisters,with you. Thus in the field of employment ...well who would you want in the office all day,that pretty girl who makes mistakes but is so lovely,smiles,is entrancing,is kind and empathic,often funny and makes the place feel a good place to be OR Miss Hannigan/Fanny Squeers. I should start a feminist campaign of my own,LOL,DOUBLE LOL....Equal Rights For Ugly Old Bags... Oh I don't think I'll bother. I'm more misogynistic than most men.
absolutely not. you can look it up instead of being completely wrong, embarrassing for you.
Ikr? Holy shit, is it always like this Katie? I'm just going to come here to know who to proactively block in the future. Dang.
Right?! To be fair, most of these Chuds have no posts or photos or body of work. I suspect the real names are along the lines of Boris or Sergei. And that one woman is just your cookie cutter, racist, British terf.
Ya talking ta me?!! 😆😜
Imagine using Russian names as a pejorative and having the audacity to call others racist. Wow.
Oh, blocking, why didn’t I think of that. There are a couple in here that I would rather never read this newsletter again then have to read that nonsense. Thank you for reminding me I can block here I’ve got some work to do
Yeah don't stop reading what you like, just skip the comments and block as needed.
This article was recommended to me sandwiched between two anti-feminism (and of course transphobic) pieces with nothing but agreement from their commenters... starting to worry about where else their rhetoric is spreading
I agree so much with the overarching argument here. There are cultural entrepreneurs and opportunists, especially among the financial and political elite, who delight in pitting men and women against each other. Zero-sum gender conflict distracts from the way the wealthy and politically powerful are often exploiting us all. Young men men need to realize that the true targets of their outrage and disappointment aren’t women or feminists or the “woke left”, but politicians who deny us fair pay and a robust social safety net while weakening labor laws, rich corporate tools who try to suppress wages and worker movements and create unsafe working environments while refusing to pay their fair share of taxes, etc. Young men should be demanding a better deal from those above them in power, not seeking to reinforce some meager social status over women.
Yup. Pitting men against women, which then forces women to be on perpetual defence, only serves to distract us. But this shouldn't be a fight for dominance over others but for a fairer society for everyone.
There was this Obama era political ad about the “Life of Julia”. In it Obama talked about how at every stage of Julia’s life there was going to be a government program to subsidize her in some way. Even after she had a kid, there was no husband in her life.
Naturally, the taxes to pay for all of these things come from men.
https://afru.com/wp-content/uploads/tax-by-age-and-gender-2010.webp
How do the taxes….. come from men?? I pay taxes, all my friends pay taxes, I don’t know a single woman that doesn’t pay taxes. Wtf?
The math is in the link.
Taxes Paid - Benefits Received = Net Fiscal Impact
If you pay $2,000 and get $10,000 your an $8,000 drain on the system.
Men are net payers, women are a drain.
Another way of thinking about it is that married people of both genders and unmarried men vote republican. Only single women vote democrat, but they do so overwhelmingly. Julia sells her vote to the government in exchange for the government giving her a fiscal windfall.
Ok and…… why do the women receive those benefits? Is it maybe……. to care for the…… children?
Listen I am fine with us putting this to the test. Some countries are already doing it. It’s fine. Don’t give out any benefits, marry your bros, and leave women alone.
That’s gonna be a super good time :)
Well childless women certainly aren't receiving these benefits to care for children.
You see that big fiscal cliff at the end of the graph. That's other people's kids paying for your retirement benefits.
Right and you weirdos don’t want us to vote either. But there’s no patriarchy happening in 2024 huh? Sure
Yeah because that’s how retirement benefits work, we pay for the older generations, future generations pay for us….. where’s the confusion? Why are childless women getting benefits? What are you even talking about? Billionaires doubling their billions each year and you’re concerned some poor person got to eat???
Also ‘married people of both genders vote republican’ my friend you must not know very many people.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/gender-marital-status-wex-w-source-06.png
Yeah I don’t think the figures are showing what you think they are showing.
Yeah I started working at 14 and I didn’t pay taxes that year because I don’t think I was legally allowed to work so it was cash. But I did pay taxes for 25 years, and I remained Childfree so I didn’t use any public schools after I turned 18 I didn’t get any benefits . . .
The real conflict isn’t between men and women, but between everyday people and the powerful who manipulate these divisions for their own gain. By keeping us distracted with zero-sum gender conflicts, the wealthy and politically elite can continue exploiting us all.
It’s time to shift the focus upwards, not sideways.
So close. Blaming it all on business misses the true villain in human history, big government. It has the guns and taxation to make you do whatever it wants. It’s the form of greatest murder and torture in human history.
Relying on that group to save you from the rich that use the Govt to outlaw their competition is not going to save you.
It’s all about finding the correct target for the justified palpable outrage in society right now.
I have never read a more misguided article. The author imagines how she thinks young men think. In reality, young men are not upset at women doing well. They are upset at being looked down on for being male while white ladies exploit marginalized groups for their own benefit, or sometimes, just for kicks. Furthermore, they dislike seeing women demand "equality" then ask for special treatment, something that has become so common that most white women cannot even see it.
There would be no problem if the loudest activist women wanted equality. The problem occurs when these priviledged white women want special treatment, then call it equality. Most preferences for white women are inherently unfair. Furthermore, many changes to the American educational system over the last fifty years do appear to be directed at harming poor black and brown boys. Almost all of these changes were made by rich white ladies who directly profited off of them. They benefit only these rich white ladies, and come at a massive cost, but lazy teachers like it, so why not? Similarly, urban school districts waste so much money on "consulting" charlatans who often justify their scam by claiming that "women should get rich too." We are happy to see female entrepreneurs, but not at the cost of poor children's education. Entrepreneurs belong in the private sector using private capital. Any programs to set aside business or favor the disadvantages should not be available to white women, only those who truly need them.
No reasonable men are upset at female achievement. They are upset at preferences that favor white women when these women are the most priviledged group. Any programs benefitting white women are apartheid, pure and simple. The number of hand-outs given to rich men's wives and daughters, at the expense of minorities, is incomprehensibly cruel and has become that last bastion of white supremacy.
We are creating a bizarre overclass of rich white ladies who imagine that their lives are hard, when in reality they are exploiting marginalized groups to enrich themselves, and then glow in their Progressive Glory. I will go out of my way to single out white women. There is no problem promoting black women or Latino or Asian women, but white women stealing from marginalized groups needs to stop, Even more so, rich white ladies smearing and denigrating the LGBT community needs to be recognized for what it is, pure bigotry and entitlement.
This article is criticizing an imaginary straw man. If you want to look for problems, look at the white women going out of their way to exploit and harm marginalized groups. There are no men's groups decrying female literacy or employment. Men and women should work together for a better world. Title IX is no longer relevant in female-dominated universities. If anything, we need to re-set our educational system to better benefit everyone, not only rich white ladies.
You conveniently leave out the obliteration of males’ legal rights.
When a female can proclaim without any evidence whatsoever to have been raped/sexually assaulted/ harassed and the targeted male has little to no chance of true justice, things get ugly fast.
My sons don’t hate females. They hate unjust, irrational law that makes them de facto second class citizens.
And I don’t blame them one iota.
you are aware that fewer than 3 in 100 rapes recorded by UK police last year ended up with convictions? that's just the rapes that were recorded. think of how many women and femme people were too afraid to even report them because they saw the failings of the justice system to defend them. i'm sure it's a similar situation where you are in the world too.
How are you defining the word “rape?”
I think you're writing from the UK, so perhaps that colors your economic analysis. I appreciate your willingness to try and come up with rational reasons for this, but at least in the US, you can not point to economics for the young men because they are doing a lot better than Gen X did at their age. Yes upward transfer of wealth and the oligarchy gobbling everything for themselves and all that is true, but it has been true for many decades now. Reality Bites and many movies from 30 years ago were about how no one in their 20s could get a job other than working at the Gap and were struggling with debt etc, and Millennials have done much better than we did at their age, yet none of this misogyny was happening.
So I really don't think that's it. That would be a weird projection anyway, since males as so much more into wealth and income extreme inequality in the first place...they actively support those policies.
IMO there are two reasons for their bitter, self-pitying misogyny: the first is that they are no longer getting beat up by other men. As in, literally beat up. Prior to roughly the 80s or 90s, if you were a man you were going to experience direct violence from another man at some point, and frequent threats of it. It was basically unavoidable. First of all your dad probably hit you. And second of all you were going to get into a fight at least once at school or even just on the street or whatever. Most young men today have never been hit. When there are other men literally punching you in the face, it's a lot harder to project your whining and complaints on women.
Now most male violence is sublimated into fantasies and video games and keyboard jockeying. And apparently that isn't enough for them, because so many young guys have utterly fantastical delusions about societal collapse and impending civil war or revolution and they just really get off on that idea. So consider the possibility that in fact most young men have an inherent attraction to and desire for some level of violence, and if they don't get any of it in real life (which most don't), they need outlets or fantasies or they start just turning into paranoid conspiracy minded bitter haters. Many examples on this site.
It's actually highly annoying to me that I know people will disagree and bristle at the notion that most young men actually crave and need a bit of violence in their life, even though a trillion dollar market in fake warfare and death via video games has sprung out of this demand, and most young men choose to spend half their free time playing at fake war.
The second reason is that even though young men now have material abundance unrivaled by any group of humans in history, and FAR more access to sex than any group of humans in history...the offerings are beyond the wildest dreams of kings and emperors of the past...it doesn't matter because mass media and the internet is just shoving fantasies about other people's better lives in their face 24-7. This is a problem for everyone, of course, not just young men. But even though for 99.9% of men who ever lived, they only ever got to have sex with one woman their whole life and maybe not even one, and there was only like a couple dozen even available in the first place, while nowadays they're likely to have 5-100x as many, and millions more options...it doesn't matter. Because porn is telling their lizard brain every day that there are massive numbers of ultra hot women engaging in every sick and depraved act known to man, constantly all the time, with someone who isn't them.
Why do they project all their grievances and woes on to women? Because they're a soft target. Their moms and most women are generally sympathetic and will try to persuade or cajole or reason with them. At the very least, they aren't going to punch them in the face.
Which in a sense is too bad because they don't appreciate the soft touch, AT ALL, and if anything it just further fuels their resentment. Try being nice and you just get hostility reaped upon you from these guys.
TLDR version: they're suffering from a mental disease of affluence and media-induced fantasies shot into their brain 12 hrs a day every day, and not having any real violence in their life. Most would be cured if dropped off and forced to live in a third world country for a year, and the ones who do suffer actual deprivation and violence don't form most of this group, at least in the US. Mostly they're thoroughly middle class and overly comfortable.
This is a very interesting point. As someone from a country that has gone through war I can tell you that it is a bit of an awakening to common sense and it does bring a sort of grit you don’t always see in the more comfortable societies. I am not a proponent of hitting children but I am a proponent of manufacturing some struggle if no real struggle is available, because being spoiled as a child is annoying but being spoiled as an adult is insufferable.
Oh look, another crazy misandrist...
Unorthodox perspective but not inaccurate
I know you like to exaggerate the numbers, but « 99.9% » with only 1 woman or less? « 5-100x » as many and « millions » of options? You do realize that if it was actually the case, the average number of sexual partners would be close the one of gay men? And that there would be no talk of « sexless generation » or incels right? Also what about the frequency of sex and the quality of women (mainly talking about body fat here)?
Not saying that the average quality of young men did not decrease, but the 1980 era does look much better sexually for men in many metrics, even though I did not live them.
Your take on lack of violence for men is interesting and probably explains part of the problem. I always found that there was a huge aesthetic problem with progressives and I don’t think there is much they can do about it
Well I said 5 to 100x as many to capture the range. Recent studies say that the median number of women a man has slept with by the time he marries is about 10. And certainly there are a few guys with counts of 100 (or even higher who claim like 1000 but I was trying to leave out outliers).
Most men historically getting 1 or maybe even none I think is correct. At least in the western and far East world, I don't know much about ancient southern hemisphere societies. But even just if you talk to or read letters/memoirs of typical guys in the US from silent generation or older, most of them only ever slept with their wife. Half of them barely knew what sex was when they got married and had never seen a naked woman. And most people lived an agrarian lifestyle where they never left a 50 mile radius of their home and just would never even meet very many people. Women were either pregnant or breast feeding most of their lives from teenagers to 40, and most would already be taken, so a man would just have very few untaken, non already pregnant women to even meet or choose from. And then you'd have a portion living in convents who were off the table entirely. It's not like now when boys and girls go to school and are around hundreds of others for years, most people didn't go to school 100+ years ago and if they did it was for a short period and they were already working by adolescence.
So I think yes, opportunity wise there are so many more options today it's almost impossible to exaggerate. In fact, it's possible that that alone is a source of the psychological angst and instability...brains were not evolved for a context where there are just thousands of unattached, non-pregnant fertile females walking around everywhere you go. Like access to sugar and easy calories has warped metabolic systems designed for scarcity, perhaps abundance of sexual opportunities warps psychological functioning that was designed for similar scarcity and a motivation to immediately capture every opportunity.
As for appearance, sure people are way fatter now. But also better looking on a lot of other measures from teeth/oral health to simply looking much much younger for much much longer. I suppose everyone gets attached to their own coming of age era so maybe you have fondness for the 80s, but I often hear elderly people remark on how astonishing it is that people are so much better looking today than they used to be. A 30 year old from a few decades ago looks like a 50 year old today. Plus you have to take into account that people just didn't take many photos pre late 20th century, it was expensive and difficult, so photos were reserved for special occasions where people were looking their best, or for subjects considered particularly attractive or important. We don't really have many or any photos of what regular people looked like from before the mid 20th century. If you go off painted portraits, which were all done to be as flattering as possible for the richest people, they don't look so great. But anyway I'm not sure what appearance has to do with this anyway, at all times people make their judgments based on what's around them. What's different today is that everyone has images of impossibly hot people...most of whom aren't even real or are heavily modified illusions...who bear little resemblance to the people around them.
I have never considered that men are inherently violent or that they need inherent violence, because that always felt uncharitable. But honestly, a lot of present evidence supports that theory. You may be onto something.
It's like anything, there's a spectrum. Plenty of them certainly are not. But a sizeable minority are very much attracted to it and it's very obvious. That group has run and been the source of demand for all kinds of horrific violence as entertainment throughout history...dog fights, bull and bear baiting, cock fighting, boxing. They love their fake war video games. Plenty of young men throughout history and some still today have dreamed about and looked forward to going to war and doing battle (though often get an enormous reality check once they go), etc.
Psychologically healthy women generally have a very strong aversion to these things. The few who seem into it were generally raised to be that way and strongly encouraged by their fathers and brothers to live up to and meet their standards for male "toughness", and spend their life trying to to be the son their father wished they were.
Unfortunately, it appears that the world we've managed to create, with an actually nice standard of living as the base level, and one relatively free of violence, has left them with a psychological itch they can't scratch. This is why I think it's basically pointless trying to be understanding or empathetic or reasoning with them (even though I stupidly do it all the time). You can see what you get for your good faith attempts, in some of these comments. And this is not even remotely the worst of it!
Totally. I see the entrenchment in this mindset and you’re right, there is no reasoning with it. I have to get better about walking away.
Me too, but I have enjoyed reading your cracking comments!!
Ha! Apparently I can’t help myself sometimes - they’re just so easy to anger❤️
And who do you suggest should administer violence towards women to keep them disciplined?
I've started this reply many times but given up. Why? Because it requires such a long post to disentangle what you consider to have been a clever riposte. And at the end of all my hard work you will not be in the least bit interested in what I say as is your right. On that basis, I will leave you with your sense of smug satisfaction, enjoy :-)
There has never been a time when everything is right in the world. Things are mostly better for most than they've ever been. Humans and especially males are built to struggle, however, so perhaps they can't handle things being too nice and easy.
Well that's going to be fixed quite soon when we're all plunged into war. Especially now I hear the USA is requesting us Brits to bomb Iran,typical as usual we get deputed to do the dirty work.
The one thing men can depend on from feminist women is a complete lack of empathy. At least feminist women don't have to waste any time on caring for anyone other than themselves.
so true
It is always a pleasure to read an article with a logically clear structure like this: a well-supported point of view, several data to compare, fluid readability with many really intriguing insights and deep reflections that bring historical data and counter-views as well as possible counter-arguments. Thank you so much for sharing, in addition to being a very relevant and well-argued topic, the way you treated it is inspiring.
Thank you, Riccardo! So glad to hear you enjoyed this one, too.
Oh look at that, feminism doubled down on the shame game and wonders why so many ‘allies’ are moving away.
The question that no one seems to be asking is: Are we using merit in our decision making as to who is being admitted to top universities, hired or promoted the best jobs or are we currently discriminating against whites, Asians and men in an attempt to compensate for past discrimination against others?
If we are currently discriminating based on race and sex and recent Supreme Court cases suggest that we are then don’t those currently being discriminated against have a legitimate grievance just as women and blacks did in the past? Just asking.
Fascinating. Are all these so-called manfluencers too busy mansplaining to see that raising up their women (read: wives, mothers, sisters, daughters and granddaughters) and seeing them as equals doesn’t diminish, but strengthens them in the eyes of more than 50 percent of the world’s population?
Dishonest
“The way forward is to acknowledge what we all stand to lose if we don’t work together and what we all can gain if we do.”
*Yes.*
(sidenote: I’m a newbie subscriber to Katie Jgln’s substack and the comments section is **WILD**. Is it always like this?)
Thanks for the great article, putting into words something that I was already frustrated about but can't express as eloquently. It does feel like the root causes of young men's issues are being blamed on women as a scapegoat, which is unsurprising given how often this strategy is used in politics.
I find the statistics around women being more educated than men but earning less very interesting. I wonder if some of this is the unfortunate self-selection out of higher paying jobs that women are likely to do (not applying to jobs unless meeting 100% of the criteria, compared to 60% for men). Of course there are important systemic reasons for this too but it is so interesting that on paper women may be more qualified but not compensated accordingly.
When women work the same hours at the same job, they are paid the same (or more, as the article even admits). Women value time off and other things more than men and take less pay for those benefits.
Surely pay shouldn't need to be sacrificed for those benefits?
I fully agree with what you say in this article. In one of my previous articles, I wrote that we might need to rebrand 'feminism' and prioritise addressing this anger felt by young men because it's not going away and only increasing. Dismantling the patriarchy is good for all of us, but it can only come if we all understand the benefits of doing so. You can find it here: https://femmefactale.substack.com/p/mind-the-generation-gap-a-crisis
>Dismantling the patriarchy is good for all of us, but it can only come if we all understand the benefits of doing so.
Literally no young males will believe this. And we also aren't as prone to the propaganda as women. I had a group of 22 male friends my age and if any of them voiced political opinions along these lines they would instantly be kinda treated like a weird crazy person. I'm sorry this narrative is just never gonna work, so find a new one. Have you tried just blaming men again? I don't know maybe this time it'll work.
“We aren’t as prone to propaganda as women”. Interesting, since according to stats, men are more likely to believe conspiracy theories and fall prey to far right parties. Do you call fighting for a more equal society propaganda? I’m interested to know what friends you have because all my male friends, including my partner, would agree that the patriarchy hasn’t served them or women (obviously). Maybe instead of accusing me of trying to find a suitable narrative for everyone, you can come up with some ideas. Or maybe you prefer sitting in a patriarchal bubble and calling women who voice their opinions “weird crazy” people. By the way, nothing in my mind directly blames men… I love the men in my life. I blame a patriarchal society.
My friends are all young and around my age: 20. I call fighting for an unsustainable society post-human; My problem with equality is that it is unsustainable and bad. Something something Kurt Vonnegut. I don't care about "propaganda". That can be good or bad depending on whether it's me getting to spread it. It is a very woman-pilled thing to do to fall for normative connotation. Or maybe I'm just autistic.
Consider that men are more likely to get in fatal car crashes. This doesn't stop literally ALL current F1 drivers from being male. Sure we'll fall for more propaganda! I'd bet on it!
And I said men aren't as prone to THE propaganda. The post-human urban monoculture colloquially called "woke" propaganda. This doesn't stop a woke dork from lighting themselves on fire over an inter-ethnic/religious conflict half a world away. Men are the best and worst of humanity, typically. We're the psychopaths and the diplomats. The male bell curve is typically wider. Your inability to understand this fact and it's logical fallout is a large reason why you're a feminist (and more importantly, wrong about most things). Of course we're going to believe more dumb shit. And be more retarded. We're men. We're also going to discover and then split the atom.
I love the women in my life. And there are many women I seriously respect for their intellect and intellectual contributions. I can scarcely think of someone I properly hate in general. I blame a post-human society.
But you don't hate just a *patriarchal* society. You hate society. Maybe you don't MEAN to hate society, but functionally "impact matters more than intent" right? Because the only sustainable societies are patriarchal, thus you're condemned to hate the only societies that will exist. Beyond that you hate natural selection. But I'm reminded of Carl Sagan, though I'm paraphrasing: "It would be silly to hate the world for being explained by evolution, so the Christians hated science, which was the thing that told everyone that the world was explained by evolution."
It's funny you should propose providing alternative narratives. I have precisely such a thing.
You *pilled AF* bro.
“Men are the best and worst of humanity, typically.” What bloviating bullshit. Get your head out of your arse. And while you’re at it, provide the definitive proof of the greater male variability hypothesis. You know, the evidence that proves the “facts” you’re asserting.
Here’s one study concluding no evidence for GMVH: http://publicationslist.org/data/daniel.noble/ref-77/Harrison,%20Noble,%20Jennions_2021_Biological%20Reviews_%20A%20meta-analysis%20of%20sex%20differences%20in%20animal%20personality.pdf
Then we can talk about Marie Curie, the woman on whose work Rutherford depended in order to split the atom.
“the only sustainable societies are patriarchal” Sure bro, if “sustainable” refers to crashing/ burning/ imploding/ collapsing. Which is what *numerous* patriarchal societies have done over the past millennia.
Fucking read some books.
And speaking of Marie Curie, she was a single mother, who raised her two daughters alone after their father passed away. While overseeing their education, she continued her research and ended up winning 2 Nobel prizes. Her oldest daughter became a scientist alongside her and won her own Nobel prize. Marie’s younger daughter was a journalist and author who won the National Book Award for a biography on her mother. So a far cry from "jail inmates of the future"...
Marie Curie was an awesome woman. I think more woman should be like her. It is an impressive and wonderful feat to contribute to humanity both by having and raising productive kids and by making intellectual contributions of your own!
Boom. Gotta love facts!!
I somehow knew someone would reference Curie. I just got this tingly sensation and viola someone did it. I thought "well curie did somewhat discover radiation but that is a bit of a stretch and we wouldn't say that darwin discovered genes just because he discovered evolution...". I suppose when you've got to stretch to find evidence of your worldview that's what you'll do.
But it doesn't disprove anything I said. I did not say women could not be geniuses. I did not say women were even less mentally capable of being geniuses. Your reading comprehension could use some work. I only said males would inevitably achieve more. Both good and bad. Many women have a very easy time agreeing with this when it comes to man's inherent propensity to commit violence.
The REASONS for greater male variability in ability across almost all fields and subjects and quantifiable statistics are up for debate. But they're hardly deniable. I gave you an example: F1 drivers are male but so are basically all extremely reckless and dangerous drivers. Hell, men are so good at their own sports now they're competing in women sports and winning those as well!
What I think explains this variation best has little to do with inherent intelligence, and more to do with inherent incentives. Men are inherently more interested in doing and being the extremes. We're far more likely to be autisticaly obsessive, at the very least due to the fact that we're far more likely to BE autistic. Its a sort of testosterone feeling it would be very hard for a woman to "get".
I think its quite funny you object that patriarchal societies are better at surviving. Its not just "numerous" patriarchal societies that have collapsed! It's ALL of them! But I'm laughing out loud typing this because it's like saying 100% of paralympic athletes are disabled. OBVIOUSLY! It's a prerequisite! The only societies that can really exist are patriarchal! And because all societies fall, all societies that fall will have been patriarchies.
You: “ The male bell curve is typically wider….. Of course we're going to believe more dumb shit. And be more retarded. We're men. We're also going to discover and then split the atom.”
Me, refuting your claim that Rutherford splitting the atom supports the theory of a wider male bell curve: Rutherford depended on the work of *a woman* in order to split the atom. To spell it out for you: This indicates equivalency of intellect, so undermines a claim of Rutherford being an example of a man whose intelligence outstrips the intelligence of all women.
You: “I only said males would inevitably achieve more.” Despite:
1. Me pointing out earlier that you haven’t provided evidence of GMVH being conclusively proven.
2. Me linking to a study undermining GMVH.
3. Me undermining the example you gave in support of GMVH,
You *still have not* provided evidence that GMVH is conclusively proven. GMVH is the crux of your argument and you *haven’t provided evidence that it is correct*. Can you not see how dumb that is?
This: “ F1 drivers are male but so are basically all extremely reckless and dangerous drivers.” is a fucking story with zero statistical analysis provided in support.
You’re arguing in favour of inherent male superiority (remember, you said “males would inevitably achieve more”) on fucking *vibes* - aka misogyny.
You: “The only societies that can really exist are patriarchal!” Total bullshit - here’s 6 *current examples* of matriarchal societies existing: https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/tradition/g28565280/matriarchal-societies-list/
As I said, you’re pilled AF. It’s rotted your brain. Go read a book.
If men are more prone to believe conspiracy theories it's because they have better analytical thinking skills than women and can recognize the truth. The world is full of single mothers and their drecky sprogs because a man just has to say to these women,,"I love you,and I'll be in your life forever,you're beautiful,let's fuck" see,no analytical thinking skills there and another jail inmate of the future born.
I won’t even dignify your fucked up, hateful comment with an appropriate answer.
It was a bit crude but let's just say if a woman's intuition was all that it is cracked up to be there would be a lot less single mothers.
Interesting. As a counter question, I'd like to ask you to give me evidence of how the patriarchy has benefitted you. I agree that poverty and increased inequality is a major issue, but I would ask you to assess how patriarchy and poverty are linked. According to Legal Momentum, 70% of America's poor are women and children. Women in America are still 35 percent more likely than men to be poor. This is due to women making up 60% of the nation's lowest paid workers, 0 maternity leave, lack of affordable childcare, lack of affordable maternity care, lack of pension payments due to childcare and often the fact that they are the ones more likely to be primary caregivers to vulnerable family members. On the other side of the Atlantic, the UK has seen a stark increase in violence against women and girls (37% in the last 5 years), recently prompting the UK Home Office to classify VAWG as "a national threat to public safety". Access to abortion and contraception is being challenged not only in the US but by far-right parties across Europe as well. And guess who they predominantly target? Young men and boys, by repeatedly feeding them this narrative that the frustration they feel with feminism is legitimate, that their rights are being jeopardised by the fact that women have gained more of their own, that the only way forward is to return to "traditional" notions of family (it goes without saying that they mean heterosexual family). This is happening in the western world; of course, there are more direct and horrifying examples to be taken from other corners of the globe, such as with the Taliban in Afghanistan.
(https://press.un.org/en/2024/wom2231.doc.htm) "In his opening remarks, United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres stressed: 'Patriarchy is far from vanquished; it is regaining ground'. Women and girls are also facing a war on their fundamental rights at home and in their communities. Autocrats and populists are promoting what they call 'traditional values' to attack women’s sexual and reproductive rights. 'We cannot accept a world in which grandmothers fear their granddaughters will enjoy fewer rights than they had,' he said, also noting that these power relations are being replicated in digital technologies. When technological systems are designed by men, they result in biased algorithms that ignore women’s needs and women’s bodies."
Now is not the time for complacency. We have to ask questions and find solutions that are fairer for both genders. Patriarchy is restrictive for men and women, and it is feeding the rising inequality we all suffer from (minus a select few). To reinforce my point: According to Statista, as of 2022, about 88% of the world's billionaires were men. In 2024, that number dropped to 13.3% women, or 369 out of 2,781 billionaires.
“because if your teenage girlfriend gets pregnant, for example, it's as much your problem as hers if you were raised right.”
Fact is, the father in this situation has zero rights whatsoever.
You can’t have it both ways.
You are missing the point. What I’m saying is that contraception is key for both genders and, to put it less eloquently, it takes two to tango. These conversations are to be had together. That said, we can all agree that a pregnancy and the act of raising a child will mostly change the life of that teenage girl for all the reasons I wrote about above. It’s normal that she never be forced into a pregnancy. Unfortunately, with abortion under attack and now even access to contraception coming under fire, especially in the US, this is not the case for many women and girls. Throughout history, women’s reproductive rights have come under attack for the sole reason of controlling them.
I am *absolutely* not the woman with whom you want to engage on this topic. You’ve apparently precious little life experience.
WOW. That’s bold of you to assume. If only you knew… but, you’re right, I’d prefer not to engage with you. Can’t believe we’re still having to defend a woman’s right to choose what happens with her body in 2024. It’s even more of a reason for me to keep speaking up.
You didn't answer my question of how you think it's benefitting you, first of all.
Secondly, there are shifts in rhetoric that prove that this notion of the 'traditional family' is gaining ground, particularly pushed by far right parties and Trump in the US. It's obvious that they are gaining ground unless you live under a rock. France almost voted far right only a few weeks ago, which is unprecedented for the country. The far right is built on patriarchal values. This quote, however, was taken from the UN Secretary-General. There are also direct signs, such as what is happening with abortion in the US, and violence against women in the UK. I can go on and on with examples of how we still live in a patriarchy, especially as a young mother, having had nearly zero maternity leave, having seen many of my friends made redundant during their maternity leave, and having really suffered from a lack of affordable childcare. I was once told by my childless CFO, that having children is a lifestyle choice? Upper management was almost solely made up of men, who were not going to concern themselves with my maternity leave. Someone above said that men just don't care that much about abortion. I disagree. My partner and my male friends care, and they all should, because if your teenage girlfriend gets pregnant, for example, it's as much your problem as hers if you were raised right. I think I've shown how this has regained ground in my previous comment. What I would really like to know is how you think patriarchy has benefitted you, but you don't seem too keen to answer the question.
in the US we literally have men crusading against abortion care, and not just with rhetoric but with policy.
Relax buddy, polls from years ago show that men and women had very close opinions on abortion in the us. Only in the last few years has there been a shift, and men remained stable and it is women that shifted to pro-choice since change in legislature in many states. And men do just care less about this issue overall. Those facts are kind of expected given that men care in general less about anything and are less impacted by abortion laws.
Hopefully, you can now sleep better knowing that men as a group are not « crusading » against women as a group.
we may have ‘closer’ opinions but it doesn’t change the policies spearheaded by men that are being passed that hurt women’s health, sorry maybe you’re one of the ‘men who care in general less about anything and are less impacted by abortion laws’ so you should ‘relax buddy’ and sit this one out since you don’t give a fuck and are just in the comments to give your opinion you clearly don’t really care about dang. move out the way then
My fragile man heart was broken by your apparent hate/paranoïa of men so I could not relax sis. Abortion restrictions are pushed by the religious factions. Religions have more women amongst their believers in most religions. So can we really say « spearheaded by men » when abortion restrictions are the work of the Christian faction in the Republican Party for the us?
And I mean you should just accept that demographics that are not concerned by the negative side of some new rules/restrictions, would have less problem with it. This whole thing is just a debate between « are we killing a life? From which week? » vs « the freedom and the comfort of women is important ».
i don’t hate men at all, you don’t even know me to be making statements like that. i only responded to the things that you said and now you’re making things up about me to fit your narrative. religion may have more women in their factions (according to you, bc this is such a broad statement but suuure) but it doesn’t mean that the men aren’t in charge, esp when deferring to the man is built into certain religious practices. i don’t really understand your world salad, i think any rational person with eyes and ears and empathy can see what’s been happening. find a new hobby than replying nonsense to strangers on the internet.
The patriarchy is why my daughters have to carry mace at night but my friend’s sons don’t. The patriarchy is why rapists go free, so that 1 in 4 women get to experience rape firsthand, a number experts agree is severely underreported. The patriarchy is why most CEO’s are men. The patriarchy is why, despite a stunning report from the Atlantic citing that 1 out of 7000 births are due to incestual rape, no other news outlets reported it and nothing was done. The patriarchy is why black women go through the shit they do in my country, since it dovetails so nicely with racism. The patriarchy is why maternal mortality is abysmal in the U.S. and, despite there being easy fixes, no one implements them. The patriarchy is why there is no research put towards menopause, and why most doctors don’t talk about it or treat it. The patriarchy is the reason for intensely lopsided funding in all medical research towards men’s issues and men’s bodies. The patriarchy is why men decided to call an Olympic athlete a man who should be disqualified because she did not meet the standard of beauty that white men decided on. I’m also a Gen Xer, and I’m still catcalled and made to feel unsafe outside of my house. If you’ve known anyone with a tragic pregnancy involving birth defects, no, 15 weeks is not a reasonable place to be. Why should the government get to discard women’s humanity once they have sex? But not men’s? Have you read some of these comments from angry old men? Do you not feel their seething, violent rage? Abortion…“It seems to be the only issue…” you say. Well, yes, having the agency to decide when and if you have kids, when and if you get to live without permanent organ disability, or live at all, when and if you will be thrown into poverty trying to raise the kid you didn’t want seems like it covers many many aspects of a woman’s life, no? Neither side is being reasonable?! Why would the government need to legislate grief? The small percentage of abortions that happen after 15 weeks are tragedies. My government can’t properly legislate road construction or tax collection, but you want them in charge of millions of women’s bodies?! Why?! Do you believe that women are running around getting abortions for fun? After picking out cribs, and blankets, and having people pat your belly? You hate other women that much? That you wish to make them suffer further and plead a case to lawyers and a hospital board while their dead baby leaks out between their thighs?
Patriarchy is the reason men are looking to use women’s bodies in their freaky, pro-natalist quest to birth children instead of say, tweaking economic systems to adjust for normal, lower birth rates. Patriarchy is the reason women lose their last names, and in most parts of the world, patriarchy is the reason for last names at all. I won’t even get into sexual assault or femicide statistics across the globe. Or my First Nation sisters, who suffer disproportionately at the hands of men of all colors. And yes, it is classism at its core, because the only reason we have this version of patriarchy is feudalism. See, women used to do the same jobs as men, but when feudal lords noticed that the peasants didn’t produce enough children to staff wars and fend off invasion, they incentivized women to stay in the home. It is all connected, for sure, but to think the patriarchy went away, when we still depend on institutions and establishments designed by and for men, strikes me as naive.
1 in 4 must be the biggest exaggeration I've ever heard in my life.
Numbers are numbers. DNA also doesn’t lie. But keep soothing yourself. As an American, I don’t need a man to protect me. I have a gun for that, to protect me FROM men. And 20/20 vision. 2A all the way.
Whatever helps you sleep at night, lady.
Aaaaah, I see. You’re one of the racists. K that makes sense, nm.
I love this line of thinking, Katie. It is a winner take all approach rather than thinking of success and growth as renewable resources to be shared.
Social status *is* zero sum. By historical standards (outside of some cases of mentally ill/drug addicted homeless people), poverty has been eradicated in the United States - yet it still exists. 20% of the population still feels poor, as has always been the case. An example of social status or security being zero sum: Year 1900, a man and a woman get married. The man is certain that the woman he has married will not leave him - he can choose to commit a large amount to the marriage or decide to get married at all without a divorce looming over his head. Yet the woman has little to no recourse if the man mistreats or even abuses her. To improve the woman's situation divorces are allowed without justification, eroding the man's trust in the prospect of marriage - lowering his position and having him put half his assets on the line at the whims of emotion with no legal recourse. Women (at least by material metrics) won, men lost. In many ways gender relations are zero sum. The other example being scholarships and leadership positions. In order for women to rise, men had to fall. Exclusive awards and opportunities were granted to women and denied to men causing the proportion of female elite workers and leaders to rise and males to fall. Of course throughout history in all societies men were granted exclusive awards and opportunistic, which were denied to women, and so men made up all elite positions. This just further illustrates my point - for women to rise, men had to fall.
This was my quick and disjointed response.
So I agree with you on basic principle. I think there is a handoff happening. You do have to reduce someone’s privilege in order to share it around. Like the pie from the text - if you’re used to wolfing down a whole pie every night for dinner getting a reasonable slice will definitely feel like a downgrade - because it is.
But the men investing in marriage thing is a little flawed because in most relationships today both sides work and invest in the marriage financially. I feel like a lot of men fall for these inflated stories of how women want their money when they don’t actually objectively have any money. Or as someone eloquently put it ‘you’re afraid of gold diggers but you ain’t got no gold.’
So there are some real losses, but some are just perceived or wildly inflated. Let’s not forget that statistically men are way more likely to walk out on their family than women and many of them end up just flat out not paying any child support nor being chased for it. I personally know multiple cases of women who are owed child support but are just letting it go and providing for themselves because it’s not worth the emotional hassle.
So yeah, there’s two sides and it would serve us well to untangle them from each other
>You do have to reduce someone’s privilege in order to share it around. Like the pie from the text - if you’re used to wolfing down a whole pie every night for dinner getting a reasonable slice will definitely feel like a downgrade - because it is.
You are missing my point. I'm agnostic towards gender equality - my point is strictly that for one group's status (in this case a gender) to rise, an opposing group's must fall. You claim that this fall in status is a necessary thing as groups should have equal social status, I never made any claims about this in my first comment.
….yeah? That’s how conversations work. Someone makes a point and someone else builds on it. No?