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.
You haven't looked very hard. Hiring quotas are discrimination. Bringing in an army of male "newcomers" and giving corporations a 10K tax credit to hire them is discrimination against American workers, mostly men. Politicians saying that we have "white male privilege" until corporations believe it is discrimination. Washington has business loan programs specifically for women but nothing specifically for men. ESG and DEI are both direct discrimination targeting white males. The legal system and divorce courts discriminate against men. Just try to get a job as a secretary and, if your a guy, tell me how it goes. I mention secretarial work because those are the most available jobs in this town that pay above minimum wage, and they all automatically go to women. On the other hand, you have a much better chance of being hired into your local police department if you're a woman than if your a man. Are you beginning to see the picture?
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.
I'm retired and my body is trashed from a lifetime of physically demanding work. Right now a secretarial job would be the perfect supplement to my SSI check. However, I don't apply because I'm the wrong gender. The fact of the matter is all of the decent jobs in this town are women's jobs. My choices are either pump gas or continue to work on my options trading. I think I'll just stick with options.
Secretarial / admin (and then managerial) jobs used to be given to shop floor workers as a promotion. This gave shop floor workers (men obviously) a chance to get promoted up the ladder.
It also meant those jobs were occupied by men who had years of experience on the shop floor and so knew exactly how the company operated at all levels.
One of the effects of women entering the workplace is that secretarial jobs often became women's ENTRY point. This blocked those shop floor workers from promotion and also created companies full of women secretaries, admit and managers who had no practical experience.
Then came HR departments and other 'busy work' mostly aimed at providing women paid employment, in a safe and comfortable office environment... all at the expense of productivity, efficiency and profitability.
Another consequence of this is that every day homes across the nation (and whole neighbourhoods) now lie empty .... children get dumped onto 'daycare' strangers all day long ...... consumer spending skyrockets (nobody has time to make home cooked meals or even a sandwich)..... and everybody is stressed, exhausted and unhappy.
If you question this 'progress' you get called 'sexist', even though everyone is suffering from the effects.
The male equivalent of feminism - I suppose - would have been men abandoning their power stations, trucks, cargo ships and steel mills to go and live a more 'fulfilling' lifestyle as nannies, midwives and 'helping out' alongside mothers in the home ..... (with new jobs in the home created just for men to be occupied).
... and then when millions of women start fuming because there's no electricity, the food supply has collapsed and the roads are full of potholes, these men say "But this is equality! Men have shrugged off their oppressive gender roles. You can't complain, that's sexism!"
I like to think 'gender equality' went in that direction in some parallel universe :)
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…
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.
get your typing over 80 wpm and get so good at MS suite (word, excel esp. but you'll jump ahead of everyone if you learn sharepoint). go to a temp service and sit down and to the tests.
if you score well and type with accuracy, they will start sending you out. eventually people offer you jobs. it happens a lot if you're good, organized, and have common sense.
that's how I've gotten every secretarial job I've ever held.
if you'd really like to do that, just go get the training and find a temp service. really.
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.
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.
"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."
Our society is very gynocentric. All it takes is for women to say, "I'm unhappy!" and society will rush to try to solve the "problem". Politicians on both sides of politics pander to women constantly, due to both gynocentrism and a pragmatic desire to get votes from a bloc that's more than 50% of voters.
So when feminists say, supposedly on behalf of women, "We're unhappy! You have to discriminate against men more to make us happy again", they get what they ask for. So naturally they do it again. And again. And again. Until we reach the point we are at today.
Women are now privileged and propped up in every aspect of society. Men are not only discriminated against for the benefit of women, they are also blamed for women's own failings and treated with utter contempt, despite the fact that men almost exclusively still do the hard & necessary work to keep society functioning.
Feminism has been a disaster for society, a plague. We need to end it so the world can heal. Fortunately we are reaching the point where things are so bad that people are starting to understand what's wrong, and that feminism is to blame.
I wasn't expecting a rational argument. Experience has consistently shown that feminists are incapable of rational argument. 100% of the time they either launch an emotional, insult-filled personal attack or make an excuse and run away.
You fell in line with typical feminist behavior perfectly, thank you.
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.
We're simply are relying on a different set of statistics so I won't debate you on any of this. Nevertheless, have you been to your local bank recently? You may have noticed that the managers are all women. However, when my father worked in a bank all of the managers were men. I get an email from LinkedIn every day. All of the project managers are women. I never see a male project manager. I could go on and on about how badly men are being replaced by women in corporate America. The last I heard we have 106 million working age unemployed people in this country. 75% of those unemployed people are men. The women have stolen our jobs and our lifeline for starting a family. We've been emasculated. This is a recipe for revolution, and if it happens women will be back in the kitchen and cranking out babies again. We've seen just about enough of this shit. BTW, I did cover some of the class warfare stuff below, which you had touched upon.
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.
It's probably true that only 12% of police officers are women. I don't dispute that statistic. What I've said is that, due to hiring quotas, it's much easier for a woman to get hired as a police officer then a man. The same can be said for most fire departments. That's Marxism, not meritocracy. The worst place you can possibly go for reliable statistics of any kind is the government. It's all lies and propaganda. I've heard from several sources that about 85% of women are now in the labor force while about 67% of men are now working. From what I've seen in my own community, as well as many media sources, those statistics seem about right. Your feminist agenda gives women special privileges enforced by corrupt government. Your feminist agenda punishes men as well as children. Our society is now breaking down and our birth rate are plummeting because western civilization now worships at the satanic alter of the almighty feminist goddess creature. The Bible warned us that this would happen if we turned away from God. Your whole agenda is demonic in every way except for one. Most guys won't admit this but I will. I'm perfectly aware that most girls over the age of 14, with the right training, are perfectly capable of putting me or any other guy on the floor. I believe that every women should learn how to defend herself. I despise any guy who gets violent with women as much as you do. You say that girls are being taught self defense in grade school? Where are the results? All I see online is posts made by traumatized girls and women crying about how they were either beaten or raped by their insane boyfriends. All I can say is that my wife was about 10 inches shorter than me and If I ever tried to rape her she would have put me in the hospital. Although I could have killed her with my bare hands as easily as turning off a light switch, she had the ability to stop me from raping her and we both knew it. I wish you well also. Let's pray for God's wisdom and graces before our whole society implodes in an inferno of satanic greed and corruption.
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.
I'm saying that women should return to their traditional roles in society. Teaching? Yes. Nursing? Yes. Secretary? Yes. Loving wife and mother? Yes. Women throughout our nation's history knew that if they competed against men for high level jobs it would create high levels of male underemployment and unemployment. It's not that women couldn't do these jobs. They simply thought it best not to peruse them. As we all know, idle hand do the devil's work. Nothing is more dangerous to society and women than an angry gang of unemployed men. Women in the past understood this reality and they made sacrifices to civilize man as best they could. That included deferring the most important jobs to men for the good of a peaceful society. However, satanic feminism is now a breeding ground for the spreading of male thuggery and barbarism. That's why you ladies are now getting getting such vitriol online. What the hell makes you believe that your modern "progressive" feminism is so enlightening? It's not and recent history has proven as much beyond a shadow of a doubt. If you read the bottom end of the post that I made right above yours you'll see that I'm not the neanderthal that you seem to think I am. Peace, love and wisdom..
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!
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.
I work in marketing, a field dominated by women. I don't recommend any guy straight out of college to enter this field. Promotions absolutely aren't based on talent.
I'm not going to say anything more, other than that I sincerely regret not becoming a mechanic or electrician or some other profession. I hate working with white girls with
MBAs because most of them have the same delusion of supreme intelligence that can be found in "alpha" male sales manager guys.
> 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’m a Gen x woman. My sons are in college. Without question, their female peers carry around a narrative that utterly blows my mind. They believe they are still suffering under the patriarchy. Girls, the patriarchy hasn’t been a thing since well before I was an undergrad in the 90’s. Every single one of my female friends are the breadwinners in their households - all
advanced degrees. There were literally zero impediments put in place for their life paths. Female hiring quotas affected both my brother’s and husband’s chances at their respective jobs their first go round and that again was the 90’s. It’s not misogyny from zero sum thinking, they are just up to their eyeballs hearing about how oppressed women are when none of the data bear this out.
I'm also Gen X and for a long time I was confused by the same paradox. Now I'm finding a few clues in scientific research, which at least hint at an answer.
Why does feminism even still exist in the 2020s, when women are objectively privileged over men in every aspect of society? Women benefit from affirmative action in education, hiring, promotion and everywhere else. Even though girls are now more successful at school and college than boys, there are still plenty of women-only scholarships and no male-only scholarships. There are women-only VC funds and, of course, no male-only funds. Women are treated far more leniently than men by the criminal justice system when they commit the same crime, with a similar criminal history. The military, police and firefighting departments have dropped their entry requirements for women far lower than for men, all in an attempt to entice women into jobs they don't want to do, at least not in significant numbers. Millions of men have had their professional careers crippled because large corporates only want to promote women, regardless of merit. Women are more than 50% of voters and have a strong in-group bias (compared to men who have an out-group bias), so every political group panders to them.
Society is now completely structured for the benefit of women. Yet feminists still complain bitterly and cry about being oppressed. Why? It seems absurd.
Whenever I meet a feminist who says they are, "...fighting for equal rights", I always ask, "What rights, specifically, are you fighting for? What rights do men have that you lack, today, in this safe Western country where you live?". The only answer I can ever get is, "You're a misogynist for asking that question". It remains a mystery.
Equality is the last thing feminists want. In fact they oppose it bitterly, because equality would be a big step down from women's current privileged position.
A couple of years ago, feminists in the UK and Switzerland literally marched in the streets to oppose equal retirement ages for men and women. If they hate equality that much, imagine how feminists would choke on an equity-based approach: since women live 5 years longer than men on average, women should retire 5 years later than men to achieve equity in retirement.
Feminists in India and Israel successfully lobbied to block rape laws being made gender-neutral. The possibility of male victims being able to press charges against their female rapists was unthinkable to them.
When Finland held a referendum on whether to retain mandatory military service for men, and whether to extend to to women as well, feminists voted "Yes!" to the former and "Absolutely not!" to the latter.
Opposing equality and falsely claiming oppression to demand ever-more special treatment are standard feminist tactics to protect and extend female privilege. Do feminists realize that they're being dishonest and hypocritical? Or do they truly believe the nonsense that they speak? Given that they pursue their demands with all the zeal of an exploding muslim, I lean towards the latter.
Amy Yeung's research sheds some light on this bizarre behavior through her experiments, starting with her masters thesis in 2012 titled, "Lay misperceptions of the relationship between men’s benevolent and hostile sexism", and continued in subsequent research.
Yeung's experiments exposed women to three types of behaviors: Hostile Sexism (which is what people normally think of when they hear the word 'sexism'), Equality (i.e. treating women exactly the same as men) and Benevolent Sexism (i.e. giving women advantages and preferential treatment, holding them to lower performance requirements, etc on the assumption that they are less capable than men).
The interesting thing is that the women in the study considered Equality to be the same as Hostile Sexism, i.e. misogynistic & sexist behavior by men. They were only happy with Benevolent Sexism, which they assumed to be normal, expected behavior for men and which they misunderstood to be equality.
That original paper has spawned a new subfield of research further exploring this quirk of female psychology.
In short, feminists persist in endlessly demanding more benefits, advantages and special treatment because women unconsciously believe they are entitled to a privileged position in society. Of course different women believe this to different degrees; I hypothesize that feminists are simply the women whose expectations of privilege are the largest and their feelings of entitlement to the same are the strongest.
It's the only explanation for this phenomenon that even remotely makes sense and aligns with the evidence/research.
Political activism has a problem. The same mechanisms are at play in other identity categories. When large swaths of society are employed in activists pursuits, it’s important to keep the narrative alive to keep your job. Is there any social justice project that hasn’t become infected with corruption and self interest? To be fair, some women’s rights are certainly under threat but this isn’t coming from the patriarchy but from the militant trans rights activists.
Also health. There are exclusive offices for women's health in multiple federal departments in America but not a single one for men's health. Millions are being spent exclusively for women's health and most national health aims are specific to women.
And this when the life expectancy of men is significantly lower than women. When men die at higher rates from most of the common killers when compared to women. When men and boys are increasingly dying of despair.
Um have you checked the data on domestic/ intimate partner violence? Or how about the data indicating that breadwinning women still do more housework/ childrearing work than their spouses? Or - this one’s a doozy - the data showing that women who outearn their partners are at a higher risk of domestic violence compared to the general population?
Data on incidence of sexual assault on college campuses also makes compelling reading. Lemme guess tho, it’s all false accusations by those entitled females and of course little Johnny would never 🙄 I’m Gen X also, and I’m embarrassed for you.
What are you talking about? I’m not even able to go get my tubes tied if I want to because I don’t have children. And what if some future man that I haven’t even met yet at once kids? Who cares that I’ve been Childfree by choice since I was seven years old apparently if some future man I haven’t met yet once kids I’m going to have to have kids so I can’t have my tubes tied.
The patriarchy hasn’t been a thing since the 90s? This entire post is demonstrating how the patriarchy is alive and well and ACCELERATING alarmingly in people’s attitudes. The fact that so many (mainly men, but also you, a gen x woman) are so desperate to argue against the points made in this excellent article and ‘akshually boys and men are discriminated against’ is a prime example of how the patriarchy is thriving.
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.
The feminine trait of "just silence them if they don't agree with you" is among the reasons why we got to the point of reconsidering egalitarianism in totality.
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 appreciate the work you do, and I'm glad you took this article where it finally went. I kept saying to myself (as if to you, of course), "what if the young men are not wrong to be angry? What if the only thing wrong is who they're mad at?" And thank goodness you went there, but in my opinion, in a much less radical way than the situation calls for. The pie isn't, as you obviously know very well, just mysterious shrinking. It is being hogged by a specific class of people who are deliberately impoverishing everybody else. It is not accidental, and they are not, as you called them at one point, a "lucky" few. They are ruthless, murderous exploiters willing to destroy everything in order to have everything.
And the only way they can keep people from knowing what they're up to is to have us all fighting each other. There were five comments made before I arrived here, and not one of them pointed a finger at the oligarchs. Young men are targeting and hurting women because that's just what the oligarchy wants and needs them to do. I know that, in a way, that's just what you said, but you know, it might take a little more vehemence to get the message across. Cheers! And you consistently do great work. I'm glad you're doing it.
I totally agree with Jack! This was an excellent piece.
So much of our anger and suffering is misdirected. The divide and conquer strategy never seems to fail the rich and powerful, and it’s heartbreaking to watch so many people take the bait
Leaving aside the premise, with which I fundamentally disagree, I still ask you: if you’re being attacked by a dog on a chain, who is it better to go after, the dog? or the guy behind the chain siccing him on you?
And they don’t realize that women can smell it on them and that’s why they are so lonely and desperate and sad. They are full of hate and then they approach strangers in public and we get the creep vibe from them because we can feel the hate on them. Then they cry about how everyone thinks they’re a creep. They refuse to believe we can smell it on them.
Ofc it’s dangerous for women, which should never be minimized, but it’s also very harmful for the guys going down that road. If they could just learn friendship… And then last and least, it’s frustrating for other guys trying to point out the obvious and actually help. You see they don’t listen to us any more than you.
“Young men are targeting and hurting women because that's just what the oligarchy wants and needs them to do.”
Sounds like delusional hyperventilation. Who’s targeting and hurting who? Where are you seeing this? Women are essentially the most looked after demographic in western society. With campaigns and laws and regulations and social norms assisting them at everything basically. Unclear what you’re catastrophising about.
You can just be sincere and say you don’t have an answer to my question. It’s totally fine. I already knew there aren’t droves of “young men targeting and hurting women”. Such a weird thing to say.
No, I really meant what I said. You’d rather take issue with someone on the internet than fight the people really screwing you. That’s doing the dirty work for the oligarchy. If you want to dispute the prevalence of rape or violence I’ll leave it to others to set you straight.
I’m not taking issue. I just asked you to clarify a point that you wrote. And you don’t want to or can’t and are now “leaving it to others” which is fine. Honesty goes a long way!
Jack, I find that you’ve highlighted a crucial point about the role of power in shaping societal anger.
Do you think there’s a way to redirect this anger toward the real sources of inequality, or will the divisions continue to be exploited, like the current climate?
Thanks for the feedback. I guess I might suggest you ask MLK Jr., Malcolm X, or Fred Hampton, possibly even JFK, the question. But on the other hand there’s Gandhi. So I suppose the odds are long, but it’s possible. I am absolutely sure, though, that what will be required for any degree of success is for people to learn to reach across their differences at all possible times, to find common ground. Someone reminded me of the importance of being the change you want to see not too long ago, and I think that’s another necessary thing.
>Then there’s also what seems to be a Cold War era in heterosexual relationships. Many young women, disillusioned by the relationships their mothers and grandmothers endured, are becoming more selective — or opting out of dating altogether — since they no longer need marriage for financial security. Meanwhile, some young men take women denying ‘access’ to them as an unthinkable affront, further inflamed by conservatives’ claims that this would never happen in a ‘man’s world.’<
This is the root issue of the feminist perspective on all this gender war stuff. If we accept feminist premises about all of these things, it follows from there that in order for gender relations to remain healthy in a feminist society, women must be just as willing to date, marry, and reproduce with men whose wealth and social status is equal to or even lower than theirs as they are to do so with men who are above them in these things. Not only are women generally not willing to do this, but I have yet to ever see anyone at all, much less feminists, calling for them to.
If you adopt the feminist position, you must advocate for females to change their behavior in this way. If you do not, then men will correctly perceive that feminism is deliberately shutting out of reproductive opportunities, and so *of course* they will then begin to explore other options for correcting the situation. This is basic self-interest/game theory. What else do you expect them to do, just shut up and die? Circling everything back around to scapegoating men and spamming the same tired "men bad" narratives is short-sighted and dishonest in the same way that DEI is on racial issues.
nah I’m never going to tell a feeemale that she has to breed, especially with an undesirable man.
Why aren’t you encouraging young men to date women they don’t find physically attractive? Why is it that we’re supposed to lower our standards to accommodate them but they don’t?
Excellent comment missed by the OP. Women cannot try to be equal with men economically while not being equal with men on partner selection. Otherwise society will collapse (which it is). Our below replacement birth rate chickens will come home to roost and a big part of it is rooted in women being unwilling to marry down economically and socially as men have always been willing to do.
"...men have always been willing to do?" I think you will find that men chose to 'marry down' in the past because (a) they certainly didn't want anyone who could/would earn more than they did (b) in some cases, they didn't want anyone to work at all. In the past women had to 'marry up' if possible because their options were so limited. Divorce was also difficult so they were stuck. Today, women, like men, can choose. They can choose to marry because they WANT to not because they have to. And many are choosing not to because despite all the rhetoric, in heterosexual relationships men generally (not always of course) fare better in marriage than women; there is evidence to support this if you are interested. We know that work outside of the home is much more equally divided than it was (though some way to go yet) but sadly, work within the home (Housework, childcare, aging parents/inlaws etc etc. ) still is overly burdened towards women.
Most feminist women (there is never an “all” for any group under discussion) are quite willing to weight a man’s character far more than how much money, “status”, or looks he brings to the table. Andrew Tate and his ilk talk about 6/6/6, not feminists. But if you expect a woman to overlook completely misaligned values and perceptions of how the world works, that isn’t going to fly. I have a higher income and education level than my life partner, and neither he nor I have a problem with that. He is a wonderful, intelligent, creative, and emotional man. He enthusiastically helps me raise my son from a previous relationship. (He already has three adult kids and a grandchild, so trolls please don’t start with the “beta man” stuff.)
Yes, he looks like a Viking, but I look like an Amazon so I think we both get a pass on the “6 feet” thing. :)
Unfortunately this is untrue. Women are hypergamous and tend to only date and marry even or up. On dating apps women rate 80%+ of men as below average on looks. The same is not true of men.
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.
Presumably, the entity that he would have administering the violence towards men... I notice you didn't object to that. Good keeping an eye out, we wouldn't want women to suffer like men, now would we?
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 :-)
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.
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.
The good times are about to go away. Our economy and our civilization are being systematically imploded by our own institutions. Many of us, mostly guys, have seen this disaster coming for years and even decades. That's why we rant like raving lunatics. Wake up and smell the fascism!!!
It won't be fascism. We live in a decaying bureaucratic state upheld by miserable childless cat-ladies. It'll be soviet managerialism and then collapse.
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.
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!
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 one thing men can depend on from feminist women is a complete lack of empathy. At least feminist women have to waste any time on caring for anyone other than themselves.
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?
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.
You haven't looked very hard. Hiring quotas are discrimination. Bringing in an army of male "newcomers" and giving corporations a 10K tax credit to hire them is discrimination against American workers, mostly men. Politicians saying that we have "white male privilege" until corporations believe it is discrimination. Washington has business loan programs specifically for women but nothing specifically for men. ESG and DEI are both direct discrimination targeting white males. The legal system and divorce courts discriminate against men. Just try to get a job as a secretary and, if your a guy, tell me how it goes. I mention secretarial work because those are the most available jobs in this town that pay above minimum wage, and they all automatically go to women. On the other hand, you have a much better chance of being hired into your local police department if you're a woman than if your a man. Are you beginning to see the picture?
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.
I'm retired and my body is trashed from a lifetime of physically demanding work. Right now a secretarial job would be the perfect supplement to my SSI check. However, I don't apply because I'm the wrong gender. The fact of the matter is all of the decent jobs in this town are women's jobs. My choices are either pump gas or continue to work on my options trading. I think I'll just stick with options.
Secretarial / admin (and then managerial) jobs used to be given to shop floor workers as a promotion. This gave shop floor workers (men obviously) a chance to get promoted up the ladder.
It also meant those jobs were occupied by men who had years of experience on the shop floor and so knew exactly how the company operated at all levels.
One of the effects of women entering the workplace is that secretarial jobs often became women's ENTRY point. This blocked those shop floor workers from promotion and also created companies full of women secretaries, admit and managers who had no practical experience.
Then came HR departments and other 'busy work' mostly aimed at providing women paid employment, in a safe and comfortable office environment... all at the expense of productivity, efficiency and profitability.
Another consequence of this is that every day homes across the nation (and whole neighbourhoods) now lie empty .... children get dumped onto 'daycare' strangers all day long ...... consumer spending skyrockets (nobody has time to make home cooked meals or even a sandwich)..... and everybody is stressed, exhausted and unhappy.
If you question this 'progress' you get called 'sexist', even though everyone is suffering from the effects.
The male equivalent of feminism - I suppose - would have been men abandoning their power stations, trucks, cargo ships and steel mills to go and live a more 'fulfilling' lifestyle as nannies, midwives and 'helping out' alongside mothers in the home ..... (with new jobs in the home created just for men to be occupied).
... and then when millions of women start fuming because there's no electricity, the food supply has collapsed and the roads are full of potholes, these men say "But this is equality! Men have shrugged off their oppressive gender roles. You can't complain, that's sexism!"
I like to think 'gender equality' went in that direction in some parallel universe :)
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…
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.
get your typing over 80 wpm and get so good at MS suite (word, excel esp. but you'll jump ahead of everyone if you learn sharepoint). go to a temp service and sit down and to the tests.
if you score well and type with accuracy, they will start sending you out. eventually people offer you jobs. it happens a lot if you're good, organized, and have common sense.
that's how I've gotten every secretarial job I've ever held.
if you'd really like to do that, just go get the training and find a temp service. really.
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.
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.
"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."
Our society is very gynocentric. All it takes is for women to say, "I'm unhappy!" and society will rush to try to solve the "problem". Politicians on both sides of politics pander to women constantly, due to both gynocentrism and a pragmatic desire to get votes from a bloc that's more than 50% of voters.
So when feminists say, supposedly on behalf of women, "We're unhappy! You have to discriminate against men more to make us happy again", they get what they ask for. So naturally they do it again. And again. And again. Until we reach the point we are at today.
Women are now privileged and propped up in every aspect of society. Men are not only discriminated against for the benefit of women, they are also blamed for women's own failings and treated with utter contempt, despite the fact that men almost exclusively still do the hard & necessary work to keep society functioning.
Feminism has been a disaster for society, a plague. We need to end it so the world can heal. Fortunately we are reaching the point where things are so bad that people are starting to understand what's wrong, and that feminism is to blame.
Sorry Sergei, I’m not biting. I don’t argue with idiots, otherwise people might think we’re the same. Byyeeee!
I wasn't expecting a rational argument. Experience has consistently shown that feminists are incapable of rational argument. 100% of the time they either launch an emotional, insult-filled personal attack or make an excuse and run away.
You fell in line with typical feminist behavior perfectly, thank you.
😂😂😂 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.
We're simply are relying on a different set of statistics so I won't debate you on any of this. Nevertheless, have you been to your local bank recently? You may have noticed that the managers are all women. However, when my father worked in a bank all of the managers were men. I get an email from LinkedIn every day. All of the project managers are women. I never see a male project manager. I could go on and on about how badly men are being replaced by women in corporate America. The last I heard we have 106 million working age unemployed people in this country. 75% of those unemployed people are men. The women have stolen our jobs and our lifeline for starting a family. We've been emasculated. This is a recipe for revolution, and if it happens women will be back in the kitchen and cranking out babies again. We've seen just about enough of this shit. BTW, I did cover some of the class warfare stuff below, which you had touched upon.
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.
It's probably true that only 12% of police officers are women. I don't dispute that statistic. What I've said is that, due to hiring quotas, it's much easier for a woman to get hired as a police officer then a man. The same can be said for most fire departments. That's Marxism, not meritocracy. The worst place you can possibly go for reliable statistics of any kind is the government. It's all lies and propaganda. I've heard from several sources that about 85% of women are now in the labor force while about 67% of men are now working. From what I've seen in my own community, as well as many media sources, those statistics seem about right. Your feminist agenda gives women special privileges enforced by corrupt government. Your feminist agenda punishes men as well as children. Our society is now breaking down and our birth rate are plummeting because western civilization now worships at the satanic alter of the almighty feminist goddess creature. The Bible warned us that this would happen if we turned away from God. Your whole agenda is demonic in every way except for one. Most guys won't admit this but I will. I'm perfectly aware that most girls over the age of 14, with the right training, are perfectly capable of putting me or any other guy on the floor. I believe that every women should learn how to defend herself. I despise any guy who gets violent with women as much as you do. You say that girls are being taught self defense in grade school? Where are the results? All I see online is posts made by traumatized girls and women crying about how they were either beaten or raped by their insane boyfriends. All I can say is that my wife was about 10 inches shorter than me and If I ever tried to rape her she would have put me in the hospital. Although I could have killed her with my bare hands as easily as turning off a light switch, she had the ability to stop me from raping her and we both knew it. I wish you well also. Let's pray for God's wisdom and graces before our whole society implodes in an inferno of satanic greed and corruption.
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.
I'm saying that women should return to their traditional roles in society. Teaching? Yes. Nursing? Yes. Secretary? Yes. Loving wife and mother? Yes. Women throughout our nation's history knew that if they competed against men for high level jobs it would create high levels of male underemployment and unemployment. It's not that women couldn't do these jobs. They simply thought it best not to peruse them. As we all know, idle hand do the devil's work. Nothing is more dangerous to society and women than an angry gang of unemployed men. Women in the past understood this reality and they made sacrifices to civilize man as best they could. That included deferring the most important jobs to men for the good of a peaceful society. However, satanic feminism is now a breeding ground for the spreading of male thuggery and barbarism. That's why you ladies are now getting getting such vitriol online. What the hell makes you believe that your modern "progressive" feminism is so enlightening? It's not and recent history has proven as much beyond a shadow of a doubt. If you read the bottom end of the post that I made right above yours you'll see that I'm not the neanderthal that you seem to think I am. Peace, love and wisdom..
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.
You are correct, this is a recipe for a traditionalist cultural revolution.
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!
"couch-fucker"...are you ok?
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.
Depends on industry.
I work in marketing, a field dominated by women. I don't recommend any guy straight out of college to enter this field. Promotions absolutely aren't based on talent.
I'm not going to say anything more, other than that I sincerely regret not becoming a mechanic or electrician or some other profession. I hate working with white girls with
MBAs because most of them have the same delusion of supreme intelligence that can be found in "alpha" male sales manager guys.
> 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.
I’m a Gen x woman. My sons are in college. Without question, their female peers carry around a narrative that utterly blows my mind. They believe they are still suffering under the patriarchy. Girls, the patriarchy hasn’t been a thing since well before I was an undergrad in the 90’s. Every single one of my female friends are the breadwinners in their households - all
advanced degrees. There were literally zero impediments put in place for their life paths. Female hiring quotas affected both my brother’s and husband’s chances at their respective jobs their first go round and that again was the 90’s. It’s not misogyny from zero sum thinking, they are just up to their eyeballs hearing about how oppressed women are when none of the data bear this out.
I'm also Gen X and for a long time I was confused by the same paradox. Now I'm finding a few clues in scientific research, which at least hint at an answer.
Why does feminism even still exist in the 2020s, when women are objectively privileged over men in every aspect of society? Women benefit from affirmative action in education, hiring, promotion and everywhere else. Even though girls are now more successful at school and college than boys, there are still plenty of women-only scholarships and no male-only scholarships. There are women-only VC funds and, of course, no male-only funds. Women are treated far more leniently than men by the criminal justice system when they commit the same crime, with a similar criminal history. The military, police and firefighting departments have dropped their entry requirements for women far lower than for men, all in an attempt to entice women into jobs they don't want to do, at least not in significant numbers. Millions of men have had their professional careers crippled because large corporates only want to promote women, regardless of merit. Women are more than 50% of voters and have a strong in-group bias (compared to men who have an out-group bias), so every political group panders to them.
Society is now completely structured for the benefit of women. Yet feminists still complain bitterly and cry about being oppressed. Why? It seems absurd.
Whenever I meet a feminist who says they are, "...fighting for equal rights", I always ask, "What rights, specifically, are you fighting for? What rights do men have that you lack, today, in this safe Western country where you live?". The only answer I can ever get is, "You're a misogynist for asking that question". It remains a mystery.
Equality is the last thing feminists want. In fact they oppose it bitterly, because equality would be a big step down from women's current privileged position.
A couple of years ago, feminists in the UK and Switzerland literally marched in the streets to oppose equal retirement ages for men and women. If they hate equality that much, imagine how feminists would choke on an equity-based approach: since women live 5 years longer than men on average, women should retire 5 years later than men to achieve equity in retirement.
Feminists in India and Israel successfully lobbied to block rape laws being made gender-neutral. The possibility of male victims being able to press charges against their female rapists was unthinkable to them.
When Finland held a referendum on whether to retain mandatory military service for men, and whether to extend to to women as well, feminists voted "Yes!" to the former and "Absolutely not!" to the latter.
Opposing equality and falsely claiming oppression to demand ever-more special treatment are standard feminist tactics to protect and extend female privilege. Do feminists realize that they're being dishonest and hypocritical? Or do they truly believe the nonsense that they speak? Given that they pursue their demands with all the zeal of an exploding muslim, I lean towards the latter.
Amy Yeung's research sheds some light on this bizarre behavior through her experiments, starting with her masters thesis in 2012 titled, "Lay misperceptions of the relationship between men’s benevolent and hostile sexism", and continued in subsequent research.
Yeung's experiments exposed women to three types of behaviors: Hostile Sexism (which is what people normally think of when they hear the word 'sexism'), Equality (i.e. treating women exactly the same as men) and Benevolent Sexism (i.e. giving women advantages and preferential treatment, holding them to lower performance requirements, etc on the assumption that they are less capable than men).
The interesting thing is that the women in the study considered Equality to be the same as Hostile Sexism, i.e. misogynistic & sexist behavior by men. They were only happy with Benevolent Sexism, which they assumed to be normal, expected behavior for men and which they misunderstood to be equality.
That original paper has spawned a new subfield of research further exploring this quirk of female psychology.
In short, feminists persist in endlessly demanding more benefits, advantages and special treatment because women unconsciously believe they are entitled to a privileged position in society. Of course different women believe this to different degrees; I hypothesize that feminists are simply the women whose expectations of privilege are the largest and their feelings of entitlement to the same are the strongest.
It's the only explanation for this phenomenon that even remotely makes sense and aligns with the evidence/research.
Great accurate statements. Feminism has been a disaster for the human race.
Political activism has a problem. The same mechanisms are at play in other identity categories. When large swaths of society are employed in activists pursuits, it’s important to keep the narrative alive to keep your job. Is there any social justice project that hasn’t become infected with corruption and self interest? To be fair, some women’s rights are certainly under threat but this isn’t coming from the patriarchy but from the militant trans rights activists.
Also health. There are exclusive offices for women's health in multiple federal departments in America but not a single one for men's health. Millions are being spent exclusively for women's health and most national health aims are specific to women.
And this when the life expectancy of men is significantly lower than women. When men die at higher rates from most of the common killers when compared to women. When men and boys are increasingly dying of despair.
Um have you checked the data on domestic/ intimate partner violence? Or how about the data indicating that breadwinning women still do more housework/ childrearing work than their spouses? Or - this one’s a doozy - the data showing that women who outearn their partners are at a higher risk of domestic violence compared to the general population?
Data on incidence of sexual assault on college campuses also makes compelling reading. Lemme guess tho, it’s all false accusations by those entitled females and of course little Johnny would never 🙄 I’m Gen X also, and I’m embarrassed for you.
What are you talking about? I’m not even able to go get my tubes tied if I want to because I don’t have children. And what if some future man that I haven’t even met yet at once kids? Who cares that I’ve been Childfree by choice since I was seven years old apparently if some future man I haven’t met yet once kids I’m going to have to have kids so I can’t have my tubes tied.
But we don’t live in a patriarchy?
The patriarchy hasn’t been a thing since the 90s? This entire post is demonstrating how the patriarchy is alive and well and ACCELERATING alarmingly in people’s attitudes. The fact that so many (mainly men, but also you, a gen x woman) are so desperate to argue against the points made in this excellent article and ‘akshually boys and men are discriminated against’ is a prime example of how the patriarchy is thriving.
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 🤦♀️
When a feminist says, "Internalized misogyny" she means, "That woman is level-headed, rational, doesn't hate men like I do and I hate her for it".
absolutely not. you can look it up instead of being completely wrong, embarrassing for you.
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.
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.
The feminine trait of "just silence them if they don't agree with you" is among the reasons why we got to the point of reconsidering egalitarianism in totality.
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.
Classic kafkatrap.
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=2122
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
Sanity is beginning to spread everywhere. Your ideology is very much at risk.
I appreciate the work you do, and I'm glad you took this article where it finally went. I kept saying to myself (as if to you, of course), "what if the young men are not wrong to be angry? What if the only thing wrong is who they're mad at?" And thank goodness you went there, but in my opinion, in a much less radical way than the situation calls for. The pie isn't, as you obviously know very well, just mysterious shrinking. It is being hogged by a specific class of people who are deliberately impoverishing everybody else. It is not accidental, and they are not, as you called them at one point, a "lucky" few. They are ruthless, murderous exploiters willing to destroy everything in order to have everything.
And the only way they can keep people from knowing what they're up to is to have us all fighting each other. There were five comments made before I arrived here, and not one of them pointed a finger at the oligarchs. Young men are targeting and hurting women because that's just what the oligarchy wants and needs them to do. I know that, in a way, that's just what you said, but you know, it might take a little more vehemence to get the message across. Cheers! And you consistently do great work. I'm glad you're doing it.
I totally agree with Jack! This was an excellent piece.
So much of our anger and suffering is misdirected. The divide and conquer strategy never seems to fail the rich and powerful, and it’s heartbreaking to watch so many people take the bait
Feminists are willing accomplices and tools of this oligarchy. Men are not wrong to target them and their collaborators.
Leaving aside the premise, with which I fundamentally disagree, I still ask you: if you’re being attacked by a dog on a chain, who is it better to go after, the dog? or the guy behind the chain siccing him on you?
Both. The answer is both. The "guy" and its dog are both independently dangerous and both need to be dealt with.
Your bitterness makes you miss the big picture and reduces you to a tool of the oligarchy.
And they don’t realize that women can smell it on them and that’s why they are so lonely and desperate and sad. They are full of hate and then they approach strangers in public and we get the creep vibe from them because we can feel the hate on them. Then they cry about how everyone thinks they’re a creep. They refuse to believe we can smell it on them.
Ofc it’s dangerous for women, which should never be minimized, but it’s also very harmful for the guys going down that road. If they could just learn friendship… And then last and least, it’s frustrating for other guys trying to point out the obvious and actually help. You see they don’t listen to us any more than you.
Nah. That's your idiocy and your naivete.
“Young men are targeting and hurting women because that's just what the oligarchy wants and needs them to do.”
Sounds like delusional hyperventilation. Who’s targeting and hurting who? Where are you seeing this? Women are essentially the most looked after demographic in western society. With campaigns and laws and regulations and social norms assisting them at everything basically. Unclear what you’re catastrophising about.
Thanks for illustrating my point.
You can just be sincere and say you don’t have an answer to my question. It’s totally fine. I already knew there aren’t droves of “young men targeting and hurting women”. Such a weird thing to say.
No, I really meant what I said. You’d rather take issue with someone on the internet than fight the people really screwing you. That’s doing the dirty work for the oligarchy. If you want to dispute the prevalence of rape or violence I’ll leave it to others to set you straight.
I’m not taking issue. I just asked you to clarify a point that you wrote. And you don’t want to or can’t and are now “leaving it to others” which is fine. Honesty goes a long way!
Jack is a misandrist and is trying and failing to hide it.
https://writingdiaries.substack.com/p/i-want-to-go-to-a-concert-and-not
Jack, I find that you’ve highlighted a crucial point about the role of power in shaping societal anger.
Do you think there’s a way to redirect this anger toward the real sources of inequality, or will the divisions continue to be exploited, like the current climate?
Thanks for the feedback. I guess I might suggest you ask MLK Jr., Malcolm X, or Fred Hampton, possibly even JFK, the question. But on the other hand there’s Gandhi. So I suppose the odds are long, but it’s possible. I am absolutely sure, though, that what will be required for any degree of success is for people to learn to reach across their differences at all possible times, to find common ground. Someone reminded me of the importance of being the change you want to see not too long ago, and I think that’s another necessary thing.
>Then there’s also what seems to be a Cold War era in heterosexual relationships. Many young women, disillusioned by the relationships their mothers and grandmothers endured, are becoming more selective — or opting out of dating altogether — since they no longer need marriage for financial security. Meanwhile, some young men take women denying ‘access’ to them as an unthinkable affront, further inflamed by conservatives’ claims that this would never happen in a ‘man’s world.’<
This is the root issue of the feminist perspective on all this gender war stuff. If we accept feminist premises about all of these things, it follows from there that in order for gender relations to remain healthy in a feminist society, women must be just as willing to date, marry, and reproduce with men whose wealth and social status is equal to or even lower than theirs as they are to do so with men who are above them in these things. Not only are women generally not willing to do this, but I have yet to ever see anyone at all, much less feminists, calling for them to.
If you adopt the feminist position, you must advocate for females to change their behavior in this way. If you do not, then men will correctly perceive that feminism is deliberately shutting out of reproductive opportunities, and so *of course* they will then begin to explore other options for correcting the situation. This is basic self-interest/game theory. What else do you expect them to do, just shut up and die? Circling everything back around to scapegoating men and spamming the same tired "men bad" narratives is short-sighted and dishonest in the same way that DEI is on racial issues.
nah I’m never going to tell a feeemale that she has to breed, especially with an undesirable man.
Why aren’t you encouraging young men to date women they don’t find physically attractive? Why is it that we’re supposed to lower our standards to accommodate them but they don’t?
Excellent comment missed by the OP. Women cannot try to be equal with men economically while not being equal with men on partner selection. Otherwise society will collapse (which it is). Our below replacement birth rate chickens will come home to roost and a big part of it is rooted in women being unwilling to marry down economically and socially as men have always been willing to do.
"...men have always been willing to do?" I think you will find that men chose to 'marry down' in the past because (a) they certainly didn't want anyone who could/would earn more than they did (b) in some cases, they didn't want anyone to work at all. In the past women had to 'marry up' if possible because their options were so limited. Divorce was also difficult so they were stuck. Today, women, like men, can choose. They can choose to marry because they WANT to not because they have to. And many are choosing not to because despite all the rhetoric, in heterosexual relationships men generally (not always of course) fare better in marriage than women; there is evidence to support this if you are interested. We know that work outside of the home is much more equally divided than it was (though some way to go yet) but sadly, work within the home (Housework, childcare, aging parents/inlaws etc etc. ) still is overly burdened towards women.
Most feminist women (there is never an “all” for any group under discussion) are quite willing to weight a man’s character far more than how much money, “status”, or looks he brings to the table. Andrew Tate and his ilk talk about 6/6/6, not feminists. But if you expect a woman to overlook completely misaligned values and perceptions of how the world works, that isn’t going to fly. I have a higher income and education level than my life partner, and neither he nor I have a problem with that. He is a wonderful, intelligent, creative, and emotional man. He enthusiastically helps me raise my son from a previous relationship. (He already has three adult kids and a grandchild, so trolls please don’t start with the “beta man” stuff.)
Yes, he looks like a Viking, but I look like an Amazon so I think we both get a pass on the “6 feet” thing. :)
Unfortunately this is untrue. Women are hypergamous and tend to only date and marry even or up. On dating apps women rate 80%+ of men as below average on looks. The same is not true of men.
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.
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???
Right and you weirdos don’t want us to vote either. But there’s no patriarchy happening in 2024 huh? Sure
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.
She’s barely worth refuting, but the nod is made.
Kate: "if women are gaining then men must be losing" is obviously a zero-sum fallacy
Also Kate: well clearly if billionaires are getting richer then everyone else must be getting poorer, like duh
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?”
> But is this zero-sum narrative a fair description of what’s really happening?
No. What's happening is that feminism is negative sum, hurting both men and women.
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.
Absolutely right. Many young men need a degree of violence as it helps keep them disciplined. Many young women do too... for the same reason.
And who do you suggest should administer violence towards women to keep them disciplined?
Presumably, the entity that he would have administering the violence towards men... I notice you didn't object to that. Good keeping an eye out, we wouldn't want women to suffer like men, now would we?
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 :-)
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.
So I guess everything is fine in the world right now? You have a lot to learn.
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.
The good times are about to go away. Our economy and our civilization are being systematically imploded by our own institutions. Many of us, mostly guys, have seen this disaster coming for years and even decades. That's why we rant like raving lunatics. Wake up and smell the fascism!!!
It won't be fascism. We live in a decaying bureaucratic state upheld by miserable childless cat-ladies. It'll be soviet managerialism and then collapse.
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.
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❤️
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.
The one thing men can depend on from feminist women is a complete lack of empathy. At least feminist women have to waste any time on caring for anyone other than themselves.
so true
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