many men are comically bad at noticing when women are wearing makeup
I think this depends on our definition of 'makeup'.
b) the (usually correct) fear that any men's movement or space will rapidly become anti-woman.
Hold up. Men's spaces rapidly become anti-woman? Where is the historical evidence of that? Depending on our definition of 'anti-woman', that is.
As far as I can tell, the vast majority of women like being women. When they chafe against the strictures of womanhood, they're not (generally) saying "I wish I could be a man," they are saying "I wish I didn't have to put up with all this bullshit."
I'd say the basic sentiment/vibe that 'men have it better', that men's lives are easier is and was very much a driving force of feminist activism, which is usually middle-class and suburban.
How exactly are women judged harshly for social ineptitude?
Unfortunately this is what it looks like to midwit normies, I think. What they see is that the average single woman is never sexually interested in multiple men at the same time, and wants to hold onto just one. So they assume that women are naturally fit for marriage and men aren't. It also doesn't help that society's entire concept of romantic relationships is gynonormative.
To what extent was this phenomenon a social reality, I wonder? Outside the imagination of Boomer feminist activists, that is?
I found this comment while trying to find another one via the search function. I just want to add that I did some reading out of curiosity and I think I have to nitpick a bit.
Eppstein (Germany, 1983; 6 killed incl. perpetrator) - committed by an adult
Sofia University (Bulgaria, 1974; 8 killed) - committed in a university dormitory, not a school
For these reasons I'd argue these weren't school shootings in the everyday sense of the word.
No more, I imagine. The sites in question went through purges initiated by women, then became deserts and died.
A tangentially related question: back when the Manosphere / Red Pill Sphere actually existed online, there were multiple attempts to have blogs where adult men and women can politely discuss Red Pill theories. You can imagine how it all ended up. Are you aware of these maybe?
I wish there was a way to recruit more people of diverse viewpoints, but even the SSC/LessWrong forums now think the Motte is a hive of scum and villainy because of who we don't ban.
I guess jettisoning the ideology of rationalism would be a start? Just thinking out loud.
Can you please expand on this? Are you arguing that there are two politically effective ways to combat the process? Maybe more?
That said, wasn't the whole HR-mandated woke stuff kind of exaggerated to begin with?
Wasn't it always just a few college kids on Twitter? /s
There was(?) also @justawoman.
Watching all this go down is strange. For the past three decades or so, this whole conflict basically has been in the realm of kayfabe. Lots of saber-rattling, angry rhetoric, not giving an inch obviously, threats etc. But everyone involved had enough sense not to actually start shooting. However, the venom has been accumulating. And now it’s going down. It’s real. It’s on. Ideas have consequences indeed.
How is all this substiantially different from so-called mixers?
Women don't grow up thinking about how to be woman, because much of what defines femininity is there by default. You are simply born a sexy girl - you simply gestate a fetus - and then give birth to it. There is little to no skill barrier required in comparison.
I’d phrase it as: society generally believes that men need to be prepared for marriage through conditioning, rewards and punishments, whereas in the case of women this is unneeded, because they are naturally a) monogamous b) inclined to become mothers. This isn’t incorrect as such, as women are indeed naturally monogamous, with the caveat that their promiscuity, to the extent that it is indulged, manifests as serial monogamy, which is something that has zero allure to promiscuous men. And the motherhood part obviously no longer necessarily asserts itself in a world of cheap and reliable contraception, abortion access, various distractions etc.
If you are poor, fat, and socially inept - as a man, you will be harshly judged and looked down on within our society.
I’d phrase it as: poverty is a state you’re supposed to remedy as a man by raising yourself up, being an ambitious worker, earning more money, acquiring more skills etc. As a woman your remedy is supposed to be eliciting commitment and financial support from a rich man. Society in general is willing to cut women slack and provide support in such situations if they fail, under the assumption that it’s somehow all the fault of evil men or something, but has zero sympathy towards men who fail. Also, social adeptness is seen as a necessary virtue for men if they want to mate but not for women.
I’m assuming you have mainly underclass women in mind when mentioning single mothers with a bunch of kids from various fathers (well, sires might be a more accurate description). I’d argue that yes, it’s actually true that the one activity that may accord underclass women social status and respect is them having and (supposedly) properly raising children as responsible mothers. But even if they prove to be irresponsible mothers, them remaining childless is still a worse alternative on average.
In other words, if an underclass or working-class woman decides to remain childless, no path that she chooses and no activity she engages in will get her as much social status in the eyes of her social circle as being a mother, even a single mother. Society generally has a different attitude towards higher-class women who delay or reject motherhood because we assume that they have good career options, disposable income, various potential fun hobbies they can afford, some sort of higher calling etc. I suggest this blog post from Steve Sailer from 2005 in which he quotes a social worker about this.
I’m assuming the rust belts of the USA and Britain are substantially different. Deindustrialization took place earlier in Britain, and the presence of Third World immigrants was already much larger. Most of the drug-addicted criminal underclass you’re describing, I guess, descended from low-IQ rural whites with high time preference from Appalachia who migrated to big Midwestern industrial centers back when industrial production was booming and large numbers of workers were needed.
I don’t know much about Cuba. Having said that, I think it’s reasonable to argue that whatever shortages there are now are lighter or at least not worse than the ones they had there for many years after 1989. On the other hand, I imagine the situation is generally a lot worse than it was before COVID lockdowns.
I don’t think it’s a case of deflection. The DRR/DR3 narrative may be effective when directed at the Republican base because it reinforces their priors but it’s utterly meaningless for Democrats because their belief is that racism is a structural evil whereas Republicans think it’s a personal moral failing. So if you accuse Democrats of racism they won’t even react because they’re full convinced that not one of them is guilty. On the other hand, the racism accusations works against Republicans (as evidenced by them always taking such accusations seriously and publicly denying them) for the reason I mentioned i.e. it is conceivable for Republicans that some of their own are actually racists, which makes them afraid of such accusations.
I ask you not to be obtuse. The ‘Democrats are the real racists’ narrative originates from the 2000s.
In what ways do they not?
In a way that agitation against Jews as Jews (that, is based on ancestry and not on Zionist leanings or Israeli citizenship) is a cancellable offense in their eyes, even when black activists do it. That does not mean that those black activists always get cancelled as a result, but anti-Semitic agitation is the one sin they surely can get cancelled for by their comrades.
You're absolutely right. That was before 1975 though, as you said.
True. At the same time, nobody is claiming that Lebanon is our greatest ally, the only democracy in the Middle East and the bastion of Judeo-Christian culture.
That is already a rather large pool of targets, relatively speaking, compared to the situation of conservative normies.
who don't get that many acceptable targets
In what sense do you mean this?
- Prev
- Next

It means there is an unstated social consensus that romantic relationships are to be assessed according to female norms by default.
If a guy and a girl are sort of seeing each other and the girl wants to make it ‘official’/serious but he doesn’t, he’s seen as a ‘commitment-phone’, Peter Pan, manchild, player, free rider etc. If this happens the other way around, she’s just weighing her options, not ready for anything serious, still seeking to find herself, finding her voice and place, still wants to have fun etc.
And if either party wants to end an ongoing relationship, we generally see the same pattern. If the guy leaves, he’s a jerk, asshole, uncaring etc. If he wants to remain, he’s a clinger, a creep, emotionally immature, it’s only that the woman feels trapped and wants to find herself again etc.
More options
Context Copy link