faceh
15m ago
I'm reactionary enough to suggest that an average male shouldn't have to leave the country of his birth to have a prospect of finding a wife. That's a major social failure.
And now you've just exported the externality. What of the poor males in the countries where the women are being plucked from? Now they've got to compete with wealthy foreigners and THEY can't passport bro it up.
And it all leaves the fundamental, core problem. Men have no stake in the continued maintenance of their future if they don't expect to be able to form a family. Why would they throw in their lot with their home country at that point? What's their buy-in?
And of course, all the single cat ladies will continue to cast votes in their country too.
However, if we were to implement an immigration program specifically to allow scads of young, nubile, single women to attain citizenship if they marry and pop out some kids, I think the incentives overall would get aligned REAL QUICK.
Of course, it appears that a huge excess portion of the ACTUAL immigrants we get are young males.
faceh
4hr ago
Yeah, which is indicating that there needs to be some policing of that subset of men too.
But the logic of the sexual revolution is that women get to choose whomever they want, so ipso facto restricting the access of those top tier men to the wider female population is verboten as it directly restricts female's 'choice'.
Like imagine a rule that, say, banned professional athletes from hooking up with random girls they see on Instagram in their hotel room while they're in town for a game. I'd go ahead and guess that the women would howl harder about this restriction than the athletes would.
faceh
5hr ago
He's the rare intellectual that lives up to the hype, and balances sharp wit with incisive commentary, backed by actual research.
Shame he's so old, we won't have him for much longer.
As I said before.
Huge swaths of men don't even have the OPTION to enter a situationship. (hate that term, personally).
Women can practice celibacy if they want, they can stay off dating apps, they can avoid hookups and demand commitment before sex (or, marriage, if they're trad enough).
Some percentage of them do, its just far smaller than it used to be.
How much agency do we ascribe to the rest of them?
The amount of women who have negative experiences is genuine and largely the fault of certain men who are over-represented in the amount of harm they commit.
The question, of course:
In what way are those men forcing, coercing, or otherwise cajoling women to act this way? What we learned post #metoo is that a LOT of women will retroactively claim they were forced or coerced when in fact they just folded to the most minute amount of pressure or even enthusiastically accepted advances from a more 'powerful' male.
And if women are unable to resist a minute amount of pressure, or can't be trusted to make good decisions around powerful males... what else might we need to protect them from?
And more importantly. If women are having bad experiences with a small subset of men, then why does that justify negative opinions about all men?
Why are men expected to tolerate bad behavior (and as seen in the stats, maintain a positive view of women as a whole) or be labelled misogynist, whilst women can base their opinion of the whole male gender on the conduct of <10% of them?
This is where we find ourselves. Unable, as a society, to police womens' behavior (in part because the men who would do the policing benefit too much from the current arrangement), but far, far too ready to go after males for the smallest misstep, and to heap all blame on the men for things they ultimately have no control over. And unable to shift out of this equilibrium because any proposal that might inconvenience ladies is politically nonviable. Nonviable, that is, while the Boomers are in charge.
faceh
7hr ago
Perhaps, although I think they allow you to feel pride only in proportion to the amount of oppression that was heaped upon your people.
faceh
8hr ago
Yeah, its usually the child support that really takes a bite out of the guy's ability to support himself. Instead of living in a house with the wife and kids... now he's paying to make sure the kids are given a decent living arrangement without him there... and if he wants to have the kids over he needs to find a living arrangement that isn't viewed as dangerous to them, so he's gotta pay extra for his own living space to be up to par too.
Florida passed some laws to put a harder cap on alimony, but if you divorce with a kid, or multiple kids under 10 years, you're getting stuck with quite the bill over the next 10 years.
Collective male guilt for crimes committed by men is axiomatic, but collective male credit for dangerous, essential labour carried out by men is never acknowledged.
This right here has to be my biggest objection to Woke/Social Justice/Leftism/cultural marxism thought when applied to historical 'privilege' arguments.
Collective guilt is assumed. Guilt for your ancestors' bad behavior is mandatory. And of course you can be collectively lumped in with people you've never associated with and share no beliefs with if someone deems you to share enough characteristics with them.
But credit or pride? No, silly, you can't be proud of things members of your group did! You can't take credit for advances that were achieved by your forefathers! Those were individual accomplishments that you had no role in! Why would we let you claim those in the present? But of course the fact that you benefited from them should make you feel MORE guilty over your privilege!
Nevermind that whatever the mechanism they claim allows guilt to propogate forward through time... should by definition also carry credit and accolades forward.
And they do that because a fair accounting would make it clear that in the grand scheme, the amount of suffering that Westerners have caused in history, while it is a staggering amount, is on net outweighed by the sheer magnitude of benefits they have achieved for all humans, everywhere, and continue to achieve. So if you want to hold modern Westerners accountable for sins of their fathers, don't be surprised if they start looking back and taking credit for and pride in the successes and victories of their fathers, too.
As I've said before.
Women aren't the problem. But the problem is with women. It is harbored in their minds.
Its right there in the data. In every piece of reliable data that is available on this topic.
Here's the actual graph on the data about each gender's view of the other as discussed in that article.
72% of men under 30 view women positively. 7% view them negatively.
For women under 30, 50% view men positively, 21% view them negatively.
For women under 25, its 35% and 27%, respectively.
If men are steeped in misogyny and treat women so horribly, how does it work that a supermajority of men view women positively, and a substantial minority of women view men negatively. This is incoherent without some very strained definitions of the terms used.
The only way the data makes sense is if these women absolutely believe men are steeped in misogyny, and do not realize that this appears to be misguided and incorrect.
It also pairs well with this bit of data out of the UK where young (teen) men in relationships report substantially more abusive behavior from their partners than the women do. This suggests that men's 'flaw' is believing in the goodness of most women in spite of experiencing their bad behavior.
And of course the official governmental policy [in the UK] is to crack down on male behavior. They (the UK) are trying to ban depictions of strangulation in porn even though, once again, women tend to be slightly more likely to consume such content. Its not clear to me if this is an incompetent government that is ignoring the data, or a malicious/intentional attempt to shape the outcomes by force because it just doesn't like what the data shows and wishes it were different.
How is it possible that after decades and decades of civil rights advances favoring women, they're LESS satisfied with their status in society?
How is it possible that they view men as collectively the biggest danger to their rights and safety when, A) women are as a class safer than they've been at literally any point in history and B) men have very peaceably stood aside or actively boosted women's interests to enable the aforementioned civil rights advances?
If the entire course of the civil rights movement was viewed as an empirical study, an experiment in trying to truly increase human thriving by social engineering and applying technology to alleviate almost every burden that is nominally borne by women... hasn't it objectively failed at that goal?
They're more sad. More mentally ill. Less healthy. They have more STIs (likely because they tend to have more sex partners). They have more debt (although you can certainly argue they're more financially independent). They commit suicide (slightly) more often. And to the extent they still care about marriage and childbirth, they're having more trouble finding and keeping relationships, and they're having fewer children, later in life, if at all. They've acquired artificial signifiers of success like degrees and job titles and digital photo albums full of travel photos... but have so very little tangible to show for it.
All the material wealth we've accumulated has made life easier, across the board. So most 'difficulties' they complain about must be either illusory or self-imposed. It is simply impossible that men as a group are conspiring to keep the women from achieving true happiness.
Anyway, my nutshell theory is that the women are wonderful effect simply dominates cultural and political norms. That's why we get a documentary about the Manosphere and its effect on women, and NOT one about Tiktok and Feminist influencers and its effect on women. Because there's an unstated assumption of "if women are doing it, it can't be bad!"
In spite of the latter being an OBJECTIVELY bigger deal with larger negative impacts on both the individual and social level.
Yes, I'm, still mad.
He's done a lot of useful research and distills insights down to pithy sayings that even normies can comprehend.
Him being black is surely a factor, but his observational abilities are extremely keen by any reasonable measure.
More options
Context Copy link