faceh
5d ago
Its kind of both.
Its very frustrating to grow into a world where sex is treated simultaneously as some uninteresting normal thing that everyone has and its no big deal, and yet also this critically important feature of social life around which one's personal status in the hierarchy revolves.
You go to college, and women can be very open about sleeping around, with no shame. But if you propose a tryst to one, out of the blue, with the implication that this woman is easy to get into bed, this is considered a massive, 'creepy' faux pas.
So its less "she wouldn't sleep with me" and more "why am I punished for seeking out sexual access when everyone else treats sexual access as a casual, unremarkable feature of college life?"
But there is absolutely the portion of this ecosystem, the semi-predatory male who specializes in getting naive women to open their legs that doesn't get remarked upon.
faceh
6d ago
Not the evidence I've seen.
Specifically, college educated womens' voting patterns (in the U.S.) vs. those of non-college educated women.
I would agree that their natural inclinations are towards the left, if anything.
faceh
6d ago
My suspicion is that the rise of 'useless' genders studies degrees and major overproduction of women with degrees took off in the 90's, hence why we didn't really get a swarm of SJWs until the 2010s.
Colleges were hives of leftist thought long before then, but that was counterbalanced by there being ample alternative routes for one's career before that point.
Also, look at the stats on women getting Masters and Doctorate degrees to see where the problem became SERIOUS.
My modest proposal there is death penalty for such men.
But people find that goes too far, so I would suggest we simply castrate them, as a compromise.
I've already munched on that bullet.
My thesis is that they're just way more susceptible to virtually any ideological brainwashing, just as the Orwell quote implies.
And college is completely captured by lefties at every level, so, that's where the brainwashing pushes them.
College is in my view a large part of the problem. Social Media and Tiktok is another. Arguably that's the mechanism through which they police each others' behavior once they're out of college.
I wouldn't imply this guy was bound for a happy ending, or that ANY woman was going to be a good fit for him.
But on the margins, the fewer stable relationships formed, the more you got guys who might have otherwise been able to get some kind of fulfillment from a family who are instead left out in the cold, and MIGHT be pushed into this sort of action. And to the extent guys like this can't even harbor a HOPE of getting a relationship, more of them might decide to not even try, and then the question is what they do with their lives.
They're not bought in to the future of their society, so where should they direct their efforts?
The social technology for lifelong celibacy has fallen from favor.
What happens if the pair of you have a serious argument, a really bad blow-up, when in a relationship? It can be fixed, or he decides you need to be shot?
Also, since when did women, in general, actually prefer 'stable' boyfriends? Recall my point about Luigi getting fangirls. Although being conventionally attractive helps.
Part of this guy's whole argument is that women are selecting for traits like aggression, short temper, capacity for violence.
faceh
6d ago
My ongoing modest proposal is RETVRNing to 1993.
Females attending college en masse seems like the nexus of many issues.
That's where they get turned into lefties.
That's where they incur significant amounts of debt.
That's where they rack up a body count.
That's where they acquire inflated standards in mate choice.
It burns 4+ years of fertility.
In short, they become far less appealing as partners in most cases, on the back end.
So it stands to reason that making it harder for women (and people in general) to secure student loans would reduce their attendance rates and would organically, downstream of that, lead to more relationships, marriage, and children.
I could write a manifesto on that topic, but I wouldn't want to shoot anybody to get it attention.
faceh
6d ago
You adapt to them. In the modern dating landscape, you either lean into the hypergamy and superficiality of it all, or you reach a mindset where you are okay with staying a virgin for a long time, potentially forever.
The third option is you lash out at the system itself. For a lone wolf this won't be particularly impactful.
I mean, Clavicular is maybe the ur-example of "lean into the hypergamy and superficiality of it all," he's only twenty years old and is clearly depressed at the life he's now 'stuck' in (by his own doing, naturally). This won't hold over the long term.
Where do we go from here?
MY personal belief is that once we start to lose the Boomers, the primary bulwark against political changes in this country, a LOT of political options that were previously stymied will come on the table.
We might be able to limit how extreme those options end up being.
faceh
6d ago
Its not lack of sex, its the basic impossibility of economic calculation when society reaches a certain level of complexity.
The problem is, the distribution of sex is intractable at EVERY level above, maybe, the village, without some distributed coordination method.
Go look at various attempts at forming small scale communes and see how many of those failed because one guy started hogging all the women despite the representation that it was all about free love and equality. Okay, its also because all the labor ultimately fell on the men, or a small subset of them, they can't even get the distribution of LABOR right in these cases.
Ironically, you're thinking too big. Not every "Marxist movement" is the Soviet Union.
Oh, and just a note guess what China has to start cracking down on in the name of Marxism.
Because even under Marxism with Chinese characteristics, you can't make women WANT to settle for just any dude.
A not insubstantial reason for the rightward shift of young men is that they notice that the left applies Marxist logic to every problem except the one problem that they are bothered by most of all.
No joke, this is one core reason Marxist movements will always fail, since sexual reproduction is a massive bottleneck, and yet by all lefty logic every person should be 'entitled' to reproduce, yet women are biologically wired to jealously guard their own reproduction, so 'distribution' of sexual contact, let alone actual reproduction, will ALWAYS turn hierarchical, unequal, and skewed towards the 'attractive' males, whilst attractiveness itself is never equally distributed.
I read (glanced over and noted the arguments) the manifesto, and it leaves me with an awkward feeling.
Basically the guy is pretty much correct on the pure factual level about everything he's seeing.
Its clear to me that he has directly experienced the modern, toxic dating pool/culture, and was probably caught between the impulse to adapt to it as it exists, or to lash out against it as an unfair, unsustainable, unhealthy artifact of modern culture.
The fact that he analyzed it with lefty-coded language is interesting but doesn't add much insight.
I find his ultimate methods abhorrent, unjustifiable and ineffectual.
But unfortunately I can't readily point towards a more effective strategy that he could implement on his lonesome. Solving the problems he identifies requires coordinated efforts.
So I'll keep my points brief:
I've pointed out how Male Grievances are almost never given any legitimate airing in mainstream publications. Indeed, it is exceedingly rare for a male writer to get to publish a piece on gender issues at all!
As you noted, Men are not allowed to organize around their own interests as a gender.
No politician ever voices male grievances as part of a policy platform.
So as this guy found, if you have not built up a large following a la Clavicular, your concerns will never get heard, your voice will never raise above the din of social media. You functionally do not exist.
And the one mainstream figure who was willing to voice these concerns was Charlie Kirk, and he got murdered by a lefty.
Oh, and add on that Lone wolf shooters like Luigi Mangione can garner significant female attention.
A lot of guys will connect the dots thusly:
"I have no real hope of getting a wife and happy family in my lifetime. I have no political representation. Nobody will listen to me if I speak out myself. No publications will ever stump for my concerns. I can't organize with other males to advocate for my interests, and if I DO become famous and popular whilst speaking out, I can just be killed in cold blood. However, if I do enough damage and spill enough blood, suddenly I have people paying attention to me... and if I survive I might see increased female attention to boot. Worth a shot."
Something something burning down village to feel warmth.
So my ongoing concern is that we're going to see a serious uptick in young male crashouts that involve (attempts at) mass killings or destruction, many of which won't be as thoughtfully targeted as this one.
What do you think happens if a generation where an actual majority of the men don't even believe in gender equality achieves political power?
Implement some solutions now to correct course, or I'm genuinely afraid for how the Zoomers will end up addressing this problem that, from their perspective, stole their future.
This guy was a 25. A Zoomer. The concerns he puts forth in that manifesto are WIDELY HELD amongst Zoomer males.
And these Zoomers are NOT BEING OFFERED A BETTER PATH FORWARD in the status quo.
Solve for Y chromosome.
faceh
6d ago
Yeah, almost certainly had a few that got away with war-crime levels of it, and most that got a few girls total.
So the gut-wrenching calculation is how many girls did these gangs tend to cycle through over how long a time period.
Yep.
Also the fact that people are horrible at judging scope, which the rationalists also point out.
25,000 vs. 250,000 are literally a whole order of magnitude different in terms of the 'scale' of an atrocity. You would desperately HOPE that the scale is closer to the former than the latter!
But I bet the average person isn't envisioning the 225,000 person difference that entails, both just register as "a huge number of young girls." But the 250,000 number is clearly 'bigger' and thus a more useful bludgeon, so from a pure rhetorical standpoint OF COURSE you're grabbing onto that if you can justify it at all.
For my part, the reason that number triggered skepticism is it implies truly prolific activity by the gangs in question. Going with what seems like to me an absurd estimate, if there were 1,000 distinct 'grooming gangs' over the period examined, each one would need to rack up 250 victims to reach that figure. That's a high enough number to involve actual logistical challenges. Even if you invert it, call it 2,500 grooming gangs, that's 100 victims each.
The ratios just don't make sense to me.
It's slightly easier to accept that maybe there were 250,000 individual victims of sexual assault by migrants, mostly in a decentralized "I was accosted by a random guy on the street" sort of way, rather than all of them experiencing sustained abuse by legible groups.
Nevertheless, there's sufficient, indeed ample evidence that organized rings exist so the scale can surely be in the low 1000's to mid 10,000's if we're looking at a period of almost 20 years.
If one guy (Epstein) with a little help could 'traffic' dozens of girls over the same period, definitely feasible that multiple gangs could pull it off too.
Anyway, at this point I'm less upset over whether the 250,000 number is true and accurate or not... and more by the fact the UK government cannot actually confirm or refute it because they've been asleep at the wheel for so long the necessary data just wasn't collected???
Yep.
Its one of those situations where the constraints in place made it more 'special.' As a student, you expect to actually run into the players on campus. They were expected to spend a full 4 years there, and attend (easy) classes. They weren't millionaires (yet) but had a good shot at making it big in the NFL if they did well.
Ultimately, I'd be fine if the college football players make money from their likeness, but the team as a whole should still feel entangled with the college its tied to in ways that aren't easily severable, and that's just completely lost now. "Student-Athlete" just isn't really a thing.
I don't want to just randomly lay another problem at the Boomers' feet, but it sure looks like they're the ones who decide to break the system by both being the deep pockets that keep pumping up the athlete's values AND keep pulling out the guardrails on various behaviors and restrictions on the athlete's loyalties b/c they want to make their preferred team as competitive as possible.
Overall seems like another example of a 'runaway' system where everyone pursuing their immediate interests shifts the whole edifice elsewhere, at the detriment of the whole.
I have many thoughts on such things.
More options
Context Copy link