This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
What are you envisioning here? Are police going to refuse to make arrests for crimes? What crimes? Prosecutors refuse to file charges? Judges going to toss cases? Are you under the impression all parts of the justice system today think every law they enforce is just? I am very skeptical that is the case.
What do you think is going to happen?
The thing about the legal system is that it is always susceptible to cascades in any direction.
Lets say the new trend is that drug cases are not big deals. Police stop charging them, prosecutors dismiss the cases pending, judges find not guilty in the cases they try. But, if drugs become a big deal, police charge them, prosecutors prosecute them, and judges find guilty. The guilty pipeline is more fraught with obstacles, but is not uncommon.
Once the police forces of a place make a choice, only the males of that place can rebel realistically in a way that would be confrontation-ally successful. So the theory does hold. M-W polarization is not sustainable, as approximately 90% of philosophers have suggested over the last 2000 years.
More options
Context Copy link
That's a regular occurrence right now. At least in some progressive cities with progressive prosecutors. Maybe some day the right will pick up such weapons commonly used by progressives.
More options
Context Copy link
Depends. If the issue is most prevalent on a state-by-state basis, I think we see Police quit and move to more favorable jurisdictions., which worsens the crime issues in the Blue areas, which either 'forces' a political correction, or it spirals into decay a la Detroit.
Likewise, why, do you suppose, did Military recruitment surge in 2025 after literally hitting an all-time-low in 2022 under Biden?
Guys choosing to simply not join military/police forces would be enough to undermine a government's legitimacy in a given territory.
I think we see a political figure arise who notices and exploits the disconnect between the political priorities of the government and the actual political grievances expressed by a majority of men.
I think we should be very hopeful that its J.D. Vance or a guy like him. Vance clearly NOTICES the issue, and he's good at credibly establishing himself as "one of the guys."
Whether Vance will exploit this to the hilt remains to be seen.
But someone will.
I also think that an economic contraction will re-assert some 'reality' to the discourse, should it occur. We had a long era of economic growth post the 2008 crash and the Zero-Interest-Rate era. Plus the Covid Hiring boom.
lotta people getting laid off from cushy jobs, in many cases maybe the only real career-type jobs they've ever held. Women might finally, F-I-N-A-L-L-Y be required to either suffer from economic destitution or make some concessions to men to obtain the support of a good one.
If they can't marry a corporation who will take care of all their needs, and the Federal Government, for once, isn't bending over backwards to accommodate their complaints, well, the default fallback is probably either prostitution or marriage. And there's already a lot of prostitutes.
I do personally expect things to get worse before they get better.
Without @HereAndGone's snarkiness: why do so many of you salivate at the thought of women being forced to sexually service someone they don't want in order to eat? Yes, this was the norm in earlier ages. Those ages sucked a lot for almost everyone, given that the average person lived a precarious existence at best.
To desire a return to the sort of civilization in which you can get a woman because her survival literally depends on you does not seem to me like a normal, healthy thing to desire in a society with abundance enough that most people shouldn't have to consider starvation or enslavement a realistic possibility.
Even if this worked, would you not always be living with that gnawing awareness that she's only with you out of necessity? That you're literally just the next best thing to starvation?
It seems to me to not only be a spiteful and misogynistic attitude, but one utterly lacking in self respect.
The question is whether this level of abundance will remain sustainable on a level where average women are practically self-sufficient.
If they were practically self-sufficient, I think we would actually see more abundance, and that would be a very different and very interesting world. I think that world would have a high chance of dying out in a generation or two, but it might not, and that would very interesting.
The problem is that, even accounting for the fact that practically no one is truly self-sufficient in these times, women appear to be less self-sufficient than men, on average.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Consider it this way: when the Chinese government banned cram schools, one might think they were attacking a deeply beloved institution. People paid huge amounts of money to the cram schools, kids spent huge amounts of their time there. Surely they would be really upset at having them taken away?
But no, of course not. Everyone hated and resented the cram schools. They existed because of a specific set of incentives that were unchangeable from the inside, and that could only be changed by a large-scale coercion.
I can’t speak for the Dread Jim etc. because I don’t follow them, but IMO the point is that men and women more naturally form loving bonds when a) they are paired together, and b) their interests are broadly aligned.
Modern society has broken both of these conditions, in an attempt to solve the problems that arose in cases when the previous system went wrong. By allowing women to work in the same paying jobs as men, and by providing unconditional support, it deliberately ensured that women didn’t require a man to take care of herself. A noble goal to be sure, but the result is that the natural fear of opportunity costs, generalised fear and distrust of men, (and, yes, a certain hypergamous tendency) combine to ensure lots of women don’t end up paired. (The same dynamics apply on the male side to but I think to a lesser degree).
Likewise, we have worked hard to ensure that even when married, a woman’s interests are kept separate from her husband’s, in order to avoid genuinely nasty abuses that occurred under the previous system. Women now retain their property when married, they usually retain their jobs, and they can decouple with minimal difficulty. This means that even during marriage, a woman often has one eye on being ready for an exit and her own private interests often conflict with the interests of her husband and family.
IMO the goal is lots of loving, happy relationships. (With, yes, an inevitable long tail of grudging-but-functional relationships and some pretty nasty ones). This benefits a big fraction men very clearly, because the current system is straightforwardly inimical to them; it’s hard to say whether it benefits women because they will gain certain things and lose certain things and probably different groups of women will benefit. I would like to think that the averaged outcome for women would be better, but even if it is mildly negative, ultimately the end effect will be positive when averaged across the sexes.
I don't personally agree with passing whatever laws you think would be necessary to eject women from the workforce, but the principle behind it, that women are happier being married with children and that everyone would be happier if society aligned to encourage that instead of "independent women," is probably true. I object to coercion and restricting people's freedom, even freedom to make bad choices, so I am not going to subscribe to "We should make women do what's best for them" even if I really did believe it's what best for them and not motivated by self-interest. "Society would be better if people did X, therefore we will force X through legislation" is ironically the sort of authoritarian thinking communist governments try to implement to reorder society for the greater good.
This is a pretty autistic Motte-pilled take. "If we measure how much happier most men would be, and how much happier many women would be, we can calculate that the net increase in happiness X is greater than the decrease in happiness Y of the women who don't like this arrangement, therefore they can suck it up." Talk about your authoritarian central planning! But let's say it's true. Let's say we blithely handwave away your "long tail" of abuse and misery which was much of the motivation for the rise of the feminist movement in the first place.
Here is the part you're really missing:
The Dread Jims of the world (of whom there apparently many more than you might think, even in Western society) don't care about love and happiness. They care about themselves and sexual satisfaction, and removing the indignity of women being able to thwart them. I don't know what Jim's personal life is actually like, but having read enough of his essays, it's hard to believe he actually loves his wife or daughters, except maybe in the same sense you might love your dog. Some of them (like Jim) might talk in Biblical terms about God's intended role for men and women, but their motivation is much baser and cruder: they think women should be property. Literally. Unironically. Dread Jim wrote an essay about it. He isn't kidding and he isn't being metaphorical. Most of our blackpillers and incels aren't so explicit about it, but you can read it in their words. They aren't motivated by some philosophical notion of what's best for society. They're seething that women they want to have sex with can tell them no. Their goal is not "loving, happy relationships," because that implies that the happiness of women is important also, and they consider pleasing women to be a distraction at best, the source of all evils at worst. You are not cynical enough when reading the words they actually type.
You know the old feminist slogan "Feminism is the radical belief that women are human." It's rightly derided for its simplistic, bad-faith assumptions about those who criticize feminism ("What the hell do you mean, no one is saying women aren't human!") While I roll my eyes like most people when I actually see it on t-shirts in the wild, I am occasionally reminded, even here on the Motte, that there are in fact people who exemplify the mindset that slogan is reacting to. It is not surprising to me that, faced with men like this who make it clear that they see a woman as a collection of warm wet holes that unfortunately has vocal cords and a brain stem attached, some women react in an extreme and possibly self-destructive fashion. If you want to persuade women that they should "settle" for less than the unrealistic and absurdly high standards that supposedly they are all demanding nowadays, keep in mind you're not just telling them to settle for an average guy who'd be a good if unexceptional husband, you are (at least from the incel viewpoint) telling them they should settle for a man who viscerally hates them and will treat them like a fleshlight.
You can either say you don't care about that because society as a whole will be better off, or you can have some understanding for why this is a hard sell for anyone who does, um, think women are human.
Sure, maybe we can start by reverting the nudge theory that is now hugely in favor of women. Remove women as a protected class, there is no need for it. This could right away lead to many egalitarian policies, including things like equalizing payments for things like healthcare consumption, social security consumption and other things that they accrue by virtue of having more cushy jobs and living longer. We can push for real equality in terms of judicial decisions especially in family courts that hugely favor women and many more.
Just by doing that, you can incentivize more healthy dynamics between sexes when both of them can more appreciate what each does for another. There are some experiments already - e.g. since 2018 when Kentucky equalized child custody after divorce to 50/50, the divorce rate fell above the norm. I'd predict that the overall impact of all these policies would be quite dramatic.
More options
Context Copy link
Certainly, but it's also the thinking of anyone who writes legislation! I don't know you very well, but I don't think you are the kind of full-fat libertarian who thinks that all regulation should be repealed, that we should remove all central attempts at law-enforcement and go back to privately-leased thief-takers and bounty hunters, etc. etc. Assuming that you aren't, the next obvious question is, 'when and to what degree should we force X through legislation, and when should we refrain?'. My previous reply was an attempt to argue that for the last 70 years or so we have been too liberal in the area of 'relationships between men and women' and 'female employment', that the results have been bad on net, and we need to roll that back somewhat.
Well, there's a reason I'm writing here and not in a byline for the Times. But more seriously, this is simply a reversal of the argument from feminism for the last 70 years. That argument being that 'men have had a good run of it for centuries, and they now need to take a hit to vastly increase the happiness of women'. You may well be a principled libertarian who objects to this particular argument equally whether it comes from women or from men, but it is clearly not a moral bridge too far for many people.
I have two responses to this, neither of which will probably satisfy you:
The first is that I do not think we should aim for a 100% marriage rate. Some men (and some women) are simply so toxic that people will not marry them even under pressure, and that's okay. Good, even. Similarly there are people who simply can't be in a relationship for various reasons. I want to give the curve a firm shove back to times of much higher marriage rates, not to ensure that even the most spittle-flecked violent maniac gets a government-mandated girlfriend. But yes, there will still be sad cases. There are sad cases today too - we have domestic murders, abuse, and deeply vile things perpetrated up and down the land - but they are likely to increase somewhat under this system. And it is indeed a hard, even an impossible sell in a modern democratic society operating under today's social mores. I write these things for my own satisfaction and to clarify my thoughts, not as an act of political activism.
The second is that we are now in the realm of competing intuitions, axioms and viewpoints:
In practice, I suspect that your informal definition of misogyny is much more extensive, very broadly along the lines of 'sees men as being rational enlightenment agents who have high moral worth and deserve respect and high levels of liberty, and treat women with some combination of having reduced rationality, reduced moral worth (depending on the tradition) and believes that they should be constrained i.e. not granted liberties to the same degree'. Would I be right in saying so?
If so, I think you are then vastly inflating the number of misogynists and unintentionally hopping between the motte and the bailey by using the latter set of beliefs as dogwhistles for the former. I'm sure that's true sometimes, but I think it's also very untrue sometimes, and you can tell because it basically condemns all humanity prior to 1900, plus the Amish, many Mormons, etc. etc. all of which clearly contained men who valued and loved their wives for more than being a warm orifice. It's always dangerous to make assumptions about other people's POV but assuming I'm correct, I believe this is a place where your beliefs aren't quite cleaving the joints of reality correctly, though of course that doesn't mean you have to approve of either.
I am not a libertarian.
Well, I agree that in some cases that was effect (if not the intent) of legislation. No one thinks "I will stamp out visible tragedies affecting a small fraction of people at the expense of long-term happiness." The problem with all legislation is that even the best-intentioned legislators do not have a crystal ball or the ability to foresee all second and third-order effects.
So if you want to argue "Feminism was bad for society and we should repeal feminism," uh... I kind of agree with the first statement (for some value of "feminism") but I do not see how you achieve the second (given that "repeal feminism" tends to mean "repeal the entire concept of female emancipation writ large") without winding up at "Women are property." If you want to argue for that explicitly, I guess I can hear you out, but you are right that my moral intuitions are against it.
I dunno how you failed to see it in that essay, but have a look at some of his other essays. I'm sure Jim himself (and indeed, almost no one but the most psychotic incels) will actually own up to literally believing "I do not care if women suffer, they should be treated like the livestock they are." But I absolutely do believe that is Jim's conviction, and that the words of some people here have come about as close as they felt they dared to expressing that. And here is mild compared to some other corners of the Internet.
Are those men a small minority of the (Western) population? Yes. (At least, I certainly hope so and have to believe so to preserve what little faith in humanity I have remaining.) But they are a non-neglible portion of the vocally online and advocates for "social change for the betterment of the whole," and they are a substantial contingent of the sad incel constituency the less, er, explicit sex warriors are arguing we need to appeal to.
You're incorrect. My definition of misogyny is not quite as narrow as yours, but I reserve the label for men who genuinely dislike (if not hate) women and don't believe women's concerns or preferences should register at all. A tradcon who thinks women are less rational and have less agency than men and should stay at home and raise children is not necessarily a "misogynist" in my view. (Maybe sexist, though I actually have no problem with that kind of relationship- I only have a problem with a woman who doesn't want that kind of relationship being forced into it.) No, I do not think everyone who lived prior to 1900 was a woman-hating misogynist just because almost all of them had a "traditional" view of women.
I see, thanks. I apologise for misjudging your convictions in various areas. I don't think I have that much to say as a follow-up right now, beyond a few points:
Broadly, I agree with you, with the caveat that I don't think the mores and customs of the pre-1900s West or the Mormons/Amish/Harethi are as bad as 'women are property'.
I also agree with you here, which is why I would ideally like us to take a gradualist approach to this kind of thing, starting off with:
and going from there. I don't think that this is actually politically possible - even such relatively minor measures would only become possible if mores have shifted so far that those changes are the first movements of a giant landslide. It seems to be the nature of human society and democratic politics in particular to careen rather than adjust, and I think we will end up at the bottom of the slope no matter what. Not much to be done about that IMO.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The mistake is thinking that modern society broke men and women on a simple whim that could be reversed just as simply with a lil' bit of political will. In reality, we have had techno-economical changes that first uplifted many men and women from farming/peasantry to urban work, offshored a lot of labor that required raw physical strength to machinery, and interlinked industry in such a way that people no longer rely mostly on themselves and a few local craftsmen to produce all they need in life.
Meaning, the attempts to blindly RETVRN are not aligning the interests of men and women because regressing to the farmer economy is not really in most people's interest. Also, the men that are most interested in upending the status quo are, it seems, not really the kind of men who were capable of forming "grudging-but-functional relationships" before, let alone loving ones.
The way for west-of-Hajnal societies, I think, is nowhere but forward. Or, we can break down our factories, go back to villages and sit there waiting for the ever-dreaded Muslims, who have got a lot more experience in that kind of life, to overrun us.
Contra ergw and the rest, I do not believe most true incels are so productive that they must be appeased with government-issued wives or society collapses. It should be sufficient to let the incels have their AIfus, the femcels their serial killer LLMen, erect some basic fucking standards so that the eligible men don't poach the femcels too much and use technology to connect pair-bondable men to pair-bondable women for once. Instead of whatever it is the dating apps are doing.
I'm skeptical as to the true extent that so-called femcels even exist in modern society but this is by definition impossible.
More options
Context Copy link
I don't think it can happen at all, not when half of voters would take the initial hit and have been heavily propagandised against, and a good chunk of the other half would prefer to please them. I just think that it probably should. Maybe things will change as the demographic pyramid changes, but frankly I don't think anything will happen until we have a collapse of some sort and probably not then either.
Moreover, I am not advocating for RETVRN to medieval peasant life or turning off the factories. I agree with @TheNybbler that a lot of white-collar female jobs are really direct or indirect government sinecures; beyond that we have a huge legal and social apparatus dedicated to making it almost impossible to be a large company that doesn't hire a large %age of women, and there is no technical reason why that can't be reversed to apply pressure in the opposite direction.
I don't think you and I are talking about the same people. I work in tech and a big chunk of my colleagues (as well as myself) are intelligent, productive, reasonably well-socialized... and can't get a date. I think @Goodguy gave the number of about a third of men being out of a relationship and AFAIK that skews high-IQ and high-conscientousness. 'Literally every single man' is too much of an ask, but if we can get the marriage rates up to 90% or so like they used to be, that would do it for me.
I don't think this works, for the reasons I gave. It might help but the problem is that pair-bondable people don't have the external pressure to actually break through their fears and actually pair-bond, or to bond on a long-term basis once married. I went to a pair-bonding event recently and it seemed to me that even the girls who had nominally come there to pair-bond were deeply ambivalent about actually doing so. That's the problem.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It's a spiteful and misogynistic attitude, but the alternative you imply isn't good either -- that women get to eat through the efforts of men that they provide absolutely nothing for. His attitude is pro-rape; that alternative is slavery.
Are those truly the only two alternatives you can conceive of? You are literally incapable of envisioning, or observing, relationships between men and women that are not slavery?
That is indeed horrifying.
Those relationships exist, but they generally are outside the legal system.
More options
Context Copy link
Everything discussed tends to boil down to one or the other, and becoming horrified over noticing that doesn't change it.
In particular, when you say we're a society with abundance enough that most people shouldn't have to consider starvation a realistic possibility, you're glossing over the fact that that abundance is still being provided by people. And to provide for those who cannot or will not provide for themselves requires taking from those who can. So male incels have to work to pay the taxes for e.g. the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children. That you find that normal and just and proper, they clearly find horrifying themselves.
Allow me to express my skepticism that these miserable "incels" whining that they are incapable of attracting a woman without compulsion are in fact the productive members of society suffering for the benefit of others.
You also, as per usual, make unfounded assumptions about what I find normal and proper and would actually agree to, given a choice.
Be that as it may, let's say we agree to cut every form of charity and allow non producers to starve. That still doesn't put every female under your boot, especially not the desirable ones. They'll still mostly have jobs. So you need to go well beyond cutting off benefits for non producers.
The black pillers and Dread Jim fanboys do not have some clear eyed view of sexual relations and how civilization is supposed to work. Dread Jim doesn't even get Islamic society right when he's ranting about it, and they are about the closest to implementing his ideals in the modern world.
Yes, I am in fact horrified to notice some people are unironically endorsing rape and enslavement. Libertarian cavils about welfare notwithstanding.
Actually, horrified is too strong a word. It suggests I still have the capacity to be morally offended and shocked. I've known for quite a while there are people this base. I'm just disappointed at all the masks coming off as we gyre.
Ah, Just Worlding rears its ugly head. Apparently no one could actually be economically productive and still suffer from lackanooky.
But not horrified to notice that you are endorsing enslavement, because you refuse to notice.
You're getting increasingly lazy in your argumentation. It's not "Just worlding" to notice the correlation between NEET gooners and incels. Is every single incel a non producer? No, but the flattering cope that by and large they are producers unfairly providing for whores who won't give them nooky doesn't correlate to any honest observation.
As for enslavement, what I notice is that you have reduced the argument to "Failure to enslave and rape women means enslavement of men." I'm not sure that is the position you intended to back into. I'm also not sure it's not. But it's certainly a Kulak-based take. Fascinating.
Let's say you're right and I'm failing to be horrified by enslavement of men because I don't notice it. (I reject your flawed logic, but let's suppose it holds, for the sake of argumen.) Are you claiming that believing women should be enslaved and raped is more moral because you admit noticing that's what you're endorsing?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Jobs doing what, exactly?
Taking this scenario at face value, there are exactly zero NGO jobs. There are dramatically fewer government jobs, at all levels. If you allow for private, voluntary, charity in your scenario, that would save some of the NGO sector but it would certainly be drastically reduced.
I’ll call private sector marketing and PR type jobs a wash, because the drop in consumption from the absence of government charity might be counterbalanced by the increase in people’s take home pay.
I would argue that government charity is the only thing that makes HR jobs viable, but because it exists as a result of legislation that is not technically charity in a monetary sense, the HR ladies are saved.
Big, big cuts in the education world, because all the government education grants are gone. Most of these job losses will have to fall on the admin side of education, because as bad as teachers can be, they are still actually the ones providing the service.
Healthcare takes a hit, as fewer people go to the doctor in the absence of massive federal subsidies. Again, this mostly hits the admin, so doctor and nurse jobs are probably mostly safe.
There are no more corporate or farm subsidies, so everybody in those sectors has to get real lean and mean and actually identify their chaff, in the style of Musk taking over Twitter. Again, this is mostly going to fall on admin type jobs, not the wrench turning ones. And while I’ve met many tough as nails cowgirls out here in the Intermountain West, I’ve met four times as many tough as nails cowboys.
There’s a reason HR is something like 80% women and plumbing is 96% dudes, despite master plumbers making more money than HR managers, on average. Plumbing is actually hard work and women, even accounting for tough as nails cowgirls, mostly don’t want to do that.
Basically, in this scenario, are you predicting some sort of exodus of women from laptop jobs to Rosie the Riveter work? Because the only reason that worked the first time is that there was a dramatically reduced number of men available to do that work. You might notice that women have not staged a massive takeover of the factory floors in the intervening years, despite being given every opportunity. Even in software and data and AI, classic sit at a desk jobs, they are huge minorities!
In the absence of the current situation of massive (forced) government charity, there would be far, far fewer jobs that women would view as acceptable and high status enough to be worth doing. I think they would find other, similar things to occupy their time. For example, remote entrepreneurship, possibly. Women have been doing “Work from Home” since Eve.
Anyway, I am confident that this scenario, as you have presented it, would be both a better world to live in and also not a world where women are constantly being beaten and raped while barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen.
I, for one, think the evidence is that they would in fact be happier.
There is a lot of female-coded service work that is either not being done, or being done in the middle of the night by resentful women who also work a full-time job in the productive economy, because the market-clearing price for it is too high for the middle class to afford (either directly or via a service-sector business). If you solve for the equilibrium where a lot of female-coded bullshit jobs disappear and middle-class married couple households are significantly richer, there would be a lot more nannies, housekeepers, personal assistants, waitresses, receptionists etc. than there are now. They would also be better off (due to lower personal taxes) unless they were single mothers.
That society is one in which middle-class women who are still mostly getting married eventually and staying married may feel more pressure to marry rather than girlbossing as a spinster, but the working-class women who are currently driving the decline of marriage won't feel any more pressure to marry a schlub in preference to waiting tables.
More options
Context Copy link
That's not the scenario the "Make women property again" fanboys are advocating.
I think there are problems with your economic assumption that basically our entire infrastructure is running on top of welfare and without it there will be almost zero female employment (this was, in fact, not the case in previous centuries), but you seem to ignore the quiet part being said out loud. They don't want women being happy and married. Reread some of those posts again. They literally consider all women to be hypergamous whores whose toxic sexual impulses can only be constrained with force or threat of starvation. This isn't 'convince women they'd be happier in more traditional roles." It's not even "Kinder, kuche, kirche." It's unironic hatred.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Because the typical man disgusts the typical woman. The only way the average man gets laid on a regular basis if a woman is coerced into fucking him through some combination of physical force, legal authority, social pressure, religious indoctrination, and economic privation. The alternative is what we see now; masses of incels whose best chance at marriage is to wife up some post-wall roastie in her thirties, huge numbers of single mothers and childless cat ladies, legions of children traumatized by divorce, cratering birth rates driving us towards extinction, elites responding by importing infinite immigrants to replace the missing grandchildren.
The fact that the government steals at gunpoint from productive men to support women's """independence""" just adds insult to injury. The government taxes us to provide welfare to underclass women, uses the threat of lawsuits to force companies to hire middle-class women, and employs armies of men as cops and soldiers to physically defend all women. In other words, men are still providing money and protection for women, like we have always done, but now we do it collectively rather than individually, and get nothing out of it.
The message the political figure @faceh is talking about needs to deliver is simple: "We don't have to live like this. We don't. There is another way; a better way. But it starts with rejecting the zeroth commandment".
If the redpill view on women is correct, what's the alternative? You can accept being an incel and become a MGTOW, you can work towards a tradcon world where every productive man is rewarded with a wife, or you can try to become Chad and use PUA to pump and dump as many women as possible while enjoying the decline.
Still, it does fill one with existential dread. As AntiDem put it:
Since I was nine years old, I have known I never wanted to get married. And every time I revisit that and wonder "what would it have been like to get a partner/spouse?", some guy comes along with "women should be forced by the threat of actual starvation to marry me because that means I have the whip hand in that situation, and if you think that's a metaphor you aren't reading what I'm writing".
Thank God for spinsterhood, say I!
You should hear the cursing and swearing I'm doing right now. But okay, guys, let's cosplay Gor and force women into subordinate sexual service complete with leashes. Women can make themselves widows, and the rate of poisonings will go zooming upward. Be forced into a marriage, wait a little, disencumber yourself of the tyrant, and be a free widow. This worked in the Classical world and you want that back in the modern world?
We will see the return of veneration of St. Uncumber!
You want adultery and uncertain paternity to skyrocket? Because that's what you get when forcing women into unwanted marriage. Read the Canterbury Tales and all the jokes/stories about younger wives cuckolding their elderly, jealous husbands.
Arranged marriage satisfaction rates are generally higher than love match. Whilst the 'clubbing over the head and off into the sack' model of courtship tends to produce misery, I think this kind of reaction vastly understates the human ability to just kinda roll with things once a new reality has been imposed.
You can roll with it once the guy is in the same boat and you both have to make the best of it and can rub along in a friendly manner.
But I'm old enough that I remember, for instance, episodes of a late night (late night for Ireland back then) chat show talking about the children's allowance being paid without being means tested, and this being defended as a way to give married women money when their husbands (middle class as well as the dregs of society) would absolutely refuse to give them any money for housekeeping. Even respectable middle-class married women, so it was accepted, could be living lives of abuse and neglect due to abusive husbands.
The days of "yeah I can beat you and nobody will interfere because that's a domestic dispute, yeah I can control the purse strings and you have no options outside the home" are within living memory for some of us.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This is a big claim. Neither my anecdotal observation nor the data that I've seen supports it. According to this 2020 survey only 31% of US men are single. Now, out of the 69% of men who are not single, of course some fraction is partnered with women are either not having sex with them or are only having sex with them for reasons other than being attracted to them. I contend, based on anecdotal observation, that this fraction is not large. If you believe otherwise, perhaps you can put forward some data to support the claim.
However, no matter how large the fraction is, keep in mind that out of the US men who are single, there is also a fraction who would not be single if they lowered their standards.
I beg you to look at the actual stats broken out by age and notice that your own source says 41% of 18-29 year old men are single.
And that was 2020.
More recent stats suggest Its around 6-in-10 young men now.
Combine that with a rise in sexlessness.
So they're not even hooking up as much!
And there's also good data to suggest that its more women deciding not to settle than men's standards being too high.
Which is to say, pressuring men to settle won't help much.
I'm just pointing out that I don't think erwgv3g34's statement is accurate. He did not specify anything about an age group when he claimed that the typical man disgusts the typical woman, etc.
Also, I'm not pressuring men to settle. I myself, for better or for worse, do not settle in this regard.
Is there a problem here for many men? Sure. But I don't think it's nearly as extreme as erwgv3g34 thinks it is.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You aren't citing redpill theory, which argues that we all act according to evolutionary imperatives to reproduce, which supposedly explains almost all male/female behavior. As reductive as it is, it does not posit that we are a loveless, hateful species unable to be happy with one another.
You are blackpilling. That's the "Females are hypergamous whores incapable of forming genuine emotional attachments to men because they hos" theory.
Indeed. If I believed your philosophy, I would see little reason to pursue a relationship at all.
If I were a woman in your world, I would expect death to be preferable to being forced to partner with men.
Now of course an outlook being bleak and nihilistic beyond words doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong. But my empirical observation suggests you're wrong.
Certainly, you don't make a compelling case for any woman, or any man who doesn't absolutely despise women, to adopt your worldview and solutions.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Golly gee, I wonder why those uppity females are not rushing out to marry men who think they should have the right to beat and rape them just like the Good Old Days when the choice was between economic destitution or making concessions regarding marriage.
This is why there was a whole thing about women having careers of their own, so there wouldn't be the risk of economic destitution. This kind of statement is one step away from "and in fact being enslaved was better for the slaves because owners were obliged to feed and shelter them".
You are not going to solve the problem of "why are men and women not getting on? why isn't marriage and children happening?" by telling one side "we want to force you into marriage with someone you would not choose and who can be abusive thereafter, because the alternative is indeed literal starvation and he knows you will be trapped".
Why the hell are you making it "being a whore is better for me than being a wife"? Don't we want women to choose to be wives and mothers, instead of "well if it's sex for meat, then at least let me not be tied to one provider"?
There's a peculiar tension in certain strains of gender-roles conservatism which simultaneously holds that motherhood is the highest and most virtuous calling to which a woman can aspire, and also that because women aren't directly engaged in productive labor that they deserve less (or no) say in decision making.
More options
Context Copy link
Serious question. Do you think concessions in a marriage are a bad thing?
No. I don't think there's such a thing as the romantic soulmate, the twin flame, or whatever other nonsense new term is floating around. There is no perfect Mr or Ms Right out there waiting for you. Settling is not a bad thing, and both of you need to work at the marriage to make it work. It's not going to be perfect bliss all the time, and probably yeah both of you will wonder about the other guy/gal you could have married at least sometime.
But that's not at all the same thing as "finally women, under the threat of starvation, will be forced to marry men they don't want or like". Men, too, can be forced into undesired marriages. I don't think forcing anyone is a good thing. And if you find out your spouse only married you as a meal ticket, what then? Do you demand they love you like the perfect romantic lover you dreamed of, in addition to being your coerced bondservant? People want to be valued for themselves. Being realistic about your chances and your options is not the same as being coldly calculating or dreaming of finally being able to force those haughty bitches who turned you down in high school to fawn on you for scraps.
To quote Tolkien from a letter to his son Michael in 1941:
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Odd thing to say, when its becoming increasingly evident that married women are happier on average than unmarried ones. And that this has been true FOR a long time.
Oh, also side note. Single Women are more likely to be victimized by rape and homicide than ones in a commited relationship too. So if fear of violent men is a factor, you're making women WORSE off by discouraging marriage.
Maybe... just maybe... women have been lied to about the allegedly rapey, abusey, slavery-lite portrayal of marriage in the past?
Is it possible that this entire debate has been framed around an abject falsehood?
As we can see, the only evidence presented to rebut the idea that marriage is a good deal for women is a derisive dismissal of men as a gender as if the ONLY thing they can do to keep a woman is literally lock them up barefoot and pregnant, there's no POSSIBLE way they could entice them to stick around otherwise.
Of course. But that requires there to be an incentive to choose and pressure to make a choice and stick with it. Rather than the current zeitgeist of "take as long as you need, keep your standards as high as possible, there's no (social) penalty to remaining single, and if you don't get married don't worry the state will make sure you're basically comfortable anyway." In a world where all pressure to settle has been removed AND women are being told that marriage is a huge imposition on their freedom and happiness, "I wonder why those uppity females are not rushing out to marry men" when literally no person with authority anywhere is telling them to do so.
One thing I always find amusing is the conceit that women shouldn't have to depend on men...
But if they are now completely dependent on an uncaring corporate entity for their healthcare, housing, social life, and income, THAT is somehow the mark of 'independence.'
Explain to me how being tied down to a job with a (most likely male) boss who places constant demands on your time and labor but can also fire you at any time is AT ALL inherently better than being tied to an individual male that has at least publicly stated his own intentions to remain loyal to you up until death.
And of course a corporation can never give them kids.
Its actually an absurd sort of logic that women are safer and more comfortable in a corporate workplace than at home with children. Especially when female happiness has been on a constant decline for the last fifty years. They are not satisfied despite all changes in their favor, despite having 'better' jobs, fewer obligations, and fewer kids.
But hey.
I'm sure it will be fine.
Anyhow, this is just what I mean, bringing up men's issues and framing them in ANY way that might pose ANY inconvenience on women as part of the solution invites absolute antipathy. This is why women's issues are just easier to discuss seriously, since nobody loses their mind if you suggest imposing more costs on men to help out women.
Which is basically what we've been doing to an increasing degree for 50 straight years.
Married women are happy when they are treated as partners, not dogs on a leash.
There's some interesting research showing that Lesbian marriages are more likely to end in divorce than heterosexual ones, and male-male marriages divorce less often.
I dunno, if women are even less able to sustain a relationship if their partner is a woman, it indicates that they're not very good at being a 'partner' at all.
And its still very odd gotten less satisified with life even as they have more rights than before
I suggest you're missing some critical factor.
And no this isn't a calling for women to be reduced to chattel. My whole perspective is that the spouses differing roles are complementary, but across the board the male will tend to be the one best-equipped to make decisions for the family as a whole.
Its pointing out that your thesis isn't very explanatory of why women are LESS happy despite MORE concessions than ever, and why women who DO find men to lead them tend to be less neurotic and more happy.
This doesn't necessarily determine how EVERY marriage should be run, of course.
Three sentences earlier:
The perspective explicit in this statement, and implicit in most other trad apologia, is not "men are good at some things and women are good at other things, so they should both stick to what they're good at", but rather "women are bad at everything other than their biological prerogative, so they ought to stay in their lane while the men handle everything else of import". Through this lens, women are "complementary" to men only insofar as the servant complements his master. Although modern trads are always quick to assure us that they mean no such thing, learned men of ancient times understood this:
Edit: I haven't ever seen this point made, but classical liberalism is a statement of value-finder supremacy. This is distinct from communism and fascism, which are worker-supremacy movements (when workers are in oversupply or undersupply, respectively), and monarchism/oligarchy, which are goal-setter/manager-supremacy movements.
This is why classical liberal societies (and those inspired by them) all converged on this viewpoint.
Sure, but the excuse made to constantly assert this is that X designates servant, and further, used as an excuse to be lazy about/completely ignore that's a deadweight loss if a master X (or a servant not-X re: Peter Principle) exists.
This is why societies that are sufficiently mercantile tend to be the freest ones, since the base condition of what allows them to be so mercantile is a deficit of laborers to produce whatever it is they sell. They're more concerned about exercising and expressing natural talents because encouraging more of that makes the society more productive, rather than a dirt-poor society where that would be a net-negative due to lack of resources or market.
(Also, if you're a Christian society there tends to be an associated meme of actively checking for overlooked potential for what ultimately comes down to... better service. The US is obsessed with underdogs partially for this reason.)
to the trads: they already know that, stop rubbing it in, that's only making it worse
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This is a reality that I think any honest feminist has to deal with. Is feminism about freedom for women, or is it about a better life for women, as measured by their own personal satisfaction? It would be an incredibly convenient world if prioritizing the former led to the latter, but the evidence seems quite clear that it is not the case and, in fact, there's strong reason to believe that it leads to the opposite of the latter.
And, as a feminist, I find it very easy to square: feminism should prioritize freedom (to equalize it between the sexes) over life satisfaction, and the costs to the women whose lives are now less satisfying due to feminism (but more free) is worth it for the benefit to the women whose lives are both more satisfying and more free. I just wish more feminists would openly and honestly acknowledge and state as such, that there will be tradeoffs, because there always are, and that some people deserve to suffer not because they're morally or ethically bad or whatever, but merely because they lack the wisdom/intelligence/etc. to make choices that lead to better outcomes for themselves when given the freedom to do so, compared to the alternative where they were not given the freedom.
This, of course, applies not just to feminism but more broadly to most/all liberalizing/libertarian ideologies. And the same criticisms as above apply just as well to those.
One still has to grapple with the fact that the women who are now less satisfied with their lives, and having less children, and voting for policies that tend to disrupt productive economic activity in favor of redistribution.
So they are ultimately selecting against the continued maintenance of an advanced civilization.
And advanced civilization appears to be a prerequisite for women having anything resembling equality with men.
If that's the case, then its simply not a sustainable equilibrium, and the ultimate collapse is going to be way worse for future women's interests.
More options
Context Copy link
Sure, but feminists generally square this circle by going
and note that this is the same as
and the way this is legitimized to a people who otherwise aren't just cartoon-villain evil is with varying other justifications that center around how being X is the best proxy for "lacking the wisdom/intelligence/etc. to make choices that lead to better outcomes". This usually takes the form of some scientific justification (melanin, testosterone, brain development, etc.). It generally works quite well for people of not-X, and the moral hazard for continuing that state of affairs leans in their direction.
By contrast,
is the liberal view, and liberals who still call themselves feminists are pointing at a legacy where this was at one point true for their group (or are low-information enough to believe it's still a problem especially thanks to those who work to generate the above justifications), but because they're just better than average human beings, their tendency to be sympathetic to those who claim to be on the low side of that moral hazard until they are crushed to death by a literal army of concern trolls.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Exploits it how, exactly? And what makes you think such a figure — with a minority of democratic support, and strong institutional opposition — wouldn't just end up shut out and shut down?
"To the disaffected, lonely men listening now, I promise I will stop the flow of tax dollars out of your pockets to programs that disproportionately benefit single mothers and childless girlbosses.
I will aggressively punish institutionalized discrimination against males at every level, and seek removal of any gender or other quotas that undermine meritocratic promotion or allow your salary to be undercut and your career derailed.
I will create large tax credit incentives for men who get married, hold down a job, and are raising children, and promote strong, male-led households where he can be the primary breadwinner without needing a second job or for the wife to work full time."
Or if you want a really simple one: "Men, I'm going to close off all non-skilled immigration except for attractive, fertile young women, and due to the looming crisis of declining birthrates we will issue emergency visas and expedited citizenship paths to any such women who get married and bear at least 2 kids."
Basically actually propose solutions, viable or not, that address the actual anxieties and misgivings that men have been expressing, and make them feel like they've got some investment in the movement.
Note that there is no real mainstream political figure, ANYWHERE, in ANY country that is able to make these sort of statements. Which has led to the current issue. Women's issues are central in the Overton Window, its impossible to even elevate male concerns to the point where they're discussed seriously.
By whom. They keep trying to do that to Andrew Tate, he still has a voice and following.
Charlie Kirk was talking about these sort of issues until he died.
Matt Walsh brings these issues up too and he's still got a large following.
The only option they'd have is arresting them and that'd probably not work out for them unless the person in question was actually trying to get seriously militant/violent.
And if this person is J.D. Vance, how the hell do you expect them to 'shut out' the sitting Vice President of the United States.
This is one I'm surprised I haven't seen mooted. Making it easier for passport bros to import wives seems like an easy stink bomb for the Trump admin to throw into the Democratic coalition, it would almost certainly cause them to chase their tails for months.
I would find the "Waifu Importation Bill" hilarious, but how exactly would they ensure "attractive and fertile"? Will there be a panel judging their attractiveness (no doubt hosted by the President himself), rejecting anyone who scores below a 6?
Of course it would also be hilarious to see this backfire when a flood of Muslim women arrives completely on board with the "get married and have at least two children" plan.
How is that "backfiring"?
I think the implication is that they arrive and marry Muslim men, have Muslim kids and engage in demographic replacement of the native western population.
A real monkey's paw.
Unless this idea includes legalizing polygamy, it's probably not going to be an issue.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Presumably by market forces, if you're making it easier to bring in your fiancee. A guy isn't going to bring in a woman he doesn't want to sleep with. Fertile is kind of a black box, but there's no reason to think it wouldn't lead to more children, especially if you tie citizenship to children. Maybe a structure where green cards are easy to get for your gf, and your gf gets citizenship once you have kids?
I do think a very easy button to press is the au pair program. Make it mega easy and cheap to import girls between the age of 17 and 30 who want to do childcare. Besides the help they'd give current parents, it's a pretty good bet that twenty-somethings who like kids enough to nanny wouldn't mind having a few.
These programs would be obviously good, would increase immigration (which Democrats are bad at saying is ever bad), and are easy to bias on sex (au pair's are female, make citizenship for mother's of children but not fathers). Trump is at his best when he gets to the left of the Dems, they tie themselves in knots and look like fools.
Who's afraid of big bad burqa? A flood of pretty Persian or Lebanese girls with engineering degrees who want to marry a soulful white boy and raise kids here doesn't offend me one bit. I may be biased...
More options
Context Copy link
I would watch that tv show.
More options
Context Copy link
That's the beauty of male sexual preference; men find 80%+ of fertile-age females attractive. Simply setting a limit between the ages of sixteen and twenty-five would ensure that the supermajority of women imported under this program would be attractive with no other filter needed.
More than 20% of fertile-age females in the US, at least, are obese, so I question whatever survey you're using this time. Or did it classify "would fuck" the same as "attractive"?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Sure there is; you need only look north. That won't get you into political power in that country for reasons that have a lot to do with geography, but at least the solvent half of the country will vote for you.
I have no idea to whom you are referring; could you please speak more plainly?
I'm not OP, but here's my reading.
Look north - Canada
Geography - something something Canadian shield something something resource extractions
Solvent half - Alberta, resource extraction
I got that; I just thought @ThisIsSin must be referring to some specific public figure there. Now that you point it out, I suppose he's saying that you could get away with making these arguments in Canada, and at least get Alberta voting for you, if not anywhere else.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I would like to see that happen, but I'm dubious for a couple of reasons. First, we've set up our economies so that isn't really a runner, anymore. Unionised jobs which did provide good benefits and you could be the single breadwinner became corrupt and atrophied (see the fairly recent example of the longshoremen, for one). Industries collapsed during the 80s and the salvation was to outsource to cheaper labour and resources abroad, and to get more women into the workforce.
Second, a strong male-led household can be one where the man runs them into debt and other problems, or where the ostensible male head is weak and incapable. To work at its best, marriage should be a partnership. "This happens because I say so" can only work where "I say so" is reasonable and not "I've decided to take out loans, mortgage the house, and put all our savings into this sure thing a guy told me about, and if you don't like it, here's a black eye for you".
I simply suggest this is not a common scenario, at least not in the relatively recent past.
And even if it were, it would require a strong male-lad society to police and punish such actors anyway. There's no scenario where "women can veto any given decision and husband has no authority to limit her" leads to overall superior outcomes.
The current experiment where women are allowed almost unfettered decision-making within a marriage hasn't really worked better for anyone, by most accounts.
I think "we live in a globalized world and everyone is aggressively sorted according to their skills and IQ" covers a lot of the issue.
If you're a low-productivity worker, then you're competing against cheap labor from around the globe. If you're a high-skill, high productivity worker you can still do well, but you have to go where the opportunities are. And then you'll be most likely locked into a high-stakes, high competitiveness industry with little margin for error and high demands on your time and performance. Which you will be compensated for, but which can he lost in short order if you screw up.
NOBODY seems to have a viable plan to 'ensure' the creation of stable, high-paying jobs which don't demand endless hours of work and/or take a massive toll on one's health.
But there's a LOT we could be doing to make it easier to create more jobs in the U.S. and lower the overall cost of living.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
And when this program fails to get them enough votes, because the men who approve of such are outnumbered by the mix of:
Assuming, that is, that such a person is even allowed in the race to begin with.
Have you considered that maybe there's a reason for that? That, first, it might not play as well with voters as you think; and second, even if it could, that maybe the Establishment have tools at their disposal to ensure that any person who would make these sort of statements is totally prevented from ever becoming a "real mainstream political figure"?
The Cathedral/Deep State/Swamp. The Ruling Elites who actually decide everything, regardless of what the voters in the sham that is "democracy" think.
And is he running for office? How much electoral sway does that "following" have?
And where did it get him?
Same questions as Tate.
First, no, there are other options. Just do like in Europe and engage in "defensive democracy" — make sure both party establishments know not to let such a person ever get on the ballot. Second, I think arresting them would work just fine. First, because it'd be easy to develop any number of pretexts for doing so that the media can "sell" to enough of the public. Second, because what would it not "working out for them" even look like?
It almost certainly won't be.
In rough order of escalation? Get the GOP to nominate someone else instead. Defeat his campaign with lawfare a la Ted Stevens. Find a legal excuse to remove him from the ballot. Rig the election. Assassination by "lone gunman." Imprison or execute him after he's convicted in Nuremberg-style trials alongside the rest of the "Fascist Trump regime" as part of the start of the campaign to "denazify" America.
Democracy is fake, electoral politics is all kayfabe, the will of the electorate means nothing, us peasant masses are entirely powerless.
More options
Context Copy link
He didn't just die. He was murdered. So there is your answer.
Vance is married with a daughter. If he does it he'll stop when his daughter is old enough to understand.
By a dude.
This is perhaps the one big thing that could break if too many guys check out of the system.
Outbreaks of targeted violence on political figures across the spectrum, and as mentioned above, insufficient police capacity to catch and stop all of them.
Don't think that guys aren't noticing how positively many women responded to Luigi Mangione offing a CEO.
That really seems to be the big test. There are a lot of wifeguys and girldads out there who might feel sympathetic to the plight of young males, but are inherently unable to utter words that they imagine might upset said wives or daughters and thus can never really be the leader such guys might seek.
Vance so far hasn't seemed to have had that issue, he's at least willing to openly hope for his own wife's conversion to Christianity.
What makes you think it would be "across the spectrum"?
First, you don't have to catch all of them to have a deterrent effect (just look at case closure rates for various crimes in the US). Second, that just becomes reason to prioritize the "more dangerous" would-be assassins — by which, of course, I mean those targeting left-wing politicians. (Right-wing politicians? Well, don't you know we have a police shortage? Shame we just can't do anything to protect them from these assassins, who are probably all fellow right-wingers, don'tchaknow.)
Because he's a leftist with a leftist motive for the murder; it wouldn't work the other way around.
Exactly. Between them and women, your "based pro-male" politician's supporters will be hopelessly outnumbered. Women are wonderful, men are expendable.
Such guys will have grievances against politicians of almost all stripes, and will probably start going after targets of opportunity if they don't have strong ideological motivations.
Deterrent effect relies on guys being afraid of prison and/or death.
What my position presupposes is: What if they aren't. What if they see no path forward that leads to them being, e.g. happily married in a solid career in a safe neighborhood and a bright future for their kids.
Some % of them will accept their lot. The rest, what can anyone threaten them with to 'de-radicalize' them.
Wanna bet.
Don't forget gay guys. I think that between the liberal females, the lefty dudes, the gays that simply don't have share their concerns, the sociopathic lotharios who just want to get laid, and the tradcons that cannot ever speak ill of women, it is a loose but generally united coalition that says male-oriented political concerns are generally beneath notice.
But the pool of males that is the subject of the problem is almost the exact same pool which performs almost all the important economic activity in this country.
"Such guys" will be very rare, basically for all the reasons Tyler Cowen gives in Average is Over for why nobody will overthrow the dystopian future he foresees, despite 80% of the population being utterly immiserated peasants crammed into favelas and subsisting on beans: aging population, ever-improving electronic distractions, ever-broader applications of psychiatric meds (and weed), ever-more omnipresent surveillance and increasingly-autonomous police drones. Then add obesity and lack of fitness on top of that. Most guys with grievances will mostly just numb themselves with video games and porn. I hear AI girlfriends are getting better every day.
And our society is still well-off enough that very few men will ever end up being that fearless — and I say that as someone with frequent suicidal ideation. Aside from being about to turn 44, I'm pretty much part of the very group you're talking about. And even then, I'm still quite afraid of prison (much more than death).
Nothing. Whether they see that "path forward" or not makes no difference, because they can't do anything about it. They're powerless. They'll keep on doing what they do, because they won't be given any choice in the matter.
I suppose > 99.999% is still "some %."
Punishment. Escalating punishment. If punishment isn't deterring them, then increase until it does. Impose increasingly torturous consequences.
I don't really have money to spare with which to bet, and even if I did, how would we set up terms? You win if, within some period of time, there's a right-wing assassin who proves as popular with the ladies as Luigi, and if not (either no such assassins, or insufficient popularity), I win? How would we define "right-wing assassin" to mirror Luigi — as opposed to, say, "random schizo"? And how would we measure popularity with the ladies?
Edit: That said, I stand by that position, and I'll add this Substack rant from Kulak. As he notes about the Left:
But, he noted, both in that article and over on Twitter, this is only on the left. Over on the right, anyone who resorts to Mangione-style violence is instantly denounced and disowned by everyone, their very memory spat upon by their entire side, even their own parents.
The adoration you see for Luigi is a purely left-wing phenomenon. It only happens on the left, can only happen on the left, and will only ever happen on the left. The right does not do it, and never will.[/edit]
And it's never going away.
So what? They're going to keep providing that economic activity, whether it provides them with a "path forward" to marriage and kids or not, because if enough of them stop providing as to make a difference, they will be forced to start again. And if the force is insufficient, then more will be applied. Where there's a whip, there is a way, and the beatings will continue until morale improves.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link