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 -
I saw a thread about Louis Theroux's manosphere documentary. OP relates his teen daughter's alleged words and experiences to make a point about healthy values and teen male behaviours. The current verdict is that boys should have their screen times monitored or limited so they don't get corrupted by the manosphere, and raise them with feminist values. Okay. I agree with some of this. There are certainly incel adjacent online spaces that spiral into nihilism and hate. There are teenage boys with zero offline male role models to mainline this stuff and end up emerging more bitter than buff. Parental gatekeeping of violent porn, gambling apps, or extremist political content seems like basic risk management. If your heuristic is “anything that makes my daughter feel existentially unsafe is bad for my son too,” the monitoring prescription follows naturally. And yes, the generational digital literacy gap is real. Parents are often shocked their kids know the lore. I'd go further, I'm in favour of a blanket social media ban until they (both boys and girls) turn 16.
That being said. This comes just one day after Clavicular's recent clip with Leela Saraswat went viral. FWIW the "boyfriend" commented on Instagram that it was an old prom pic and they weren't dating. But are we allowed to question what message women's questionable dating choices (made of their free will with no external pressure) send to young boys and girls? We have a clip of an (allegedly) attached woman melting for a high value male on camera, yet the discourse pivots to “protect boys from the manosphere”. Here's the truth nuke: Clavicular is not an incel. He is living proof of the sexual marketplace the manosphere describes, which is heavily determined by looks, money, height, race, social status, etc. He pulls taken women with minimal effort. Young men are not “corrupted” into noticing these patterns. They notice them first (through lived failure) and then find the subculture that names the pattern instead of shaming them for noticing. So what is the problem with the manosphere? That it spreads dangerous lies and radicalises young men into subjugating and even killing women? Or that the rhetoric makes women look bad?
If it's the former, I need to see some evidence. Netflix's "Adolescence" made waves last year for catching the so called andrew tate problem that's apparently radicalising 13 year old boys into stabbing their classmates. Never mind the fact that homicide rates in the UK have been trending DOWN over the years, particularly against females. Are we allowed to discuss the harm caused by manufactured hysteria? If it's the latter, then you’re not protecting boys. You’re just delaying the day they notice the discrepancy between official feminist sermons and observed reality. And when they finally do notice, they’ll be angrier for the wasted years. And manosphere critics would tell us they've been "corrupted".
Lastly, since #notallmen was mentioned as a gotcha, can I point out how this "collective guilt" only flows one way? If every man should feel ashamed about the manosphere because we share genitals with them, what about the (overwhelmingly male) miners, linemen, firemen, welders, construction workers, road workers, steel workers, etc etc who commit to physically intensive and dangerous labour everyday to keep your lights on? Do we all get a collective male labour paycheck for that too, simply because we share genitals with the workers in these vocations? You don't need to hold yourself to consistent principles if you have sufficient social capital, like feminism does.
This whole thing is pretty weird to me. Many of the men in the documentary are avowed misogynists, but guys like that were common 20 years ago, 50 years ago, and so on. Are they more common today? No, not really.
What confuses me - on both the ‘incel’ and ‘mainstream liberal’ (not that those are the only two views, but they’re the two most commonly represented in this debate) is that both sides are taking something out of these stories and interactions that isn’t true.
Let me illustrate:
The handsome, outgoing and tall 19 year old ‘Clavicular’ flirts with and hits on the young women outside Miami bars and clubs on camera. He says some outrageous things and also happens to have been an incel / looksmaxxing forum dweller. According to the incels this somehow vindicates a particular strand of contempt for women. But this young man’s misogyny and performative meanness to women isn’t why he gets laid! He gets laid because, presumably, he is tall, handsome and outgoing. A very handsome and charming 6’4 man could just as well be a consummate feminist and do just as well. If the accusation is that women looking to hook up with guys outside clubs in Miami prioritize looks over the politics and social views of the men they hook up with, OK? As the joke about white nationalist men with non-white wives goes, this is not a gender-specific concept.
And does this really mean women in general are particularly shallow? Leaving aside the fact that may of these streamers primarily hookup with OnlyFans content creators (ie sex workers), even the “girl in a tight dress outside a nightclub in Miami at 1am willing to talk on camera to a guy with an entourage of posturing young men” isn’t the ‘average’ woman or even young woman, it’s a very much filtered group. It’s like dating only people you meet at Burning Man and complaining they all smell bad, are polyamorous, and have STDs.
The second issue, the banality of the progressive or mainstream critique of these guys, is just as obvious - the primary victims of these men aren’t young women, who mostly don’t care or have nothing to do with them (unless they have an OnlyFans to advertise) - they’re the young men who donate their hard earned money to them on stream, or who spend thousands of dollars on scam courses or fake ‘trading’ apps where nobody but the house (and the influencer taking a cut of every rube he directs its way) ever makes any money. It’s that short Mexican guy from the documentary who thinks that if he’s only a bit more masculine, more misogynist, more alpha, he can have the life of the tall rich white guy.
The "Clavicular Thesis" would be closer to "Looks are the most important thing, more important than everything else." You could say, yeah, everyone knows looks are important, but since you're not currently a looksmaxxer, clearly your preference for looks is weaker than Clav's. And he'd say your preference was wrong.
In a way it's almost saintly, of course everyone knows virtue is good but are you actively cultivating your virtue? So you become a hero by embodying virtue at a higher level than everyone else. I guess in some sense that's just what it means to be an idol.
As for scam courses and money, the modal donation to a streamer is in the $5-$10 range. The scam courses are almost a separate category of behavior. (I think the problem is actually somewhat class-coded, participating in that world is low-status, it's like Alex Jones advertiser supplements, Trump University, influencer bodybuilding routines, etc. There's nothing wrong in principle with paying for any of these things but we think of it as low-status.)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I’m just wondering why anyone decides to release a documentary about the Manosphere in 2026. As far as I can tell, the period when the Manosphere had any relevance was sometime between 2008-14. Since 2014 the defining fault line in the Culture War has been race, not sex, and most of the political attention the Manosphere might have otherwise been able to capture was swept up by Trump, who apparently has relatively little or no interest in gender politics. The PUA scene was already declining before the COVID lockdowns for various reasons and seems to have completely died off since then. Andrew Tate, as far as I know, is simply rehashing a dumbed-down version of arguments you could find on any of the dozens of Red Pill sites that existed back in 2013 or so.
More options
Context Copy link
As a side note, I think it's worth pointing out that manosphere types can only exist to the extent feminism also exists. So for example, one can imagine a traditional society where (1) women are not free to have sex outside of marriage; and (2) any proposed marriage must be approved by a woman's father or other male guardian. In such a society, a pick-up artist type is not going to get anywhere. No amount of cold approaching, negging, etc. is going to get a man into a woman's pants.
On the other hand, in a society where women are free to have sex on a whim with whomever they want, then it's kind of inevitable that (1) some men will experiment with different techniques for seducing women; (2) men will exchange ideas on these issues; and (3) those men will discover things about female sexuality which are unflattering (because women are human and in general the truth about human nature is unflattering at times). i.e. some kind of manosphere will develop.
So really, as usual, this is about women wanting to have their cake and eat it too.
For sure, the misogyny is largely amplified by the streisand effect. Even those who unironically push #notallmen are falling into the rhetorical trap of auditioning for women's social approval by "speaking up and calling out their bros". I don't disagree with the sentiment, it's basic human decency after all and both men and women should do it. But I do object to posturing for social capital via feminism.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Neither of those things. The manosphere Is Problematic because it convinces young men to get off the path of contributing to society in the way that society wants men to contribute to it, when it is easiest to get started on that path of filling the male role in society. Yes, feminism does the same thing for women and the double standard exists, but two wrongs don't make a right. Yes, there are legitimate issues the manosphere points to- just like feminism, which really did call out some bad stuff- but most of it is whining and secession from public contribution. Society needs young men to study for career skills, work hard, join the army, etc. Young male activities which seem pointless but which society is largely pro(such as team sports) largely do push towards these goals at least somewhat.
Yes, but what "society" wants is unreasonable. Not because what it wants in terms of contributions, but because of what it's willing to provide in return -- which is that they can keep some of the money they earn, and that's it.
More options
Context Copy link
Fair enough but I was posing that query to the anti-manosphere folk, not a TheMotte user. I agree with what you say, but that is not what the usual critics regularly write screeds about. Nor are they the champions of healthy male bonding activities like team sports. Au contraire, it's the same folk who believe (or flock with people who believe) that the Boy Scouts was exclusionary for only allowing boys. The subject of their concerns is always women and being palatable to women.
They wanted access to the boy scouts because the girl scouts suck, and they're seemingly pretty happy with the gender-segregated compromise. They may not be championing team sports but they're more than happy to point to them as good when the situation calls for it, and they aren't complaining vocally about it either.
The manosphere complaints are taken seriously by the powers that be for the reasons I just outlined, and not for 'protecting women and girls' reasons. That's BS, tPtb don't care about that- see also, Weinstein. 'Protecting women and girls' is, however, a potent meme for getting nice, middle class moms onboard, and you cannot run a campaign of adolescent-targeted censorship without parents, China is failing at it let alone the west.
While yes, feminism is running a very similar campaign with very similar effects towards girls and young women, that's completely true. I'm not claiming there's not a double standard here, but the powers that be are also very concerned about lower class defections from feminism resulting in shit they have to eat the bill for(like teen pregnancy). That's why the FLDS got raided despite not really having child welfare concerns(Texas CPS basically said they couldn't find a reason, and nobody likes the FLDS)- because they're all doing welfare fraud without engaging in the appropriate political machinery. Like it or not, lower class defections from feminism tend not to wind up as happy 50's larping stepford due to the reactionary impulse not itself providing any alternative to feminism. Organized groups with some alternative lifestyle who either support themselves or form political machines to cover their welfare fraud? Anglosphere governments don't really care all that much.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I haven’t watched the documentary yet, but IMO if you wish to increase the sum total happiness in society, it’s better to lean into “women should be ashamed of their gender” than “men should be ashamed of their gender”. This is because women are more sensitive to shame, threats of social ostracization, and other kinds of social stressors, while being more socially conformist, and while also being more “vain” in their choice of mate (hypergamy, which is just nature naturing), and more likely to instigate divorce when the status differential is changed in their favor [1, 2, 3]. Men, contrarily, are more likely to take risks and break social norms in order to secure a mate, and so any attempt at shaming them into not getting laid will be less effective. So there is a qualitative difference in the effect size of any behavior-policing social intervention: with the same amount of shame, you can modify more of the behaviors and values of more women than if you tried the same for men. We know from a study on the Lancaster Amish that women who are controlled according to traditional values have less stress, fewer symptoms of depression, higher aggregate scores of mental health, lower levels of intimate partner violence, higher levels of social support, and even report lower levels of unfair treatment owing to gender (lol, lmao even) compared to the general population. We can only imagine how happy they would be with traditional values + modern Starbucks beverages. Traditionalism also uniquely buffers against the depression-increase when women marry:
In light of the data, I’m not sure why anyone would take manosphere / feminism discourse seriously. Neither of them have any evidence-backed plan to make men and women happier. Maybe the manosphere increases male happiness by providing a sense of cameraderie? I doubt feminism makes anyone happier as feminists always seem distraught.
More options
Context Copy link
I think this is a good point. It's helpful to tell girls and young women (1) they shouldn't dress like that; (2) the shouldn't jump into anyone's lap; (3) when it comes to dating, they should look for a solid guy who isn't a player. This is good both for the woman herself and for society in general. It's like telling people they should choose fresh fruit over soda.
And there's a nice secondary benefit: The more girls who start behaving this way, the fewer boys who will be tempted by red-pill manosphere types.
Of course the main problem with this is that our society is uncomfortable doing anything that shames or otherwise attempts to control female sexuality.
More options
Context Copy link
Everyone already knows this. The only reason we don't discuss how much pussy NBA and NFL players get is because it's banal. Every rapper consistently brags about this (besides buying jewelry and cars you don't need, taking a "broke nigga's bitch" is the ultimate sign of success.)
These people are, however, rare. And so their transactional and/or hostile approach to sex is seen as just one of life's natural inequities. We don't like that a star gets better treatment in some domains but we just live with it because we almost never directly compete with stars.
PUA/Looksmaxxers/etc. and the rest are, in their critics' eyes, an attempt to mainstream a bleak and transactional attitude amongst men who don't have the excellence for it, made even worse by the ressentiment that drove them to find those tools in the first place (the Nietzschean take being that they're more bitter and cruel than the natural aristocrats). Those men probably don't benefit from having the hostile attitude rappers can afford to sing about and, if those men "abuse" women, it'll be regular women not career groupies or pass-arounds who orbit high status males.
And, of course, if they buy into the worse beliefs and become doomers their parents' bloodline ends. Westerners don't have many kids, you can't afford to throw away one as a failure.
The simpler charge of hypocrisy is that this only applies to men generally or white men specifically. Nobody ever suggests that Muslims should suffer collective guilt because "most of the M&Ms may not be terrorists but would you take the risk?". It's pretty laughable to be focusing on white incel terrorism when places like Britain haven't even reckoned with the grooming gangs and refugee rapists and the audience of people like Tate are disproportionately Muslim.
I haven't watched this doc beyond some Twitter clips, but I did see Louis Theroux's original doc on PUAs maybe a decade ago. There's been a generational turnover. The original cadre was much whiter*. Less misogynist? I dunno. But less nakedly so. Myron Gaines especially comes across as someone who loathes women. Like, not just sexually frustrated but actively loathes that they have any power.
* And much less incel/blackpill. People like Neill Strauss did have some experience with women to temper their doomerism, they just didn't know how to transition into the relationship they wanted.
That's not true, though, unless you're using some sort of "subconsciously know in a way that is directly contradictory to their behavior, their words, and their conscious beliefs" meaning of "knows" here. We have vast swathes of the population who genuinely believe that the part quoted above is merely the delusions of old, crusty, conservative ignoramuses who don't understand the Correct Feminist way that romantic relationships actually work among humans. The existence of these vast swathes who don't know this is pretty much why incels have become a noticeable issue at all in the culture wars.
It doesn't even make sense on a feminist view to say race doesn't matter, because feminists are progressives and progressives believe that racial/aesthetic inequity is a real thing. That's why fat and ugly and black women (all lower status groups) were everywhere when the revolution triumphed in 2020, that's why Sydney Sweeney became the topic of (inane) culture war discourse when those brands pulled back and did the conventional thing.
Are we really going to argue that people don't know that celebrities have groupies, that fit men are more attractive (where's the male slob sex symbol?). I think what's new is the doomerism - that it's over if you don't meet some ridiculously high baseline. This isn't purely about social messaging but about tech (it becomes much more serious if you can just filter out 5'11 manlets online) and people being more neurotic.
I think the feminist position is deeply flawed in that it's narcissistic and refuses to take sex differences (or hell, basic facts about how crimes and abuse cluster) seriously. It fails to factor in that even a bad plan is better than no plan for men (and, likely, older feminists simply overcorrected and assumed men would always be as socially adroit as their generation no matter what bad incentives they created).
But there's only so far you can get with the argument that people are this ignorant, that they think Chris Hemsworth takes his shirt off because women are attracted to Aussies. Either they're neuro-divergent to the point of suicidal credulity (in which case I don't trust that you actually read society's message correctly, there are implicit messages), very young or are actively in denial. Someone like Lindy West or the fat acceptance types are not unaware of their lower status, they reject it and reject anything that could fix it because they've decided a political situation is the only moral one. I suppose you can say that the last group were brainwashed into it but they're not ignorant. They're willfully opposed and you have to know what you're fighting to fight it.
This seems like just a semantic argument. Yes, these people are "aware" of these things happening, but, like you say, they "reject" it, because it's "immoral." Part of that rejection is the "suicidal credulity" and "denial," which causes them to lack an understanding of the fact that the reality of some fat acceptance type having "low status" due to their fatness is something that you can't rout society around through wishful thinking and bullying, at least not longer than the emperor can walk around naked before some kid asks why. I think that they don't know that their model of sexual attraction in society is useless in the face of the underlying reality, as evidenced by their behavior which leads to self-suffering, shows that they're still missing some core knowledge about how the "sexual marketplace [as] the manosphere describes" is accurate
The actual factually inaccurate but morally right explanation is that the only reason Hemsworth's good body attracts women is that women have been hopelessly brainwashed to value those things (similarly to how men have been hopelessly brainwashed to value youth, skinniness, etc. in women), and that simply freeing them from the brainwashing would make women exactly as attracted to Danny Devito as to Chris Hemsworth if their personalities were the same (similarly to how simply freeing men from the brainwashing would make them exactly as attracted to Oprah Winfrey as to Sydney Sweeney if their personalities were the same - that this hasn't happened indicates that we must free them even harder from their oppressive brainwashing that they cling on to so hard). This kind of thinking is basically universal in most Blue tribe environments I've been in (which has been roughly 3.5 decades in a row now), due to many Blue tribe environments enforcing this ignorance through heavy censure of any sort of inquisitiveness or curiosity at analyzing the situation (in a way that isn't intentionally biased in order to arrive at the Morally Right conclusions).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I hate the framing of all of the anti-manosphere complaints. It treats feminism as inherently good and the neutral belief.
I loathe feminism. I think it is largely based on bad social science, bad economics, and bad evolution. I think it encourages dislike between the sexes. I think it encourages women to pick sub optimal lifestyles. To quote the broken clock, feminism is cancer.
That doesn’t mean the maosphere is right! But these pieces never seem to deal with the fact that feminism is also bullshit.
I agree, but I think the bad science, economics, etc. are secondary -- primarily, feminism is a hate ideology. In the same way that neo-Nazis blame all the world's problems on Jews; and BLM types blame all the world's problems on white people, feminists blame all the world's problems on men. In practice, the goal of feminism is to transfer goodies (money, social status, power) from men to women to the greatest extent possible. Bad social science and such are one technique used in service of this goal.
I agree in part. I think it is generally (although not exclusive) appealing to women who hate men (almost always their dad). But if the claims were even close to true, maybe they’d have a reason to hate men!
Well that's another common feature of hate ideologies -- the blood libel.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think one could reasonably assess that feminism and the manosphere are the same type of thing, in the same way that fascism and socialism are the same type of thing. One is simply the incumbent.
Yeah I think that’s right. Fascism and socialism are the same thing with different aesthetics. Manosphere and feminism are h to r same thing with different targets of hate.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Well, I don't doubt there's some truth in this but if we're in the noticing game it seems crucial to also notice something else: there is a strong psychological motivation to generalise from some women's questionable dating choices. It lets men who are feeling difficult feelings blame them on women. Then they get served algorithmically with more "opportunities to notice" the questionable dating choices, and become more invested in an explanation that excuses what they may see as their own failure. And conversely, they are highly motivated not to notice women's "good" dating choices.
To be sure this is a form of torture for the men who are sucked into it, and you have to feel for them, but it is going to be hard to be clear eyed about these things if you miss out that massive piece of the puzzle.
True, and I think this is a thinly disguised "permission" to take the black pill and opt out.
Perhaps, and sure there may be some incentive to not notice the good ones. However, this is also due to the disproportionate share of loud online voices pinning men's dating struggles on some form of personal moral failing, like their perceived rightward shift and the so called manosphere. No man who's struggling will enthusiastically listen to platitudes about feminism, male privilege and women's issues. And they can tell you're gaslighting them because some of the worst men they know don't face these struggles to begin with. You can't preach compassion and empathy for someone's feelings and mock someone else for getting their feelings hurt. The first hurdle for the anti-manosphere folk is to acknowledge certain experiences that may be inconvenient to feminism, so I'd say there is also a reciprocal motivation to not clear it to begin with.
Yes. Social algorithms are inherently polarising and the same forces are at work in the opposite direction for many women, in such a way that knowing what the "other side" is looking at makes people dislike each other even more and even (worse) become genuinely more unlikeable. Ban algorithms! (I don't know if I think this but probably could be persuaded.)
Oh I think that. Social media has dramatically hastened the senescence and unraveling of society when organic bonds, cohesion and shared reality were already in a state of entropy. I'll happily freeze the clock to the late 90s if this timeline was inevitable.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The situation sounds somewhat like the complaint that young teen girls who feel insecure about their appearance go on instagram to see what the norms are, where the algorithm, sensitive to stopping and viewing times, will feed them more and more unattainable images and anorexia content. Whereas it won't show it to their mothers (I have a lot of pretty landscape paintings and handmade historical costumes on Instagram). I can't remember a real person spouting the male collective guilt line, but then I don't linger on such a thing when I find it, so the egrigore doesn't bother feeding me a stream of it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This stuff keeps popping up in my twitter feed, and I'm left with the intense feeling that the people yearn for Pro Wrestling storylines, with heels and faces and obviously manufactured storylines.
But on to the main event...
The problem is that the spaces that seek to inculcate "good" values, whether they be the campus Feminist Collective or the Youth Bible Study at your local church, give absolutely terrible advice on how to get a girlfriend. Whether they are telling you to carry extra tampons to give to girls like a weird creep, or they are telling you that the best girl for you is the one that has no urge to have sex with you, they give bad advice.
Raising your boy with feminist values is unlikely to have much better retention rate than Evangelical christianity, which according to a Lifeway study, has about a 1/3 success rate for kids who attended church regularly as kids making it through college age (though it gets about 10% of them back by their late 20s).
Boys are going to do the things that get them what they want. What do they want? Sexual attention from girls, status from their peers. For the most part, those amount to the same thing, as getting attention from girls is the single most important form of status among their peers, and status from their peers is the single best way to get sexual attention from girls.
When you cede the field of good advice for getting girls to assholes, then you end up with boys listening to assholes. Take away the assholes' ammunition, pre-empt them by raising your boys to be successful. Dan Savage successfully inculcated perverted homosexual values in a generation of liberal millennial boys because he also gave them the tools to get laid, the manosphere started as good advice for getting laid and that spoonful of sugar got the medicine of misogyny down, those seeking to inculcate other values in boys have to do the same.
Indeed, and I can somewhat understand the sentiment behind attempting to dismantle attached status to male sexual success. But this gives "progressives talking about sex instead of having it". I'd wager it's the conception error that underpins the conviction that conventionally gendered preferences and behaviours in young boys and girls are byproducts of external socialisation, and therefore, can be overturned. Since female sexual success carries no comparable status premium within the culture, the instinct is once again to refashion men in the image of the female ideal.
More options
Context Copy link
You can't avoid that without changing girls. Because, in the parlance of an older generation, "Chicks Dig Jerks".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The notAllMen part of that really annoyed me. The daughter correctly identifies that a lot of the manosphere fans were mistreated by women and then generalized to all women and that makes them wrong and sad. But all men, including her dad, need to feel shame for the choices of those 15 year olds. I know that if it weren't for double standards the woke wouldn't have any standards at all but the brazenness of it never fails to shock me.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link