Summary: An expert discusses the future of the gender wars. He speaks about the efforts of young men and women to individually find solutions. What happens next might shape America for years to come. Links appear at the end to the rest of this series.
My introduction
Enough analysis. This series is about solutions men are devising to the revolution in gender roles as the gender wars continue with no end in sight. My first two posts were about men as individuals finding their own solutions. Some learn Game to get casual sex. Some Men Go Their Own Way (MGTOW). Both feel good for a while. I doubt either will work for men or America over the long-term.
This is the third of Dalrock’s responses to those posts. He concludes with a look at the future of the gender wars. Dalrock is a married man living with his wife and two kids in the Dallas/Fort Worth area. He uses his website to explore how the post-feminist world impacts him and his family. It is essential reading for anyone interested in these issues.
(5) Dalrock’s comment: looking into our future
I think we will see a creeping panic from our ruling class as they realize that by replacing the marriage based family model with one founded on child support they have removed the incentive for men to produce the kinds of excess wealth that our progressive tax structure requires. Even worse, fatherless children are (on average) far more expensive to society than fathered children are, and this is true for life. So the income stream is at risk, and the expenses are going up.
The logical reaction is going to be to try to rework the system around the edges, rolling back the worst excesses of the family courts. This might have a small positive effect initially, but the risk is that by acknowledging the problem you will probably make it worse.
Right now the most effective tool our elites have is denial. See the videos from Dennis Prager, Brad Wilcox, etc. To roll back the worst excesses, you first have to admit there is a problem. Moreover, the whole delayed marriage scheme relies on men’s fear of being alone being greater than their greed.
Sooner or later women will have delayed marriage long enough that the market forces flip, and the subset of men that women want could become greedy just as women succumb to fear (as Rollo Tomassi’s Sexual Market Value chart helps explain). I see both of these problems coming due simultaneously, and I don’t see a palatable move our elites can take that won’t at least initially make their problem worse. I think they will try for years to slowly offer a bit more and more reforms while watching the problems get worse.
But that is where my crystal ball goes completely hazy. I don’t have a guess at what happens then.
Editor’s note.
“…a man may be allowed to keep poisons in his closet, but not to vend them about for cordials.”
— Said by the wise King of Brobdingnag in Jonathan Swift’s Gulliver’s Travels.
.Dalrock points to some big names among conservatives. Dennis Prager hosts “The Dennis Prager Show” (website). See his bio and his books. For a more balanced profile, see Wikipedia. Brad Wilcox is Director of the National Marriage Project. See his bio, or better yet, his Wikipedia profile. They have an immense audience for their horrific “conservative” advice. This video is an example of their work, along with a justly brutal analysis by Dalrock.
For a broader perspective, Dalrock has a brilliant and devastating post about social conservatives’ advocacy of radical feminism (one of the many strange bedfellows in these Crazy Years): “Why won’t these Peter Pan manboys man up and marry aging flighty selfish career gal sluts already?” Commenter Woof corrects Dalrock on an important point…
“Dennis Praeger {sic} does not argue ‘that it is good for men to marry and then have their wives divorce them.’ He claims instead that it’s good for society. He’s not saying the fatted calf benefits from the slaughter. He’s saying that the guests do.”
Conclusions from these two posts
There is no end in sight to the gender wars. What might the future hold for us?
My summary of Dalrock’s conclusions.
Understanding the new reality of changing gender roles will help men make better informed decisions. Changes in American society have made Game a useful tool for many young men (albeit a small percentage). It puts them in the sexual marketplace that they would otherwise be closed out from. For the foreseeable future individual solutions are a man’s best bet, no matter how thin they are.
Today most women delay marriage until their late twenties and early thirties. These women are finding it increasingly difficult to get men to marry them (see this graph of women unmarried, by age, in 1980 and 2015) . This is a rational response by men to the reduced incentives provided by marriage. Although most women have been able to marry, many women are beginning to panic at this trend. Their most common responses are complaining about men, seeking advice about ways to get married, and rationalizations about their inability to marry. None of these are effective for most women.
More broadly, denial is the most common response to this situation by women and our leaders (both liberal and conservative), broadcast by our media. Needless to say, that will not change anything. Eventually our elites probably will make small reforms, such as rolling back the worst excesses of the family courts. This might have a small positive effect, but acknowledging the problem probably will make it worse.
These trends will continue to grow in strength, with large and unforeseeable effects.
My conclusions.
I agree with Dalrock’s conclusions, and would state them more strongly. America’s family formation mechanism is unstable and has begun break donw – at an accelerating rate. Increasing numbers of men are using Game, abandoning “chivalry.” Increasing numbers are refusing to marry. Although their numbers are small, the resulting loud screams of pain and rage from women show the importance of this trend.
This series looks at today’s young men, those who are (roughly) 18-24. What they do might be an inflection point in our history — if large numbers of them refuse to marry when their gen’s young women decide to settle. This next phase of the gender wars might reshape American society.
I disagree with Dalrock in two ways about the nature of men’s responses. First, he sees men acting only as individuals, implementing solutions with varying but mostly moderate success. I believe the two most frequent responses — Game and MGTOW — will become increasingly common. But their weak effectiveness and large side-effects will become increasingly apparent, as will their adverse effect on society. Men can do little as individuals.
My second difference of opinion with Dalrock is more important. I believe men’s response as individuals is just the first wave reaction, and the least important one. Now many men are alienated from American society and their selves (as are many women, wearing ill-fitting identities crafted for them by radical feminists). They are isolated, as so many of the intermediate institutions of America have decayed (i.e., service and sports clubs – as described in Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community
But pack formation is a behavior hard-wired into men. Under pressure from the gender wars, with individual solutions proving less than ideally effective, men will form groups – and then organizations. It will be men’s largest and most effective response to feminism. These, and the goals they choose, will shape American society for the next few generations. My guess: men will band together to do the big version of Game and MGTOW. Major social trends grow on an “s” curve, like bacteria. The first stage, where we are now, feels like change – but in hindsight will look flat compared with the near-vertical growth that lies ahead.
The next post in this series will describe this future and its implications. We will get a solution to the gender wars, but we might not like it.
“Remember, night is always coming.”
— Said by the great god Ra in Gods Of Egypt.
.
See the other posts in this series
- A return to traditional values.
- Men finding individual solutions.
- Part 1 – An expert discusses individual solutions.
- Part 2 – Discussing women’s responses to men’s solutions.
- Part 3 – An expert looks into the future.
- Part 4 – An expert: respect is a key battleground in the gender wars.
- Part 5 – An expert’s insight: Game is toxic to feminism.
- Part 5 – Rebuilding men’s self-respect is a solution to the gender wars.
- A counter-revolution in society.
More insights from Dalrock
- Men and marriage – it is more ominous than a strike.
- Women planning reforms to tilt marriage even further to benefit women.
- Does it matter who heads a family, a man or woman?
- What can’t continue, won’t — Women’s complex feelings about marriage create an unstable future for this vital institution.
- Links to posts with advice for Christian husbands.
For More Information
Ideas! For shopping ideas, see my recommended books and films at Amazon.
If you liked this post, like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter. See all posts about society and gender issues, about feminism, about marriage, and especially these about the future…
- Our society will be shaped by technology as porn and sexbots destroy 21st century marriage.
- The Left helps bring us Weimerica, the prelude to big changes.
- A historian’s disturbing news about the feminist revolution.
- The coming crash as men and women go their own way.
- Modern women say “follow the rules while we break them.” — Looking at the future of feminism.
- Marriage today – and its dystopian future.
Better perspectives on women in history
Men, Women & War: Do Women Belong in the Front Line?
Pink Samurai: Love, Marriage and Sex in Contemporary Japan
Its occurred to me that maybe the underlying cause of the situation being described is the credit bubble. When governments inflate credit bubbles you get, as in the 1920s, a sort of illusory prosperity. Galbraith refers to it as profitless prosperity.
All the money goes into the financial services and media and advertising types of business. Because the profits are to be made in placing the debt, writing the prospectuses, filing and trading and rolling it over. These businesses tend to be located in particular regions, which boom, and which also see rising asset prices and a rising cost of living.
Meanwhile the traditional blue collar workers see their jobs going or wages falling, or not keeping up with the rising costs which the credit inflation causes. Particularly housing.
From this perspective, it all starts to seem rational. Men drop out of college because there is debt but no jobs. The credit bubble has killed them. Huge inequalities of region and class and sector occur, because the money is no longer to be made in manufacturing or blue collar work of any sort, but in paper handling. Women do better, because the jobs are in the kinds of things they naturally gravitate to, and in the places they move to.
At this point its rational for women to look for the wealthy and successful, because the situation has created a tiny elite and a mass of losers. Its a reality that there are not the kind of successful, securely employed men around that their mothers or grandmothers used to marry. Its not really their fault, the economic situation has eliminated thei jobs and the marriagability of the men with it.
Its also rational for the men to stop courting – its consuming money they do not have, to try to please women who probably have better earning potential.
When we look at the sources of the credit bubble, well, look at the wars and the deficits. And look back, an historical parallel is Colbert and Louis XIV. Exactly the same comments about the changing nature of the elite and the profitability of the paper handlers can be read in contemporary sources.
Just a thought. I am still deeply puzzled about how all this fits together, so trying on ideas to see do they make sense.
It is more than credit that is a driver, it is resources. Feminism has grown since the 19th century as the availability of energy has grown; first coal, then oil and the generation / distribution of electricity. This has happened before; both the Roman and the Arab empires at their height saw breakdown of marriage, alienation of average men and “emancipation” of women. We have more resources in the form of energy and food than any previous epoch of human history could have dreamed of.
But economic / resources only goes so far to explain feminist ascendency in the industrialized world and the West in particular. Women’s hypergamy plus men’s chivalry has led to a situation where as a group in the US women act like spoiled children, demanding ever more of anything. This has led to situations where women’s demands are contradictory; as a group they demand access to college, but as individuals they demand access to “hot men” in college. Thus we have campuses where 60% or more of the student body is female (access to college) and all of those women are competing for a small pool of “hot” men.
In the androsphere this is referred to as the female demand for “fried ice”.
Female intra-group competition on college campuses often occurs via sexual favors, part of Mark Regnarus’s “cheap sex” idea (he’s wrong about the other half). However, outside the manosphere the 80/20 rule is unknown or ignored.
It has been documented with big data from dating services and other sources that 80% of the women are attracted to 20% of the men in any given group. Therefore on college campuses where women are a majority of students, most men are still shut out of the sexual marketplace. They are involuntarily celibate (Incel), but can see a minority of men going through a series of hookups; it’s almost like a caste system for some men. The reactions to this have been discussed (MGTOW, Game, muddle through) but the impact on men’s chivalrous mindset is real. So far it’s only at the margins. The margins are where social and economic change often start.
A huge amount of social capital in expended keeping the current feminist system functioning, and it relies on men to act against their own interests to a greater and greater degree. That is not a recipe for stability, as we already see with marginal men dropping out of the marriage market. Not as some grand “Marriage Strike” but just because they see no way to win a rigged game. The elites will have an unpleasant choice: either preside over a continual decline (with falling bridges) or say “NO!” to women’s whims on a society-wide scale. The Thanatos implosion shows me that social elite men will excuse women’s bad behavior for a very long time, even at some personal financial cost.
Challenge to other men: have you said “no” to a woman this week?
To add on to the previous comment: Unless something truly catastrophic happens, industrialized countries will continue to have access to a large supply of energy and other resources. The innate nature of women won’t change. So in the long run we must learn how to manage female hypergamy and greed if we are to avoid a slow deterioration of everything.
This series has been a great primer on the topic LK. It has been interesting to see how you were able to use our comment exchange to walk through the concepts, blending both of our thoughts. Some might struggle to distinguish your thoughts from mine (and vice versa), but if that happens they can always go back to the original exchange for clarification.
Two small quibbles on your summary of my conclusions:
From the data I’ve been able to gather, nearly all white women are still able to marry. The carping we are seeing to date is based on very small numbers of women not being able to marry. When we had the original round of “Marry Him!” shrieking, I assumed that the data would show large numbers of women never marrying. When I went to measure it, I found out
1) That “never married” is a somewhat slippery concept, especially since the root of what we are seeing is delayed marriage by women.
2) Nearly all white non hispanic* women still manage to marry by their late 30s early 40s, but a steadily growing minority of women are reaching their late 30s without ever marrying. Unfortunately I haven’t been able to get the same data set since 2014, so I haven’t been able to look and see how this translated for women in their early 40s. My last look at the data is here: 2014 Never Married Data. Someone on Reddit made a fascinating chart here: Percentage of US Women Who Have Never Married by Age – 1980 vs 2015.
I don’t think that men are for the most part responding via Game and MGTOW. I think a handful of men are consciously thinking this through and opting for one or the other, but for most men I think it is more about a slow cultural drift that is rational given the new incentives.
Also, I think the most profound threat Game poses to the feminist status quo is not the risk that men will master and practice it, but the different thought processes it encourages. At the risk of oversimplifying the topic, feminism relies on a fanatical devotion to chivalry, and Game is the chivalry destroyer. This was for example Robert P. Murphy’s objection to Game in the article you linked to in the first post in this series.
The problem is we have a system that absolutely requires fanatical devotion to chivalry to survive, and that holds the ability to seduce women as the ultimate mark of virtue in a man. Enter Game, which teaches the way to seduce women. How can you stop men from learning how to seduce women, when seducing women is your highest virtue? The KGB couldn’t have stopped such knowledge from spreading! Even worse, you don’t have to actually learn how to seduce women to see that Game is right. This is an existential conflict for feminism.
*I broke it out this way as a quick and dirty way to avoid changing demographics from mixing in with other trends. Also, nearly all of the mainstream media figures freaking out about the lack of husband prospects are white UMC women.
A new post by Dalrock expands on his above comment
Why Game is a threat to our values.
Dalrock,
Thank you for posting these enlightening comments. I’ve learned much from them, as I’m sure readers have. Your comment raises some important issues. Based on them I’ve made several edits to this post.
(1) Most important! “Some might struggle to distinguish your thoughts from mine…”
Thanks for flagging this serious error! I changed the section heads to make this clearer. In this post, it now says “Dalrock’s comment: looking into our future.”
(2) “From the data I’ve been able to gather, nearly all white women are still able to marry.”
The key focus of my series is on today’s young men and women, those who are (roughly) 18-24. In the past decades, increasing numbers of women were unable to marry in their fertile years. The trend is significant even if the numbers are small. The resulting loud screams of pain and rage show the importance of this trend.
What happens to this next gen might be an inflection point — if large numbers of these young men refuse to marry when their gen’s young women decide to settle. I’m making several edits to make this more clear.
(3) “I don’t think that men are for the most part responding via Game and MGTOW.”
I agree. The question is about this gen of young men. Social trends tend to grow like bacteria, in an “s” curve. The first phase of the “s” curve feels significant. It looks flat only when looking back from after the period of vertical growth. I’ve made some edits to make this clearer.
(4) “I think a handful of men are consciously thinking this through”
I agree, and will state it more strongly: social changes comes from people reacting on a “sub-conscious” level. Not from logical analysis of data. Collectively we act like a school of fish, changing course as a group without thinking about it. We are pack animals — that made our species powerful before the inventions of fire and the wheel. We are not, as some economists believe, a collection of analytical engines.
(5) “The KGB couldn’t have stopped such knowledge from spreading!”
Exactly! The KGB, with all its skill and power, could not prevent knowledge of the West’s success from spreading thru the Soviet Union — washing away its foundation. This is what I call “dark knowledge.” The dark knowledge about the nature of modern women and the risks of marriage is spreading among young men. It’s washing away the foundations of marriage and the family.
I believe this will spread to a critical point. Then society will change. These series is about what happens then.
@LK
My apology for this seeming like a rebuke or complaint. I did not intend it as such, and tried (and failed) to craft it so it would not*. You have taken our conversation and turned it into something new in order to teach. I like what you have created, and it is overall an accurate representation of our discussion. If someone reads the posts and finds a point they aren’t sure about, I would merely encourage them to look to the original for context.
Yes. Exactly. So far we can barely measure the change, but there is enough to establish an undeniable trend.
Even with the smallest change the hue and cry is deafening. Imagine the wailing when the back loaded change kicks in.
Agreed. Ironically we both agree on this even though we are both approaching the subject with a heavy economics perspective. I work in another field, but my BA was in economics.
On the subject of men acting collectively (and your future post), one change that I think will be crucial will be for men to start respecting respectability, and specifically respecting married fathers. Ironically the habit of despising married fathers will be the hardest to shake for modern Christians. A big part of this will be resisting the temptation to make ourselves “the only real man in the room”. This also ties in with my comments above (and my post that today’s discussion spawned) about rejecting the belief that being sexy is the hallmark of virtue for a man.
*That I followed with “two small quibbles” made this even worse.
Dalrock,
My apologies for implying that I interpreted your comment as a rebuke or complaint! Comments are a crude form of communication, and misinterpretations are common. Your comment was very helpful, and pointing out any unclear points in my writing is a gift!
“one change that I think will be crucial will be for men to start respecting respectability, and specifically respecting married fathers.”
I believe that men give respect automatically as deserved. It begins with self-respect. This process can be accomplished by an individual, but is more commonly done by groups. The Boy Scouts, the imperial British Army (recruiting the scum of the earth, making soldiers feared around the world), the US Marine Corps, the Friekorps, the German Sturmabteilung (stormtroopers) – and perhaps the Proud Boys and Identity Evropa (I know little about the last two, but they should be watched as cutting edge phenomena).
Morality is not a factor in pack formation. It is hard-wired into men as a survival mechanism.
The more extreme the social pressure, the more extreme the packs that form to push back. In my dark moments I fear that history will say that the Greatest Generation defeated fascists and the Baby Boomers created fascists.
@LK
This is an interesting way to look at it. I agree that respect is often demanded, and that as such it depends on ability to demand and not on morality. But if we want men to be moral, we need to respect moral men. If we want children to be raised in homes with married fathers, we need to respect married fathers. It does us no good if men gain respect by doing what is harmful to our society.
I believe that respect is a stronger motivator for men than sex, and obviously sex is a huge motivator. Morover, our anti married father family courts are I would argue the formal legal codification of lack of respect. I believe this is the most powerful message that we are sending young men, and is in turn driving the drift we discussed above.
The problem I see is that two parallel forces conspired to strip married fathers of respect, and both were due to envy. Feminism is animated by envy of men, especially the status of men. Most of all, the status of the “patriarchy”. That feminism conspires to strip the patriarchy of respect is obvious. What is less obvious is the conspiracy of the patriarchy itself to rob married fathers of respect. This occurs when higher status men (pastors, fathers of adult daughters, etc) envy the respect of married fathers who are lower in the chain (eg young fathers in the congregation). This envy is rooted in a desire to have all of the young women focusing on themselves, not on their worthless young husbands (or prospective husbands). If men are to band together to make improvements, calling out this despicable envy and respecting respectability needs to be a priority.
Dalrock,
(1) “I agree that respect is often demanded”
These are deep waters, very complex social dynamics. Demanding respect is one thing. Getting it is another. First, it starts with self-respect. My 15 years as a Boy Scout leader taught me that many fathers don’t have it. Why should they? Their wives and daughters are taught that they’re either secondary (not decision-makers), or even dolts. We all have buried in our minds awareness that (as you have written) the wife has the ability to blow up the family at will — which gives her the ultimate power. As Frank Herbert wrote in Dune:
Second, there is the reason for wanting self-respect. In lawless areas that have a layer of civilization there are honor-based societies where Napoleon’s rule applies: “My power is my reputation.” Being disrespected can have serious consequences. That is true in America’s inner cities just as it was in our Wild West and old England (e.g., an accusation of lying could cause a duel). Without that core of civilization, there is just the natural life, seen today in failed states – where a sense of honor is folly.
I am sure you well understand my third point: honor has to be earned. That’s how the Marines and others build self-respect in recruits, from “Welcome, worms” to “Congratulations, Marines.” Often people demanding it are in effect showing that they don’t deserve it. That’s often true of men today.
(2) “But if we want men to be moral, we need to respect moral men.”
Yes, but imo that’s a clunky way of saying it. We need to assert values. Values are a social virtue, hence my emphasis on group action. They are a flag which one or men raise. They become significant if they attract others. We see that at work today with the rise of Islam in Europe and America. They have compelled respect for values which are in opposition to those of the societies to they have migrated.
(3) “our anti married father family courts are I would argue the formal legal codification of lack of respect.”
I agree. Operationally they are the effect that is caused by our society’s lack of respect for fathers.
(4) “The problem I see is that two parallel forces conspired to strip married fathers of respect …Feminism conspires…”
As an analyst, I agree. But analytical insights are often poisonous. By portraying men as victims we are acting like girls. That will not help us. We would be better off looking in the mirror and saying “we’ve been weak, and that stops today.”
Of course, that is un-american (as least, in terms of today’s therapeutic value system). Which is why I believe that groups will emerge that allow men to join — admit that they are weak — and transform themselves to strong men.
(5) “If men are to band together to make improvements, calling out this despicable envy and respecting respectability needs to be a priority.”
Exactly! That will be one effect produced by something which causes men to regain their self-respect.
It looks like I failed to blockquote the text I was quoting in my last comment.
Fixed!
@LK
Excellent point. This is in line with what I had in mind though. I’m not begging for another man’s respect. I’m saying as leaders we need to be respectable. Part of this is being miserly with respect towards other men when due. When our daughters are old enough to seek a husband, we should not behave in the weaselly way of the culture (Rules for dating a drill instructor’s daughter, etc). Likewise we should exhort our pastors to respect respectability in the congregation, especially the younger men who are doing it right but just coming up. We also can lead this by respecting our own fathers and fathers in law.
Not a perfect fit, but this is related: Scaring away the competition.
The boot camp model is a fast food path to respect, and while it is suited to some purposes (eg quickly making Marines, forging a sports team) it hasn’t served us well in raising young men. There is a place for such methods, but not in front of the wife and children, and it shouldn’t be a never ending process. I made my case in this regard here: God’s Drill Instructors (language warning).
Dalrock,
Now this is getting even more interesting. We have pushed on to find the points at which we disagree. Unsurprisingly, they concern the unknown country — what lies in the future.
(1) “I’m saying as leaders we need to be respectable.”
That’s an interesting point. Unfortunately I have no idea what that would mean in practice as advice to a 23 year old man (the subject of this series, imo in whose hands the future of American society lies).
(2) “Rules for dating a drill instructor’s daughter”
That is imo among the dumbest things ever written. I’ve long wanted to write about it, but now I can just point to your post. You debunk it better than I could.
(3) “Likewise we should exhort our pastors to respect respectability”
That would be useful. But I’ve been in Baptist churches in the NE and California for 30 years, and I see very few 23 year old men (I know there are exceptions). Churches still have a role in molding children and older adults. But it will be a long road ahead until they are a major force in the lives of America’s young men. (I’ve seen much research on church attendance by age and by gender — never by both).
(4) “The boot camp model is a fast food path to respect”
First, two quibble. I do not believe that is an accurate analogy.
My second objection m/b the key to this discussion. I’m looking ahead to what will happen, leaving behind thoughts about what I would like. While I disagree with the dream don’t act people (“wait till the great day when men rise up and smite their whatevers”), I believe we have passed the point at which nice methods will have any effect – or are even feasible.
Facts and logic are useful for planning, but action will come only from our core essence. What I call our BIOS, our core programming. Pack formation is the early stage of that process. Creation of new values provides the power. Unless we have more luck than we deserve, this won’t be pretty.
Much depends on the leaders we get. The West is what it is because in dark times we got men like Charlemagne and William the Conqueror (enforced the King’s Peace with the policy of the “strong arm). Europe got Hitler, we got FDR. The following applies to a society’s leaders, not just its government officials.
One retarding factor for men joining in groups is that the law and culture is extremely hostile to men doing anything together without the full participation of women. So no private clubs only for men, no schools only for boys, and I hear girls are now even joining the Boy Scouts. Even considering physical differences, we see girls forcing their way onto contact sports teams and women into combat infantry. There’s no place to escape.
I personally don’t see a large coherent group of men succeeding in changing society here. It’s been tried, and the elites have successfully corrupted/destroyed all attempts so far. Religious movements like Catholic charismatics and Promise Keepers have been co-opted and neutered. Secular groups like the Tea Party have gone down the same way (with marginalization and government abuse taking a hand).
Until the elites lose their grip, any group will get crushed. This is why more and more men are looking for an end of the world as we know it, because prior to that, no reset is possible.
tweell
tweel,
I have written over 200 posts about social and political reform in America. The most common response to every single one is defeatist “we can’t do it.”
The responses you mention are dots compared to the efforts of successful social movements in the past. Also, these efforts are eye-blinks compared the decades of work required for past movements to succeed. What you are saying is that we have become weak and are no longer capable of standing together — as those that came before us did.
Perhaps you are right to preemptively wave the white flag. I disagree.
Until the elites lose their grip, any group will get crushed.
Prior large scale efforts by men to get some balance have failed because most men were not affected. Even now it is a major undertaking to try to get just a single state in the US to change from a default “mother custody” to “shared custody” of children after a divorce. Because such a change is opposed not just by feminists, but by aging White Knight politicians. But feminism is becoming more and more costly, affecting more and more men, and now starting to affect women.
For the last 150 years, social leaders and elites have benefited from catering to feminism. In this century the negative effects will become obvious to more and more people. Then either the elites will change their position on feminisms, or they will be replaced.
Exactly. Anti-discrimination laws do to civil society what penicillin does to bacteria — poke their cell membranes full of holes so they cannot retain or exclude particular molecules. Such laws effectively make it illegal to organize any collective action outside the State.
Women will never vote to give up the vote, or the right to divorce and asset-strip their husbands, so I see little chance of us avoiding extinction by peaceful means.
My guess is that the Amish will gradually out-breed and replace us. They have no hierarchy or mass media for SJWs to infiltrate, so any Amish community that hoists the rainbow flag will die out and be repopulated from communities that didn’t embrace the gay.
Dimitri,
Akismet (WP’s spam detector) doesn’t like you! This is an example of the robot dystopia in our future. We’ll be arguing with our toasters (“But I don’t like burnt toast.”). There will be a delay, but I’ll rescue your comments from the spam folder.
As for your comment, it’s logical. My next post in this series will explain why it might be wrong — if we stand together. I believe you’ll see that the reason why is obvious (as usual, when someone points it out — as my now grown children routinely do to me).
A new post by Dalrock expands on his comment
Why Game is a threat to our values.
Caution the following bit is a very broad overview, and specific conter examples probably do exist.
It occured to me on the first read that we are seeing a return to an older style of reproduction. In the hunter gather societies, typical they were monogamous – one man with one woman at a time. This si because no man produced enough extra to support to sets of children. With the advent of farming, this changed, it also introduced slavery on a large scale because now one or a few men on top could compell the work of many, and thus those top men could afford to have multiple wives and larger families from that. Note they may not have been wives, but concubines, it amounts to the same. A few men with lots of sex partners and many men with none. Most women had one sex partner – hm.. 80/20?
This btw, was the status world wide everywhere except where Judism and later Christianity took hold. With Christianity this expanded globaly. One husband and wife at a time. To have a second wife (or husband) ment the death of the first. Or as I like to call it serial polygamy – thus acknowledging that many had more than one spouse, but only one at a time. This also gave all men a vested interest in society because they now had a shot at a wife.
Today, that has changed, we are back to the early agricultural multi partner rules, only it is now men and women, not just men who are going multi partner. If having all men have access to a wife is part of what built the modern world (along with geography, Christianity, and about 5 or 6 other things I can’t recall off the top of my head) then perhaps our immediate change today will be a staling of development. Where as we expanded rapidly in the last 500 years. Maybe less of that for the next 500. But then IDK.
Will there be a shift to androspace? That is where can men meet and join like minded? Perhaps in MMORPG games that will happen? They might become the new Lions club? IDK but maybe.
Speaking of Game, let’s not forget that the original Game — and by far the most commonly used — wives’ Game. Party-of-her-life, marriage, children. Then when the oldest is 3 – 5 years old (and needing less care) comes divorce, money (community property + child support), and independence.
To see how this works, see Donald Trump Jr. and Vanessa. Met in 2003. Married in 2005. Children 10, 9, 6, 5, and 3. Now “they” have filed for divorce, which their joint statement says is “was not acrimonious.”
She has hired a noted criminal defense attorney to represent her. After all, the divorce of the farmer from the Thanksgiving turkey is not acrimonious to the farmer. No hard feelings! It’s just business.
Either you or Akismet seems to have shadow-banned my previous identity after a comment that expounded (at excessive length, I admit) on an idea I got from the Bible, specifically first Samuel, chapter 18.
Dmitri,
“Either you or Akismet seems to have shadow-banned my previous identity after a comment that expounded ”
I have nobody on the banned or moderated lists.
Akismet has occasionally done odd things. For a week I couldn’t post comments with urls – it would reject the comment with an error message (a code whose meaning I was never able to discover). I had to post it without the URL, then add the URL as an edit from the Administrator dashboard. The problem eventually went away.
As a historian in the city of Chester, PA, I’ve learned that at the turn of the 20th century the city boasted 81 secret societies. Masonry at that time maintained its privacy, yet at the same time was attended by enough of the city to create a stable body of common knowledge.
Periodically the country goes through cycles of Anti-Masonic hysteria, as it did in the 1830s, then during the Taxil Hoax, and also fairly recently as certain Evangelical preachers gained ascendancy. The notion that it is impossible to be a Mason as well as a good Christian has been promoted by opportunists who stand to benefit politically or financially, and will be understood as such as we emerge from this “what where we thinking?” moment.
Nearly 50 years have passed since the initial promotion of the idea that men who worked with their hands were somehow less worthy and therefore more disposable. Its corrosive effect has culminated in the gender wars, but even more worrisome, has resulted in the loss of knowledge and will to properly plan, build, and conserve our surroundings.
Thoughts?
Thanks for another thought provoking post, I appreciate you.
Strange, I learned more from following the comments that were made than from the post. Your back and forth with Dalrock was highly enlightening.
The whole subject of respect I found insightful. I think that at the core of honour and respect there is an axle that the wheel of marriage and relationships ride on. This axle that the whole of male female relations has been hollowed out and is rotten and in places non-existent.
I find in my youngest son that he cannot connect his continued failure to attract a decent girl with his fishing in clubs and pubs.
Dad I don’t want a poke and bolt relationship. I want what you and mom have. But I don’t want all the submit all to God, honour, obey, mutual submission for a common goal, provide, protect, die protecting the family. I want what you have without the walls.
What he gets is a girl that is easy come easy go. But dad she cheated on me… this is madness, temporary insanity, she can not be this person… I reply, where did you meet her?
Are her parents together?
Did you meet her dad before you had her?
What does she think of her father?
Who is her mother attached to? Does she or her mother love and respect her father?
Dad, I bedded her on the first date… her dad and mom are divorced and both married and divorced since.
My reply… press reset, your little girl is on a default program. When she gets bored she presses reset to default settings and as scripture puts it “This is the way of an adulterous woman: She eats and wipes her mouth and says, ‘I’ve done nothing wrong.’
If you put in a solid axle you will get a solid base to run on…
Unfortunately our society is running on empty and while our generation can still remember what normal marriage was like the next is seeing the wheels come off and can not work out what went wrong.
Thank God the word does not change and those who want can come back to it like a north star in a sea of chaos.
At Not Enough Cash and Prizes embracingreality says: “You better really, really love having kids” which highlights part of the solution(s) we need. 7zander comment above highlights the practical problem(s) we face.
Dalrock’s link to never married indicates the exponential rise is already upon us; data sets always lag the reality. Especially in generational issues. The answer lies in that expression of reality depends on opportunity and capability; and that the family is the basic unit of today’s successful culture. We do not have the measure of the current children’s thoughts and marriage proclivity. But we have good proxies and data that addresses the capability for these children. Currently most of the discussions have been about the opportunity of men and women. IMO, that is not where we need to concentrate our viewing.
The proxies of popular movies and the ages of movie patrons indicate that the shift has already happened. We tend to think of becoming a man or a women is that transitional stage of the teens. Biologically, this transition actually started much earlier, typically 8 to 12 years old. And the the communication of roles, morals, and self expectations occurs even earlier than the start of the biological transition. IMO, the exponential increase, of the widening gap of marrying age, desirability, marriage avoidance, and fertility, is already baked in. I surmise this because of the statistics showing more single parent homes. This goes back not just to society and culture, but more importantly capability and opportunity.
My opinion is that with the number of unsuccessful marriages, the capability of successful marriage has been proportionately reduced. To address this shortcoming, society will have to incentivize couples who really, really love having kids and lots and lots of kids to address the shortfall we can expect. Not just from the lack of opportunity that LK, Darlock, and contributors have outlined so well, but the likelihood that our capability for successful marriage has been compromised as much as the opportunity, as indicated by the comments and posts of honor, respect, and morals. This is the basis of my opinion that we are already in the exponential rise and cannot avoid it because these issues are societal and generational. The children are already here or are on their way.
I especially like LK’s and Darlock’s discussion of honor, respect, and BIOS. But that goes to my thoughts on the solution(s). Or rather my opinion as to solution(s).
“That would be useful. But I’ve been in Baptist churches in the NE and California for 30 years, and I see very few 23 year old men (I know there are exceptions). Churches still have a role in molding children and older adults. But it will be a long road ahead until they are a major force in the lives of America’s young men. (I’ve seen much research on church attendance by age and by gender — never by both).”
I am fascinated by the chart on church attendance by gender: Hinduism, Islam, Orthodox Christianity and judaism (this last one I suspect disproportionately impacted in its numbers by orthodox communities) are the ones with a majority male audience. I don’t know nearly enough about the realities of buddhist religious practices and teachings in the modern world, so I’ll leave it asides.
These religions or branches tend to be more what one could call “traditionally traditional”, as opposed to what modernity seems to have done to the rest of christianity (evangelical communities as described on Dalrock’s posts and comment sections seem…. Weird), which have devolved into an irrelevant mismatch between conservatism and contemporaneous, as conceived under the aegis of feminism… Among other influences. This doesn’t seem to find its audience anymore, as opposed to the aforementioned religions and branches where, o surprise, masculinity gets a better treatment. The “Mc Modernity” of evangelical churches that I see described on Dalrock’s site baffles me particularly, as I can recall the countless segments and documentaries seen on French TV in the past two decades, describing hordes of highly motivated quasi (or not so quasi) fundamentalists roaming the streets in constant proselytism and gathering in hyperpacked churches or megachurches, imposing an ultra-conservative agenda to American politics…. And an hyper macho one at that (somewhat tot the great joy of the outsized quasi mafia of hardcore traditionalist catholics in the French Forces officer corps).
Is it just “Mc machism”? All bark about “men’s role” and no bite? A particular taste for the appearance of traditionalism, hiding, more or less, an actual cowering in front of the feminist zeitgeist? Dalrock’s comment on the role of pastor (with or without a decent father) imposing such an order of things because of a deep incentive of being the top dog in any given congregation seems convincing, but also underlines a strong trend of authoritarianism (beyond just the topic of men-women relations) in protestantism, which was supposed, initially, to be less so than the dreaded catholicism it broke with. I didn’t see (naive catholic that I am) it being that much of a very vertical, top down relation.
Islam, orthodox christianity…. While being anything but democratic, seem to be better promoters of masculinity these days. A healthy one or not, that remains to be seen.
@ Larry Kummer:
I’m quite late to this.
I disagree that men are going to organize specifically to oppose and roll back feminism. MRA’s have been trying to organize for at least 100 years, and what puny organizations have been formed have not scored even one policy or legislative victory. Not one. The concept of “joint residential custody” or “shared custody” following divorce has started gathering steam, only because the psych research is showing that kids do better with relationships with both parents even after divorce and only because women are earning more money which in some cases is requiring less child support payments and even the wife’s paying child support to husband.
Men don’t organize for purposes like these; they organize and mobilize only for grander purposes and to oppose existential threats like colonial late 18th century England, or Hitler. Men aren’t going to organize so they can all get sex and women and marriage. Those are deeply individual concerns and there aren’t “one size fits all” solutions, especially not now.
The Deti,
(1) “MRA’s have been trying to organize for at least 100 years”
Can you provide any evidence for that astounding statement? The MRA is a late-stage response to modern feminism. It’s earlies origins are in the pick-up artist community, which emerged in the swinging 1960s (see Wikipedia’s history of it) — which was itself a result of the widespread use of the pill and changing morals.
(2) “what puny organizations have been formed have not scored even one policy or legislative victory.”
It’s early days yet. Social reform movements are not like 30-minute sitcoms. Consider some large examples.
Samuel Adams and his fellow activists in 1764 Boston reacted to local problems by taking collective action: organizing the first of the Committees of Correspondence. Later these reached out to like-minded people in other colonies. Eleven colonies had Committees by February 1774. These groups steadily gained experience acting on a local and then national scale. They formed the nucleus of shadow governments, which later formed the basis of revolutionary governments.
(a) Benjamin Franklin helped organize America’s first Abolitionist Society at Pennsylvania in 1785. These spread across the nation. Victory came in 1865. (In 1787 William Wilberforce began his crusade in Parliament against slavery in the UK, he drew upon support from groups such as the Quakers’ antislavery societies and the Society for Effecting the Abolition of the Slave Trade, plus informal groups like the Testonites. Full victory came in 1833.)
(b) The first women’s rights convention was held at Seneca Falls NY in 1848. The first National Women’s Rights Conventions was held in Worcester, MA in October 1850. The 19th Amendment became law in August 1920 when ratified by the 36th State.
(c) Flash forward to our civil rights movement. Rosa Parks’ act of civil disobedience in 1955 was a staged event, brilliantly developed into the Montgomery Bus Boycott. The Greensboro sit-in in 1960 was unorganized, but used a technique developed during the previous 20 years by civil rights groups. The movement was an intelligently run loose alliance of groups such as the NAACP, Congress of Racial Equality, and Southern Christian Leadership Conference — plus others formed from the energy released by these early protests, such as Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee.
Larry:
MRAs, men (and a few women) agitating and demanding legislative/policy action/reforms to address “men’s rights”, have been around since the women’s suffrage movement of the early 20th century. They first formed as a direct response to women’s suffrage. And they lost, big time- just like they have lost every other battle in the sex wars, and just like they will lose them in the future. The only thing new about Paul Elam and company is their demand/position that the current “egalitarian” framework advocated by most leading feminists be used to guarantee men “equal rights”. MRAs constantly throw in feminists’ faces their empty claim that “we’re only about equal rights”; when in fact feminists aren’t – they’re about amassing power at men’s expense.
The differences between the so-called men’s rights “movement” and the items you mention (abolitionism, women’s suffrage, and racial civil rights) are:
1) the items you mentioned had at least a semblance of a moral imperative to them, which helps galvanize broad support for a movement.
2) Men will happily mobilize and galvanize for items that both men and women perceive have broad social implications for all people.
Men do not organize, and will never organize, for the specific purpose of advocating for the rights of men. Because to most people it’s not all that important. It’s basically painted as unattractive, average men who can’t get laid, and they want government to intervene to make it easier for average guys to get nookie.
And second, the rights of men qua men aren’t viewed as having any sort of moral importance. To current and even to traditional thinking, the “moral” component of men, and of being a man, is making money, being self sufficient, and taking care of women and children. And to most in society, including most men, no one needs a movement for that. Men are just supposed to do it. Alone if necessary.
And a third, most important reason, is that men do not mobilize for the interests of “men”. They will mobilize for the interests of themselves, and of their men in their tribes and clans. They will mobilize for their women and their children. Men don’t work like women do. Women mobilize for the interests of “women” as women because women are herd creatures. Each and every woman, everywhere, is important. “The personal is political.” Meaning, everything that is personal to women is an issue to all women, everywhere, across all conceivable demographics. That’s not the case with men.
Men don’t care about “men”. I don’t care about “men”. I care about me, I care about my tribe. I care about my nation. Other than that, I don’t care. I can’t save them. I can’t help them all. They will have to work to save themselves.
In fact, what I want is for my tribe and nation to defeat all other tribes and nations. I want those other men’s land, money, stuff and women. And those men from other tribes and nations want my tribe’s and nation’s land, money, stuff and women. Those tribes and nations want to defeat my tribe. They want me DEAD.
I am not aligned with the interests of “men”. I am AT WAR with most “men”. And they are at war with me.
The Deti,
“MRAs, men (and a few women) agitating and demanding legislative/policy action/reforms to address “men’s rights”, have been around since the women’s suffrage movement of the early 20th century.”
Repeating your claim is not providing evidence of it.
As for the rest, time will tell. You speak with mind-bending confidence of either God or Dr. Who. It doesn’t leave much room for discussion.
Larry:
Yes, time will tell. You accuse me of being supremely confident in my position. I’m simply bringing to bear my own experience and that of others in studying and observing the long arc of the gender wars, and how these things have worked themselves out in the past. Because past is prologue.
I’m open to have my mind changed. I’m opposing your view, and I’ve come forward with reasons for same. I’ve explained my position in great detail. That’s not a sign of hyperrigidity or a closed mind.
Anyway, it’s an interesting discussion and I thank you for hosting it.
The Deti,
“That’s not a sign of hyperrigidity or a closed mind.”
I did not say that it was.
I said, as I often do, that such confident predictions of the future are almost always wrong. IMO they’re not useful and provide little basis for discussion. That’s just my opinion, of course.
In terms of how long “men’s rights” groups have been attempting to influence policy, you might find this article interesting:
https://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/the-good-life-blacklisted-from-history-a-history-of-the-mens-rights-movement/
The Deti,
There are two genders. They have been jousting with each other since we came out of the trees. If you consider every assertion of men against women as a “men’s rights movement”, then it has existed since the dawn of history. For example, there is a large body of such bickering from Roman Empire times, were widows had extensive rights to the family property — which created big-time tensions with the male heirs. The favorite solution were calls for widows to “girl up” and get married again. That had as much success as calls for young men today to “man up.”
What everybody else refers to by “men’s rights” is the reaction to feminism. Feminism is a “world turned upside down” change in gender relations, an inflection in history created by new tech (rise of non-physical jobs, easy & effective contraception, etc) and new values (which might be a response to the new tech).
This article might also be of interest to you. It describes an article in the February 1856 (!) issue of Putnam’s Monthly.
““A Word for Men’s Rights” – 1856:“
LK
Instead of arguing the broader point, I’ll just stick with your assertion of “Men’s Rights” as the reaction to second wave feminism, starting in the 1960s. (First wave feminism was as outlined in the articles I linked you to, from the late 18th-early 19th centuries.)
The so-called “men’s rights movement” has been almost completely ineffective. It has not achieved a single, even minor, legislative or policy victory in more than 40 years of agitation. And the main reason why is because that movement can’t get a sufficient number of men behind it. Men don’t work this way. They don’t organize around such deeply personal life issues. They just don’t. They are not like women. Men find individual solutions to the problems of “how do I get the sex I want? Do I want to marry? What do I want that marriage to look like? What kind of spouse do I want?” For the most part, they don’t want government involved in that, and they really don’t even want a lot of other men involved in that.
Men don’t look to others to solve their problems for them. And when it comes to sex and marriage and relationships with women, they aren’t looking for collective solutions. They look to others to find out information, to get input from others, and to get some help and advice, sure. But they just don’t handle such deeply personal, individual issues like this through attempted collective action.
The second main reason the men’s rights movement hasn’t gathered any steam is because the rest of society has been relentless in calling MRA’s sexists, Neanderthals, throwbacks, and whining babies because they want to use the apparatuses of “equal rights” designed to benefit women, as an equal benefit to men. The name calling and the demonization of men’s rights activists as sexists, bullies, violent, criminal, and immature man-children has been extremely effective. Turning this second reason around will be much easier than avoiding the effect of the first one.
Anyway, this will be my last response on this particular subtopic. I don’t think we’ve changed each others’ minds, but I do think I understand where the points of disagreement are. Thanks for the engagement.
@ LK:
In my opinion, you and Dalrock are quite correct there’s a slowly growing panic among our elites and women, because of (1) the collapse of broad social mores, (2) women waiting longer to marry and either not marrying well or at all; and (3) the economic implications of 1 and 2. But my opinion is that it will just keep sliding in that same general direction. I don’t see anything stopping it short of some “hard reset”: cataclysmic global war, worldwide economic collapse, a second Civil War in the US which this time will result in a breakup of the US into different political entities, or some other such event. And one of those, or something like it, will happen eventually. But until it does, I think it’ll just keep going.
That means more and more men won’t marry, ever. They won’t have children, or if they do, they’ll have no relationship with them other than paying monthly child support. They will have very poor to nonexistent sex lives, because they aren’t attractive enough to get and keep a woman with them.
An observation: The sex revolution has made it increasingly difficult and counterintuitive for women to respect men (because women have their own money and jobs, and they don’t need to respect men) and for men to love women (because more and more women are becoming quite unlovable and unlikeable). That’s the “collapse of chivalry” the elites are scared to death of.
“The sex revolution has made it increasingly difficult and counterintuitive for women to respect men (because women have their own money and jobs, and they don’t need to respect men) and for men to love women (because more and more women are becoming quite unlovable and unlikeable). That’s the “collapse of chivalry” the elites are scared to death of.”
( I quote that last part but answer to your two posts)
What society are we really talking about: in the end? Only a rather small percentage of women (and not that much bigger of a percentage of men) “have their own money” at satisfying levels and can afford to think and live as newspapers and magazines claim “independent women” do. Polarized wealth means just that. The vast majority of women who live alone with or without a child (let alone several of them), things aren’t that peachy, as the statistics about the proportion of households that have a female primary breadwinner (that feminists are so proud of) show, for the most part, a rather bleak reality of single mothers not earning enough or just so.
For most people in the vast, diverse and murky middle of income distribution, the aim of having a family can not really spare the dual parenting thing, with or without marriage (save for the happy few that have the permanent opportunity of a “tribe”, mostly familial, to help).
I agree with your statement that there won’t be any form of organized “counter revolution”, by MRAs or others. At best, current societal trends (entropy, apathy -especially on the male side-, less middle ground between the over-worked and/or career-obsessed on one side, and under-achievers and/or those cast aside on the other….) will grow to such a point that awareness and information on the male side will provide an accelerating factor to said trends, but I very much doubt any form of political reaction will ensue: social justice, intersectionality, critical theory, gender studies…. Are such fixtures in the current mentalities, having come to monopolize almost every teaching in all the places of higher learning (and ever increasingly dominating school, even at kindergarten level), that all generations are, to a degree or another, bathing in it (short summary of such teaching: boys are bad in every way, force them to be like girls and make sure they never have any self esteem. Medicate if needed). This is here for a long time and will constitute the basic framework from which everything will be thought out in society. Dissidents beware, especially in the era of social media, online lynching mobs and “internet reputations” made by accusations (that follow you for life).
Indeed, men don’t organize to counter such things: atomization is the rule, and why ganging up against what is not perceived as a clearly defined threat, but more a fact of life? If East Asia is any indication (Japan, South Korea, Taiwan), the genereal trend of male disinterest and/or disenfranchisement can go a lot further in proportion of the population without any government even thinking about doing anything remotely significant. Even not reaching the sacrosanct and very necessary 2,1 kids/ adult woman (otherwise social systems and other ersatz-husbands are not on the right tracks) for years or decade at a time don’t seem to change any attitude.
As for overall productivity, that seems to bring about one of the hot potato topics of the times: immigration. Here in Europe, it seems to be the answer to everything and the go-to magic trick that solves all these pesky problems of ageing populations. Without regards for qualifications or social cohesion.
Tancrede:
WRT sex, family, sexual marketplace, etc.: More or less agreed. Men tend to put up with these things until they can’t anymore, until they reach a hard breaking point. From the Declaration of Independence:
“all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”
Men are putting up with it. They’re adapting to the changes, the hardest of which now is divorce rape, losing your kids, and becoming a divorce child support wage slave. Men do not like it. But they’re adapting. And up to this point, men (as opposed to women) have decided the “evils are sufferable”. That’s slowly, very slowly, changing.
Men won’t organize to oppose feminism because men don’t work that way. Men don’t organize for social change like this. Men don’t organize as “men” for “male” interests. Men organize as tribes and clan for the tribe’s and clan’s interests. Men’s prime social directive is to win – individually and as part of a tribe. You join a tribe of men to defeat other tribes of men so you can take their money, land, stuff, and women. And you defend your own money, land, stuff and women from the war efforts of other tribes of men. That’s what men organize for – not “men”, but THEIR men, their brothers in arms, men with whom they have common interests.
The Deti,
“But my opinion is that it will just keep sliding in that same general direction.”
That is the most common way to make predictions — assume that the situation will continue in same direction. It is almost always wrong. There is always a counter-revolution.
As Hegel said, thesis, antithesis, synthesis.
“My guess: men will band together to do the big version of Game and MGTOW”
This is a little behind the curve. It was already tried and was smashed down brutally. Roosh tried global meetups in early 2017 that were “shut down” ruthlessly by governments and news organizations. Calls to band together or create male-only spaces (such that used to exist) where men can talk freely and build camaraderie, are not a new thing, but the conclusion already reached by writers on ROK is that either the time is not ripe, or it can never happen. Why it can never happen is something I keep repeating: As long as there are sufficient White Knights willing to break up the band (for their own selfish interests – getting the poon, any poon), there will be no unified response.
“There is no end in sight to the gender wars.”
Yes this is 100% correct. That is until the ratio of reproductive aged males/females drops. When men no longer need to compete, back-stab, white-knight, virtue signal or whatever in order to secure a mate of equal SMV.
I’m a little perplexed by Dalrock’s assertion that (((they))) are controlling levers of society from the top down while at the same time, “market forces” are driving things from the bottom up. I think a simpler explanation is the “system is working as designed”, the system being the natural animal survival structure. In other words, masses of people are driving events, if anything, leaders are reacting to it. Case in point: Joe Biden’s recent laughable and transparent virtual signalling and cringy White-Knighting is not leadership or control by any stretch. It is lame self-interest at the dumbest, lowest, basest level.
So there is no chance of men “banding together” in numbers sufficient to turn the tide, because there are equal numbers willing to break the cartel, literally smash it to pieces in order to satisfy their selfish need TO WIN and secure a mate by any means.
Burner,
“This is a little behind the curve. It was already tried and was smashed down brutally.”
Real life is not like a TV sitcom, with resolution in 30 minutes. Those are just dots, not large-scale social movements. Most counter-revolutions take generations (much as feminism has taken generations to bring us to today’s situation).
Pingback: The Consequences of Feminism – V5K2C2