Summary: The Left and Right are building a new world, while we passively watch. Here is a look at the world that the women of Generation Z inherit.
News from the new world
The daily news is rich with insights into the new world being created by the Left and Right on the ashes of the West-that-once-was. Such as this story, headlining in most of the British papers. From the Daily Mail…
“Fashion chief executive who was attacked by 6ft tube passenger
slams two ‘white middle class’ men after they walked into next carriage
and left her to defend herself.”
“Tamara Cincik was kicked and threatened while travelling to a business meeting in central London yesterday. …The fashion CEO is keen to stress she does not blame this man, who she desribes {sic} as being 6ft tall and of Southeast Asian descent. …’I remain more angry with those white middle class men who left me to it. As fathers, husbands and sons they should be ashamed of themselves.'”
But fish don’t need bicycles. Also, there were many women in the car. Why didn’t they team up to attack the guy? Where was feminist solidarity? (Strangely, neither the women in the car nor the guys pulled the emergency cord.)
This is a foretaste of our new world. How did we get here?
Millennials lived in the golden age for women
Women of the millennial generation lived the golden age for women. They were able to deploy feminism while men still played by the traditional rules.
Millennial women were able to party until their late 20s, then marry a beta provider. Chick flicks and music videos (e.g., Taylor Swift’s) showed us peak Girl’s Game, with all the options in her hands: romance, party-of-her-life, marriage, kids, divorce, community property, child support, and independence. Family courts were run for their benefit. Abuse accusations in divorce court were believed and rewarded, no matter how frivolous the evidence. Mothers almost automatically received sole custody.
Millennial women had near equality in education and employment. In 1982 and every year after, women earned more Bachelor’s degrees than men (the gender gap was 26% in 2017). They earn more than men (see The Guardian, see CNN, see Fortune, see the Census data here and at the source).
Millennial women’s relative performance was boosted by the creation of special programs for girls and massive drugging of boys. ADHD was officially declared a mental illness in 1980 (by DSM-III). Widespread drugging to make boys more docile began in the late 1980s. Ritalin production increased eightfold during the 1990s. Use doubled in Britain in the last decade; US sales rose 83% between 2006 and 2010 (The Times). By 2017, 3.6 million kids were on ADHD drugs – mostly boys.
Millennial women got to choose their narrative, and change it to suit their need of the moment. They can condemn chivalry as male oppression (toxic masculinity) or demand protection. They can be Cinderella or Wonder Woman (e.g., the warrior women cadets at the US Air Force Academy, piled with drink and taken advantage of). Men must comply with the script women choose. Many young men tell me that this leads to strange dates, as they cannot predict what personality the women will wear (or change into, with no notice).
The result: millennial women have decisively moved on top of men.
All good things come to an end
“A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.”
— Graffiti on a lavatory wall written by Australian social activist Irina Dunn in 1970 (details here).
After the apogee comes the fall. The men of Gen Z grew up seeing women casually hitting men on TV and in films, often for frivolous reasons — shown as glorious demonstrations of grrl-power. They watched TV shows about weak men becoming domesticated and strong men being broken. (examples here). There were taught that men must follow the rules while women break them.
Men slowly adapted to the new rules, learning on the street (since feminists control the universities and think-tanks) to hack them. Game taught men how to play the post-romance era (see the science, and how Game is toxic to feminism). Second wave counterrevolutionary thought is called “Red Pill”, insights about working of the new system of gender relations and how it works against boys and men. Among other effects, it is toxic to modern marriage. It is even more toxic to chivalry.
Already the institutional push-back has begun. Courts are overruling universities’ kangaroo sexual assault/harassment tribunals (e.g., here and here). Legislatures and judges are more often — even mandating — joint custody of children (Pew Research, Nevada, proposed in Michigan).
Some women have grown concerned that the revolution might hurt women’s interests. See Second thoughts about romance in the #MeToo age and MeToo discovers that there is always a counter-revolution.
All of this reaches maturity with the men of Generation Z (the oldest are now in their early 20s), the first to grow up in this new world. Many of them will consider chivalry an oddity – as it has been for most societies throughout history (and is today is most of the world). They will laugh at such behavior. They will mock people who attempt to impose it, as Ms Cincik does (“they should be ashamed”). Many of them will consider marriage a fool’s game, with large risks and few benefits.
The women of Gen Z will follow the example of their elders, attempting to (like them) have it all. But times have changed. They might not like the new system, and learn that the motto of Third Wave feminism is wrong. Fish don’t need bicycles, but men and women need each other. It might take another few generations to learn how we can do so in the modern age. Until we do, many men and women will become collateral damage of the leftist revolutionaries who burned the existing system and substituted poorly conceived dreams (as they did with communism).
“Every revolution has its counterrevolution.”
— C. Wright Mills (prof sociology at Columbia) in Listen, Yankee(1961).
(1961).About Chivalry
Chivalry is a microcosm of the feminist revolution. Dalrock has written much about it, from its noxious beginning in Medieval lore to its mature and beneficial form in the West-that-once-was, to its current noxious state (e.g., here and here).
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 …
- Men are going Galt. Marriage is dying. — A review of books from the cutting edge of the revolution.
- Men are abandoning the rat race, & changing American society. — See the data.
- Why men are avoiding work and marriage.
- Will young men break America’s family structure?
- Will today’s young men marry? America’s future depends which of these answers is right.
- The coming crash as men and women go their own way.
- The rising number of celibate men: it’s an alarm.
The other front to feminists’ crusade: wrecking boys
The Boy Crisis:
Why Our Boys Are Struggling
and What We Can Do About It
By Warren Farrell (The Myth of Male Power: Why Men Are the Disposable Sex
John Grey (Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus
I will be posting a review this week. Until then, from the publisher…
“What is the boy crisis?
- It’s a crisis of education. Worldwide, boys are 50 percent less likely than girls to meet basic proficiency in reading, math, and science.
- It’s a crisis of mental health. ADHD is on the rise. And as boys become young men, their suicide rates go from equal to girls to six times that of young women.
- It’s a crisis of fathering. Boys are growing up with less-involved fathers and are more likely to drop out of school, drink, do drugs, become delinquent, and end up in prison.
- It’s a crisis of purpose. Boys’ old sense of purpose – being a warrior, a leader, or a sole breadwinner – are fading. Many bright boys are experiencing a “purpose void,” feeling alienated, withdrawn, and addicted to immediate gratification.
“So, what is The Boy Crisis? A comprehensive blueprint for what parents, teachers, and policymakers can do to help our sons become happier, healthier men, and fathers and leaders worthy of our respect.”
I would like to know why was is OK for a South East Asian man (British code – usually for) Pakistani heritage, to attack her?
Guy,
My guess from the news story (are these really written by monkeys?) is that she believed he was mentally disturbed.
Guy, Larry
Please, stop playing coy about this issue. You know full well why this woman made excuses for a Middle Eastern dude assaulting her, why the article about her minimized the mention of his ethnicity as much as possible, why no one in that train besides a Eastern European immigrant was willing to do anything about it.
In Western Europe and the Anglosphere, swarthy Muslim men are allowed to be the kind of insanely violent and oppressive actual misogynists that Feminists have been pretending White Men secretly were for the last 100+ years.
Why specifically Arabic and Pakistani Muslims are the immigrant bomb of choice of our cosmopolitan elites and why they are allowed so much lee way by the legal system to enact sexual and religious terror, I can fully say, but to pretend this isn’t obviously the case is stupid, and disingenuous.
Seriously, I know this site is almost exclusively focused on Sex relations between native First World men and women, but you’ve covered immigration policy before and acknowledged the social negatives it was intentionally designed to cause.
Outsiders already think you’re a raging sexist, is the “racist” label that much scarier to you; or are you so far gone that you genuinely think the social ills we’re suffering because of rampant feminism can be better/more rapidly counterbalanced with a massive injection of fundamentalist Islam, damn the consequence on every other facet of culture and daily life?
* I canNOT fully say for certain
Based on her bratty entitled reaction they were right not to help this horrible woman. Many young women now believe they are just as strong and tough as men thanks to Hollywood propaganda. She apparently didn’t get the memo.
I’ve had to explain to many a shocked teenage girl at work that men have 90% more upper body strength than women and no amount of working out or karate can overcome this. They are honestly shocked that it is a rare to impossible feat for a woman to beat up a man her own age.
Mandy,
Thanks for bringing up that interesting aspect of this cultural change.
In my first post about Hollywood showing women beating up men, I wondered if young women would take these seriously. I don’t know how many do. But Youtube has lots of videos of women attacking men – and they often show men decisively hitting back (but not with much damage, or the video would become evidence at the guy’s trial).
As an old Boomer, I find these astonishing. They often show women attacking guys much larger than themselves. Guessing, they assume that the guy isn’t allowed to hit back. He’s just supposed to take it.
My initial reaction was disbelief, that is not the way the British typically react, nor is it the way Londoners react.
There was, for instance, a story some months ago about a man who started abusing a woman wearing the black so called Islamic robe. This was in the Northeast. The other passengers intervened and forced him off the bus. There are stories all the time in the UK press about criminals being tackled by bystanders. A recent one was a guy who had stolen money a woman had taken out at a cash point. He was pursued by three or four men and tackled to the ground and held till the police came.
When we read more accounts of the episode, we find that another man, coincidentally of East European extraction, though I cannot see why that is significant, had seen the guy on the platform, thought he was disturbed, and came down the carriages and intervened. Another couple of women came and sat by the lady, and someone did pull the emergency cord.
I simply do not believe that feminism has produced, among UK men, a general approach to stuff like this that they will walk off and leave the attackers to it, whether its a man or a woman that is being attacked.
I do think there will be increasing worry about ‘having a go’, as the British put it, in the light of the increasing frequency of knife crime in Britain, and particularly in London. That is now a very serious consideration for anyone about to intervene. You may find yourself unarmed in a fight to the death with no notice. There are reports of knifings in London several times a week now.
Tamara Cincik’s comments are justifiable in one sense – the two men are reported to have got up and moved to another carriage, and that was unconscionable behavior. But her reported rant about blaming this on their being white and middle class is just parroting the party line of a rather rarified section of London society where everything anyone objects to is the fault of some white middle class man or other.
They were middleaged, out of condition, and cowardly. It happens.
Her attitudes on this are not general, any more than the reaction of the two men is general.
It is quite wrong to draw any conclusions about the effects of feminism on London or English men. Whether the indifference you describe is common in America, and whether, if it is, its the effect of feminism, I do not know. What I do know is that it is not the norm in the UK, and that feminism has not had the effects you describe in England.
George,
Again I’ll request that you respond to direct quotes, as otherwise you make stuff up and reply to figments of your imagination.
“feminism has not had the effects you describe in England.”
The post is quite specific. The only thing I say about this incident is “This is a foretaste of our new world.”
My initial post was longer.
I am from London originally, my grandfather told me once a story about the first world war, at the start he had five brothers and no medals, at the end he had four medals and no brothers. My father and his brother fought in World War Two, my father a pilot and his brother a commando, both lived. My eldest brother was a commando and killed in action in South America during the Falklands war, I have limited use of my left hand were a mugger’s knife went in my palm, I am able to function and work for my family, I am lucky the knife was aimed for my face, and a black belt in Karate allowed me to kick him back in the face so hard I slip my shoe. Then I ran, I was out numbered four to one and unarmed, that was 1995 in Stockwell, I would hate to see it now. In 1995 I was a young post grad student into Karate, running and weights.
I did say, falling wages, more people eating the pie, the rich enjoying larger profits from the falling wages are making for a dangerous cocktail, pour on mass immigration and a Police force that would “do” the two white males in an instant for anything they could – excessive force – a racist phrase.
Ray Dalio said we are in 1937, we hope for peace in our time, but it isn’t that likely.
1,300 stabbings in London since January. Give a man pause for thought, that. More likely to be the explanation than feminism!
George,
“More likely to be the explanation than feminism!”
Wow. I hope nobody ever depends on you for help. There are many things the two guys could have done that involved no physical risk.
Good point.
Gut,
“Good point.”
But irrelevant to the post. I’ve often wondered how many people commenting on posts actually read them. Based on 55+ thousand comments here, my guess is half.
Pingback: Millennial girls had a golden age. Gen Z’s inherit wreckage. - Ryan Guillory
You trash the “white guy” enough and he won’t step in to help your silly ass. Can you blame them? Go on tough girls do something about it. See, the rest of the world is not playing by our dumb Western feminist imposed rules. how high can one kick in skinny jeans?
“This is a foretaste of our new world”
No it is not. Not in Britain, not in England, not in London. There is no evidence that men are becoming less likely to help women under attack. There is no reason to think this will increase in future.
As for Gute’s last comment: speak for the US if you like. You are not describing any sort of reality in the UK.
“All of this reaches maturity with the men of Generation Z (the oldest are now in their early 20s), the first to grow up in this new world. Many of them will consider chivalry an oddity – as it has been for most societies throughout history (and is today is most of the world). They will laugh at such behavior. ”
You may be correct about America, but you are wrong if you think this is a description of the UK. There is no reason whatever to think that men (and women too) are becoming any less willing to take on the kind of behavior described in this incident. On the contrary, the thing you can be fairly sure of in the UK is that people, men and women, will help you. And this will carry on.
George,
Congrats. You are capable of a rational discussion. Time will tell which of us is correct.
What’s more, the two guys in question will be the object of ridicule and contempt both socially and at work, and their families will feel serious embarrassment. And this would apply regardless of who exactly it was that was being attacked. Any relatively defenceless person, regardless of gender, race, age, you walk away like that and you will incur social stigma. I hope and expect that this will remain so.
George,
Keep your eyes on the past! That way all change will surprise you.
Chivalry is a historical oddity of history across time and space. Washing away its foundations but expecting it to continue violates much of what we know about human behavior.
“What’s more, the two guys in question will be the object of ridicule and contempt both socially and at work, and their families will feel serious embarrassment. And this would apply regardless of who exactly it was that was being attacked. Any relatively defenceless person, regardless of gender, race, age, you walk away like that and you will incur social stigma. I hope and expect that this will remain so.”
Methinks the man doth protest too much—sounds like he’s mostly trying to convince himself. This whole quote is a textbook example of the triumph of hope over experience/reason.
Dragnet,
It is difficult for people to watch the society they love be washed away as a result of changes they applaud. The resulting cognitive dissonance is severe. Pointless and fruitless, too.
George First said: “What’s more, the two guys in question will be the object of ridicule and contempt both socially and at work, and their families will feel serious embarrassment.”
If the comments section of any of the articles about the incident is in any way representative of the larger society, I have serious doubts about that. The consensus of opinion seems to be that Ms. Cincik is an obnoxious individual who doesn’t deserve any help from the white men who she so despises.
“Any relatively defenceless person, regardless of gender, race, age, you walk away like that and you will incur social stigma.”
Uh, right. People are going to go out of their way do stigmatize bystanders who don’t intervene? Can you point to any cases where this has happened?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhlPuNIqRQ0
In the video referenced, please note the large number of people who did nothing to intervene (all of them). This includes the bartender in overalls who only approached the bar after Deandre Johnson had left. I’m willing to bet that to this day, no one knows about these bystanders and no one cares.
Ray,
Pity George, trying to live in the clouds but falling hard to Earth. In almost every society around the world, today and in the past, people help only those of their own group. Usually kin-based — family or clan. Putting yourself at risk to help strangers is considered daft.
Chivalry is the result of historically unusual circumstances in western society. It existed for a moment of time. Then we made changes that washed away its foundation. The odd aspect of this is that people believe that behaviors continue after changing the foundations on which they rest. That’s foolish, even delusional.
“Until we do, many men and women will become collateral damage of the leftist revolutionaries who burned the existing system and substituted poorly conceived dreams (as they did with communism).”
Labeling social and political groups with epithets like “leftist revolutionaries” weakens the discourse. We are told that we must be on one side or the the other, the “leftists” (Democrats) or “conservatives” (Republicans). These labels mask the realities and let politicians get away with murder. Last week the ‘conservative’ minority on the Supreme court voted to take away individual liberties with regard to cell phone data, while the ‘liberals’ voted to protect the individual. At the same time the ‘conservative’ Republicans in Congress spend like drunken sailors, building an ever larger military, while claiming they want to reduce the size and intrusiveness of government. Let’s take away the labels and focus on the policies that are being supported and how those policies can be changed.
John,
“Labeling social and political groups with epithets like “leftist revolutionaries” weakens the discourse. ”
That’s the funniest thing I’ve read in a long time. Many on the Left self-describe as revolutionaries.
I speak as I find, and what I find has nothing to do with chivalry. Its not universal – there are failures, as there were in this case. There are gross breaches, people are attacked and abused as they are everywhere. Its not to do with the relations between men and women either. The outcome would probably have been similar if the victim had been an older frail man.
In the present case the behavior I am saying is common in the UK was two women intervening to sit next to her, and a man coming down the carriages because he thought the guy was going to be a danger to someone.
And it was the less common event two other men failing.
What I am talking about is action, sometimes physical, sometimes verbal, and its by women and men alike, and its in defence of women and men of all sorts.
It may change. But if it does, it will be a fundamental change in British social attitudes, and I see no sign of it and no reason to forecast it. It will not just be a change in the relations between men and women.
You say
Wrong., They did.
You say:
Speak for your own country, your own city, and your own culture, and you may be right. If you are, it is because a sense of community has vanished, and because people are defining themselves tribally, and do not feel they have a stake in how others are treated in public places.
But it has not vanished everywhere. When you hear about the story of the passengers on the bus in the English North East, defending the Islamic lady, were they were intervening for someone ‘not of their own group’?.
No. They were intervening on behalf of someone of their own group. Its just that, astonishingly enough, they defined their own group widely enough to include people of other ethnic and religious backgrounds. Astonishingly enough they think people of the opposite sex are part of their own group.
You say
I don’t know whether this is true about America or not. But it is not true about the UK. And this incident, in the UK,
was not about this kind of thing at all. Its about whether the people in the carriage and the vicinity feel they have a stake in stopping abuse, and whether they have confidence. Its the Kitty Genovese moment. In this case they seem to deserve about a B+. The two guys who left get an F.
I have to say, your accounts of relations between the sexes in America make it appear to have become one of the weirder places in the West, if not on the planet. Not the America in which I lived happily for many years. However tying this incident in this country to that weirdness in that country is pure projection.
George,
(1) Thanks for your comment. I’m moderating further comments. You appear to have understand little of what I’ve said — as shown by your many comments repeatedly misinterpreting what I said about the Cincik incident.
Time will tell which of us is correct. Tune back in a few years.
(2) These trends are also visible in other nations. See Sweden: 54% of children are born to an unwed mother (40% in the EU), 18% of population 20+ lives together unmarried, and a divorce rate of 2.8 per thousand people (one of EU’s highest). The numbers are changing due to mass migration.
(3) The story about bystanders at Kitty Genovese’s murder is a myth.
(4) “Wrong. They did.”
I was going by Cincik’s interview given to the Mail, the first report of the incident. She mentioned that the guys didn’t pull the cord, and didn’t mention anyone else doing so. A woman came by to sit with her, apparently after the attack had stopped, and pulled the cord. Details in the various accounts vary, as usual with these incidents.
Did I share the Duluth model for Domestic violence with you previously?
Someone did a video on this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwTBXdGS_j4
This unjust model of domestic violence have been destroying families everywhere:
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2016/07/21/all-roads-lead-to-duluth/
info,
The Duluth Model is, as you say, horrific. It is another front in the war against men. We’re losing.
See Dalrock’s posts about it.
As for Dalrock’s posts I think I seen them all. Really gets my blood boiling
Do you have that as one of the links in all of your articles concerning this issue? I think many more men and women need to know that this is a major reason why marriage is taking the nosedive in the west.
info,
No, I haven’t discussed the Duluth Model. I’ve written 168 posts on the gender wars, but have just scratched the surface. Too many fronts, the wars are moving too fast.
here is what can happen when men come to the aid of a woman being harassed on a bus or train:
“2 killed in stabbing on MAX train in Northeast Portland as man directs slurs at Muslim women, police say” at The Oragonian, 27 May 2017.
call the cops and wait. getting in the face of a deranged is just too dangerous.
Jay,
That’s good advice. But there is another level to this. Why should men intervene to defend a woman? Patriarchy, chivalry – these are discredited beliefs, aspects of male oppression. Women can take care of themselves (how many thousands of times have women said that in TV shows and films since 1970?). If not, then its the job of the government to make the world safe for women. Always. Everywhere in the US.
The moral level is the highest level in these decisions, trumping all else.
As said upstream, we change the foundations of society yet expect everything else to remain the same. It won’t.
Larry, I think, reading your last comment, I do understand you. What you said there was exactly what I understood you to be saying, and as a reaction to this episode I think it is wrongheaded.
You say: “Why should men intervene to defend a woman? Patriarchy, chivalry – these are discredited beliefs, aspects of male oppression. Women can take care of themselves (how many thousands of times have women said that in TV shows and films since 1970?). If not, then its the job of the government to make the world safe for women. Always. Everywhere in the US.”
This particular episode had nothing whatever to do with chivalry or its supposed decline. It had nothing to do with men defending women because they are women. The reason why people generally feel they should and do intervene in these situations in England, regardless of who is the victim, is that they feel they have an interest in the way life is lived in public places. They also feel entitled to do so, because they feel that in doing so they are reflecting the values of the society in which they live.
The condemnation of the men who walked away that will be voiced is for their failure to behave properly, as society expects, in the face of this sort of thing, regardless of who it is directed at. Yes, the lady in question went on the rant about husbands and so on, and white middle class males, but that is her, and is not a reflection of general social attitudes.
Let me be perfectly clear. I have seen a woman intervene against a much younger man, to protect an elderly man in a public place. Different context, no physical violence involved, but what you have to understand is that it was the same phenomenon. Doing so with the sentiment that we are not having this. And having the public who were present immediately behind her. This is what happened also in the case of the man on the bus abusing an Islamic lady in the North East. In England at least its nothing to do with chivalry or gender roles. These were the same thing as what happened, or failed to happen, in the present case. Its to do with behavior and social norms, not with gender relations. Men and women do it on behalf of men and women.
You are not seeing what is in front of you, because you are seeing it through the prism of gender relations. This is not about gender relations. At least, its not in England.
Moderation is of course your decision. Maybe you’d prefer I stopped commenting. If so, OK, though if not allowed to comment I shall probably stop reading too.
George,
Time will tell. You’ve more than made your point.
“It had nothing to do with men defending women because they are women.”
I doubt that very much. But its not worth debating, as there is no factual evidence.
“Different context, no physical violence involved”
Yes, that is totally different. That you think this is relevant is just strange.
Alternate Headline: “Based Bros Respect Strong, Independent Woman by Voluntarily Vacating Toxic Masculinity From Her Presence.”
Mr. G.
That’s awesome!
Colin Flaherty’s channel on Minds.com has many videos showing urban yoof committing assaults on American public transportation while other riders stare at their smart phones and do nothing. {See his website.}
Sir John Glubb says this happens in cycles.
I think we’re well on our way to this collapse.
PRCD,
The link to minds.com didn’t work. I fixed it, and added a link to Flaherty’s website.
As for women “associated with national decline” – those examples are several steps beyond speculative. There are more likely causes for the decline of Rome and the “Arab Empire.”