I'm happily married. I'm not an incel. I have plenty of female friends at work, I don't hate the gender as a whole.
But I know EXACTLY why there's a growing hatred of women on the right, and I think articles like this are deeply ingenuous. A highly combative, deeply toxic brand of modern progressive feminism Is jammed down our throats on every campus, in every HR department, in every press room, in every classroom, on every tech platform, in every government bill. We can't watch a TV show or a movie without a strong, perfect girl boss ruining yet another IP we used to love. We are not allowed to question its tenets or debate its merits. Masculinity is toxic. The patriarchy is everywhere. Gender is a construct. Women were better hunters than men. They're better scientists than men. They're definitely just as strong as men. They're just BETTER than men, and the sooner men get with the programming that the future is female and step aside, the better.
When I hear fellow conservatives complain about women, they're not complaining about ALL women. They're not complaining about women who won't sleep with them -- they're complaining about AWFLs, the ones that keep showing up in poll after poll as being the most ideologically intolerant, the most inflexible, the most combative. They value safetyism over freedom, they trust experts over their own instincts. They're a specific breed of upper middle class midwit white liberal woman who gained way too many footholds over covid, and has taken over middle management, the HR department, colleges, big tech, all journalism, and the halls of government. She runs everything, she HATES white conservative males, and the feeling is mutual.
As long as you don’t fit the last sentence, I'm not criticising you (and I specifically listed the kind of people I *am* criticising) 👇
"In case anyone has reading comprehension issues, I shall state that this is not a call for girlbosses to smash the boys’ club like the strong independent women they are. Of course, the success of this phenomenon has roots in its ideological opposite — the attempt to problematise maleness. I’ve written a lot about this obnoxious phenomenon before. There is no denying that this is a problem — and a far more fashionable one. But the nü-misogynists essentially invert it — we’re not the problem, you’re the problem."
I understand what you're saying, and I'm normally a huge fan of your writing. I bought your most recent book. I just disagree here, fundamentally. You're attempting to find parity by reducing it to a "both sides" culture war squabble. It's the same thing liberals do talking about the media, ignoring that the entirety of mainstream media is utterly controlled by the left. And you're not alone. I've seen another five articles in right-wing circles that are the equivalent of "What's up with conservatives picking on girls?" It's this week's right-leaning think piece.
If your argument was simply, "Don't lash out blindly at ALL women, there are plenty of female allies out there," I'd applaud it. But don't present it as a fair fight. Conservative misogynists aren't "inverting" a paradigm, we're not lowering ourselves to their level of discourse. It's not discourse. We're being hunted. Look at the educational declines as young white men are chased out of academia. Look at the occupational declines as young white men are chased out of the workplace. Look at a TV screen as white men are chased out of modern myth. Talk to an AI and see how white men are being chased out of history. Look at the lowering testosterone numbers. We live in a feminized oligarchy. Men are lashing out at the longhouse. Because of COURSE we are.
I see your point. I thought I'd made it clear enough that I don't believe the two phenomena are equivalent with my "far more fashionable" aside but in retrospect I should have emphasised that more. A failing of the piece, though trust me that I'm under no illusions that HRification is a far more powerful force.
That said, I focused on the woman-haters here in large part *because* I don't want the critique of managerial progressivism to be dragged off course. Leftists aren't going to listen to my points about their errors, for the most part, but right-wingers might (not the red-pilled podcasters, but the people who might have listened to them). So, there's a place for this sort of critique. But if it wasn't clear to a sympathetic reader that I didn't think this is a problem on par with that managerial progressivism then I should have dwelled on that more.
I think it's a bit pre-emptive to try and course correct something before it has gotten anywhere close to actually having any power. If it looked like leftwing bullshit was actually about to fall out of favor then it might be time to start policing the bad actors on the right. But it seems to me that we still have a long way to go before we're at that point.
"Tv schedules across the Western world are awash with drama serials of this kind, conforming to a formulaic scriptwriter’s tick-box: Non white person traduced but eventually revealed to be a surprisingly decent sort – Tick....Middle class white person eventually revealed to have a sinister dark side – Tick...Gay Couple included – Tick.... (Post 2017 update: transgender characters urgently needed). More recently it has become an integral part of the story that ‘lgbt’ people are abundant and everywhere. They are bound to be nice as well. Curiously though there is another box to be ticked: there needs to be some graphic depiction of violence especially towards attractive young women (by white men of course). By its final episode Collateral had ticked every box just as surely as this review of Episode1 predicted it would."
These guys want to deprive women of the vote. They’d go full taliban if they could. Women understand the battle of the sexes to be existential in a way men don’t because we only escaped slavery two generations ago.
Women were never slaves. What on Earth are you talking about? Women were fulfilling their biological role to our species and a critically important one. By every demonstrable measure men had more harsh lives, perhaps more agency, but also more responsibility. This notion of women were slaves is nothing more than an accountability dodge. An excuse to do whatever you want and be responsible to no one.
And also the right to beat and murder their wives who were obliged to obey them… get fucked mate, women are still slaves in half the world, and in those countries men sit on their holes in cafes doing as little as fucking possible- I’ve seen it up close and suspect it was always true.
Men are fucking grifters and shitheads except in countries where women have authority over their sons. Only then can you be turned to any kind of good.
RW podcasts should focus on history, philosophy, literature, and above all humor. The moralizing and in-fighting will drive away any and all normal people.
Imagine trying to win people over to your side and the first thing they see is "groypers" calling people who read BAP Jewish or weird and obscure Christians ranting about atomization and the need to ban "degeneracy." Very unattractive and easy to mock stuff!
Presumably they should also talk about contemporary social and political issues. Constantly dealing with esoteric theory will drive away any and all normal person as well.
People want to know that they aren't crazy for thinking that things that are happening nowadays are crazy. These are not mutually exclusive.
Not that you are saying otherwise, just making a point.
I’m always struck by how they use the language of business and economics. Men and women alike are either “high value” or “low value”. They compete in a “sexual marketplace”. The goal is to find someone who “adds value to you”, by projecting or selling yourself as high value. The “sexual market” metaphor implies everyone is simultaneously a consumer of others and a producer of oneself as a product on the market. It’s all rubbish of course - dating isn’t a market, there’s no price mechanism, and relationships are not an “exchange”. But I think there’s an interesting story to tell about why so many people (mostly men but by no means exclusively) have started to see relationships through the vocabulary of LinkedIn.
It's off-putting and disturbing. I know the "touch grass" thing is a overused meme but it's also true. If these people were to have genuine relationships, platonic or otherwise, with woman they'd quickly realize that they are not evolutionary-tuned robots searching for the highest value mate 24/7.
That's the main thing that makes me dislike the whole "Manosphere" thing, which if toned down I could sympathise with. But it's their use of these cringe terms that makes them hard to listen to. Also the constant ratings they give themselves and others: "I'm a sub-5, but she's a 6 and her simp boyfriend is a sub-5 blah blah blah". It's incredibly off-putting.
Yes, they rate and objectify themselves as well as women. That’s something feminist critiques sometimes miss. It’s not just misogyny. They have a transactional, alienated view of human beings and human relationships in general.
I've always understood the self rating as being highly damaging, and a way to rationalize why they're unsuccessful in attracting a partner.
Apart from the psychological damage they're doing to themselves, they seem to be blind to the millions of sub-optional looking men in the world who do have partners. Stating the obvious, looks aren't everything. It's the less attractive men who are angry that the best looking women aren't interested in them causing a never ending circle of misguided hate and grievance.
I think the business lexicon is used by these guys more than the broader population.
"Also the constant ratings they give themselves and others: "I'm a sub-5, but she's a 6 and her simp boyfriend is a sub-5 blah blah blah". It's incredibly off-putting."
It's what everyone does, all the time, to everyone they lay eyes on. They are just being honest and frank about it.
In case you were not aware, the average woman has already assessed a man's potential as a mate within about 5 seconds of laying eyes on him. Basically a look up and down. Shoes, build/ stance, grooming, confidence etc.
The problem with looking at relationships through a feminist lens (as everybody here seems to be doing) is that feminists (the ones who set the rules anyway) tend to be people who have massive relationship issues, unresolved trauma, a hatred / fear of men, an ideological objection to heterosexual relationships, a non heterosexual orientation and of course (the biggy) a world view which literally defines men as the enemy of women throughout all of history and today as well.
It is quite astounding that feminists have been able to essentially 'write the rulebook' on dating and relationships (certainly dominate the narrative) given their unsuitability for the job.
There is a ribald Willie Nelson song about the warped perceptions caused by drunkenness with the line "Last night I came in at two with a 10 but at ten I woke up with a 2." I think that is as far as the normal person gets - there are clear extremes of really beautiful and really ugly, but most people are vaguely in between. The idea that everyone is on a perfect rigid rung on a 1 to 10 scale is not "what everyone does all the time to everyone they lay their eyes on."
Hmm. I feel that maybe arguing that dating doesn't meet an economist's formal definition of a market is maybe missing the point, that dating has become a lot more selfish and cynical than it used to be. It used to be about commitment, chivalry, and (cringe though it is to say) an attempt to find love. Now it is cold, calculating, and its practitioners are always on tenterhooks to withdraw if a better offer comes along.
For much of history it's had a market aspect. It's simply that parents often made the purchasing decision for their children, and nobody was allowed to return the goods - arranged marriage and no divorce.
It's just relatively recently in human history, from 1900 or so in the West, where the couple had a choice, and they still lack the choice in much of the world today.
I think it's a reaction to being told a bunch of lies and platitudes about dating, marriage, and gender relations. A lot of people grow up being told nothing useful or meaningful about this subject as to do so makes most normies feel really icky. For example, people grow up genuinely not knowing that taller men do better with women, that women are often hypergamous, etc. And when you do find out these things, you have to talk about them anonymously in random corners of the Internet. You can't bring them up to anyone you know IRL without being shamed or causing a shitfight or whatever.
This breeds a lot of resentment where people sort of go to the other extreme in response.
What’s interesting to me is that they don’t just think of women as “consumers/products on the dating market”, they think of themselves that way too. Hence all the talk about becoming “high value”. They end up dehumanizing themselves as much as others.
"I’m always struck by how they use the language of business and economics."
This is not new. It's how dating and marriage has always been regarded. It's only in the last 50+ years that we've put dating and marriage into a vacuum, detached from reality (and from its primary role of reproduction and parenting).
What's actually happened is that the concepts of voluntary transactions, free markets and offering value to others have all been demonised..... mostly by people who engage in INVOLUNTARY transactions, MONOPOLISED markets and TAKING value from thers.
"It’s all rubbish of course - dating isn’t a market"
The happiest and most fulfilling (and long lasting) relationships are those where each party is fully aware that they are not ENTITLED to sex, love or companionship, and must therefore bring something to the table each day to EARN it. This humility and devotion is what keeps relationships fresh and strong. Imagine waking up and feeling an obligation to provide VALUE to your significant other.
The modern dating/ relationship scene is characterised by a sense of ENTITLEMENT and NARCISSISM. This is why it's become such a giant dumpster fire.
Without the concept of high value and low value men and women, there is can be no concept of virtue, character or integrity - and all that's left is hedonism, cynicism and lust (basically moral relativism + service to self AKA satanism).
" The goal is to find someone who “adds value to you”, by projecting or selling yourself as high value."
No. The goal is to work hard to become a person of value (of worth), so that people of equal value (equal worth) will want to form a partnership with you and make love (and babies).
Again, this is not a new concept from Linkedin, it's how pair bonding has been for all of time, and not just in humans. The mating rituals of thousands of pair bonding animals revolves around showing your potential mate what VALUE you can bring to the relationship.
One of the interesting things about working in finance is seeing these concepts in their original environment every day. People in the business press are always talking about “bringing value” and “providing value”, just as you do. Bosses tell subordinates that the most important thing for them to do is “add value to the company”. The criteria for every business decision is “does this increase value”. Value here literally means “what the company is worth to its shareholders”. It has a specific, technical meaning. It’s not a biological concept at all. It’s not the natural way pair bonding has been “for all time”. It’s a business concept that’s been borrowed by people who see relationships as businesslike and transactional.
"Bosses tell subordinates that the most important thing for them to do is “add value to the company”.
Pretty sure that's correct. An employee who makes no sales and just spends all day playing online backgammon at his desk is just a drain on the company. I am not sure what you are trying to argue.
The equivalent scenario in a relationship would be one (or both) partners refusing to cook, clean, get a job, pay the bills, stay faithful or take care of the children. Obviously, when one (or both) partners stops contributing anything of value to the relationship - and the enterprise called 'a family' - it will fall apart very quickly.
"It’s not a biological concept at all."
We started off hunting and gathering, and then farming and then specialising more and more until we ended up with modern businesses. But they are just a more efficient way of hunting, thanks to specialisation which allows for technological innovation. It's ALL biology because it's all entirely a product of human labour, human cooperation, human imagination and human to human transactions.
"It’s a business concept that’s been borrowed by people who see relationships as businesslike and transactional."
You use these terms as if they are somehow deviant or odious in some way. A voluntary association between two people (a marriage) is a mutual commitment to the business of living together and starting a family. It even has a formal contract signed by both parties.
If a married couple love each other and they own a bakery they will do all they can to make sure the bakery is a success. That means working really hard and being very meticulous about running the business efficiently and intelligently. There is nothing sinister or cynical about this. Are you suggesting that running the bakery with good business acumen and a good work ethic makes their marriage deviant or unsavoury in some way?
I'm not sure why any of this makes you uneasy or disapproving. You seem to have a problem with the basic concept of voluntary transactions between humans.
I’m not criticizing business or voluntary transactions. Nor am I criticizing the application of business priorities in business contexts. I do so myself in my own career. However, I am critiquing the application of business concepts to intimate relationships specifically. Romantic relationships should be ends in themselves. Business has its place, but I’m against the reduction of all human relationships to businesslike transactions. I believe it’s a distorted, misguided and harmful view of the world.
The fatal flaw in this argument is the concept of “value.”
Whenever I hear “value” I understand why people pluralize “truth.”
Value is inherently subjective.
The guy with the Lambo and the trophy wife gets to tell himself that he's higher value than the guy with the Mercury Tracer and the plus sized wife.
And the guy with the Mercury Tracer gets to tell himself that he's higher value than the guy with the Lambo because his wife loves him as evidenced by the fact that she dotes on a guy with a shit box while the trophy wife is on to the guy with the Bugatti at her earliest opportunity.
Value is subjective and susceptible to manipulation and projection. We see what we want to see as mediated by what we find to be worthy of measure.
The fact that many can be seduced does not make truth amenable to democracy.
A woman attracted to a man for his money is one thing (say, Melania to Trump), but a woman attracted to a man who doesn't have money . . . isn't that more impressive in a way? And going both directions--aren't both the woman and the man more impressive in that situation?
WHAT qualities people choose to value is subjective. But that doesn't mean objective value systems don't exist and can't be used to measure a person's value - based on a set of fixed, objective metrics.
For example 'gangsta' is a value system. We can measure someone's level of 'gangsta' based on how many guns they own, how much time they've spent behind bars, how many fast cars they own, what kind of music they listen too, how much jewellery they wear etc etc.
'Traditional housewife' is a value system and this can also be measured by objective criteria like how much of the family meals are home cooked, whether the children are home schooled or sent to state schools, whether she likes being a feminine woman or prefers to be a feminist, whether she appreciates traditional men or views them as oppressors etc etc.
What people desire (or despise) at any given moment determines the value of an object, a product, a service or a person/ lifestyle. Some people value gangsta lifestyles and some people value traditional lifestyles. This will determine how they value YOU as a person - and as a potential mate.
And if YOU value a gangsta lifestyle then you will obviously care more about how you are valued by other gangstas and care less about how traditionalists rate you as a person, or potential mate.
"The guy with the Lambo and the trophy wife gets to tell himself that he's higher value than the guy with the Mercury Tracer and the plus sized wife"
Yes but what we tell ourselves does not determine our value. Our true value is determined by what OTHERS say about us, and how they feel about the kind of person we are.
A trophy wife is (by definition) the kind of woman who values a man with a Lambo above other considerations. She wants material wealth which is on display for all to see, and she wants a man to provide it to her. So if you want to attract a trophy wife (if you want to be valued by one) that's what you need to do to attract her (get a Lambo and some cool shades).
"Value is subjective and susceptible to manipulation and projection. We see what we want to see as mediated by what we find to be worthy of measure."
Exactly. That's why sensible people learn to be more discerning in what - or who - they value, as well as how they value themselves. The most successful and happy people (in the long term) tend to be those who learn to asses their own value through other people's eyes... BUT only if those other people are of high value themselves.
If you endeavour to become someone who other people value highly (a decent career, a good reputation, a pleasure to be around, always providing value to other people's lives and generally making the world a better place) then you will generally do well in life and you will attract people of EQUAL value.
Low value people who are a nightmare to be around and are constantly making life more difficult and dangerous for those around them tend to attract people of EQUALLY LOW value. High value people obviously do not want to associate with such people.
The belief of the majority is insufficient to cause whatever is being considered to be true. Holding the majority opinion is not enough to make the majority opinion correct (or incorrect).
Imagine walking through the world believing you are high value because other people say you are and only because they say you are. So if they change their minds, and nothing about you changes, you've lost your value?
If they change their minds about you again then you are high value?
Your position just goes around in circles. You can't escape this loop. Because your argument is incoherent.
Value is not objective. And value systems are not objective.
How many times has the Tesla Corp. undergone some dramatic fluctuation in "value." Not because of anything changing in the company, but because people's PERCEPTION of the company (or what the CEO's actions mean for the future of the company) changed.
Value is inherently subjective. It is a measure of what the observer has arbitrarily determined to be important. The fact that many people choose to act as though value is a proxy for something real does not change the situation.
This is why we can both measure the same distance and I come up with 9 inches, and you come up with 22.86 centimeters.
"The most successful and happy people (in the long term) tend to be those who learn to asses their own value through other people's eyes..."
> What's actually happened is that the concepts of voluntary transactions, free markets and offering value to others have all been demonised..... mostly by people who engage in INVOLUNTARY transactions, MONOPOLISED markets and TAKING value from thers.
Was bracing for impact on the headline, but yeah, think you're over the target here.
"The irony of the nü-misogynists is that they exhibit the worst traits of a female caricature — being loud, whiny, histrionic and obsessed with surface-level status symbols."
Yeah, exactly. The cringe is real. Frustrated young men deserve less effeminate role models.
On a tangent....I think something that goes a long way towards explaining (No not excusing) the bitterness on both sides of the aisle (radical feminism on the one side and the 'manosphere' on the other) is the huge difference between the sexual fortunes of The More Desired and The Less Desired. This fundamental substratum gets very little attention in journalist discourses on the battle of the sexes.... which are usually framed in crude terms of 'Men' do this and 'Women' do that. I explored this neglected theme in this piece: https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/the-less-desired
Interesting piece! I should probably have said in this piece that I have a lot of sympathy for young men disillusioned by the modern sexual marketplace, even if I don't have sympathy with blaming women at large for it. Dating apps have made it even tougher for the romantically disadvantaged.
As an aside....the piece was originally down to appear in The Critic (in David Scullion's time) but after a mix up (too trivial to explain) it ended up in Quadrant instead.
I think content like this is an inevitable counter-reaction to all of the man-hating that has become ascendant in the past few years. You can see a similar effect with race, I think a lot of bile expressed towards black people online is specifically driven by the fact that blacks are worshiped with pseudo-religious reverence everywhere else in life. People resent being force-fed lies.
That doesn't mean the content is good or that I approve of it. I don't watch this garbage. But when you combine social media which optimizes for clickbait/shock value with the resentment I described above, this is a predictable result. Hopefully people work it out of their system and then move on. As long as shitlib feminism is ascendant in public life though, this type of stuff is still going to be really popular online.
There are those who wish people of different ethnicities within a country to be divided. This is well-understood by most. Less well-understood is that people seek to divide men and women, too - it's part of creating a eunuch society.
This is not a deliberate conspiracy, but as George Carlin said, you don't need a conspiracy where interests converge. Lonely people who hate everyone are easier for governments to control, easier for corporations to sell useless junk to, easier for ideologues to persuade to their insane ideologies, and so on.
Followed this stuff for a while. It's very black-pilling content, out of phase with reality, through their selections. Out of phase with hope and nobility, and as a result drag you more in the direction of cynicalists and depressives. Likening it to hell isn't wrong. It takes advantage of the negativity in the air and turns it into something worse. Like a goblin emerging from filth.
I far prefer to follow stuff that has an idealistic nature. The cabin builders, the survivalists, military historians. Hope, accomplishment, persistence in the face of adversity. People who invite others down a similar path.
Dubbing them as you do, I think is effective. This isn't a group that doesn't belong in the Right's coalition. We'd be wise to keep them at a distance.
To be right wing is (at least in part) to acknowledge that men and women are fundamentally different. What I think happens is that once you find out this forbidden knowledge, and how hard people (especially left-leaning women) will fight to hide this from the world, you hyper-focus on these differences as a bad thing. I was able to avoid this phase by simply accepting that women are different and for all the ways that this can be frustrating or bad, there are just as many ways in which it's wonderful and good
I'm just a left-wing guy in New York who can't weigh in on these internecine conflicts...but it's always seemed to me that all of this is just adolescent male entitlement.
We all grow up in an environment that (tacitly or not) promises "babes" who will flock to you if you're nice and honest (and "funny," which always gets in there) — but most of us then enter the real world where actual, real women who don't comport with those juvenile fantasies turn out to be much more interesting and exciting than you expect (meaning just, in terms of romantic/sexual prospects).
If you don't have that experience — and if you're TRAINED by online voices to think that flaws in your approach (or just fear!) are actually manifestations of terrible problems with all women, you're going to get trapped in a terrible reductive struggle and just get angrier and more bitter.
It’s not necessarily wrong that they shame those women for being superficial and only going after high-status men. But they should also shame those same men for being obsessed with status.
Yes. These men are angry at real-world women being less subservient than the ones featured in modern pornography. They want to be "high-status" because they think that being high-status means they can be sucked off by a train of ravishing concubines.
But it doesn't follow that "those same men" are "obsessed with status": some may be born with it, some may achieve it, and some may have it thrust upon them, so to speak.
Women are attracted by status in much the same way that men are attracted by fertility. It's pretty much a sine qua non for a stable dyadic relationship. As social animals, we're always judging other on various parameters, and status is a biggie. I think we're all "status obsessed."
Women certainly judge men more by status (which means here, how other people think of them) more than men do women. There's a great old BT advert which ends with the line "If it's not good enough for Mrs Jones, it's not good enough for me."
Men, as I said, rate women for fecundity; women judge by how other men (and women) rate them. Being married > being divorced > being single (as the last two imply that other women found some fault). There's a tension in heterosexual relationships in that if a bloke is popular in say, his rugby club, he's more attractive than, for example, a lonely trainspotter, OTOH, our rugby player is also more likely to want to spend his evenings with his mates.
I think one of the reasons we have these Nu misogynists, is that men have less freedom simply to be in groups of men (inner city gangs excepted) to accrue status, while women are making ridiculous comparisons with a tiny group of celebrities. Consequently, fewer men have the visible social connectedness they need to signal "decent prospect" to women.
I think certain symbols of status are tacky—I rate Amol Rajan rather less than I did now I can't unsee the mugger-magnet watch he wears on "University Challenge," and no one needs a yacht, but I don't think anyone is altogether free from status signalling.
"But if a feminist claimed to love 6’4” bodybuilders with enormous genitals and a tremendous love for reading Simone de Beauvoir and doing the dishes...."
Feminists only exist because of the state, which is a bunch of 6'4" bodybuildings in costumes with guns and a monopoly on the legal right to use them to transfer wealth from mostly male taxpayers to feminist women. Also feminism was only possible because of mechanical dishwashers (and other mod cons) manufactured by men. Also feminist ideology has always been funded by industrialist men (Rockerfellers etc). Feminism is literally a product of all the things you just listed.
"The nü-misogynists aren’t wrong about the sad state of modern relationships, of course — the dramatic levels of divorce, single parenthood, loneliness et cetera. Their problem is putting all of the responsibility for this onto women."
The men on the show are encouraging female agency and self actualisation, over female self objectification and dependency, which (in our hyper progressive culture) FEELS like placing the burden of responsibility onto women (and it literally is because with agency, comes responsibility). But you are implying this as a negative thing, which implies you think women should remain objectified and dependent on others.
You are essentially accusing them of treating the women as adults, which you call nü-misogyny. When teenagers are treated like adults the extra responsibility that comes with that status also feels like a kind of oppression or hateful act. It's much 'kinder' and 'nicer' to treat teenagers (or women) like children. But this does not allow for self actualisation. If you want these women to experience agency and self actualisation WITHOUT any burden of responsibility you have drifted into the realm of magical thinking and white knighting.
I agree the show (I'd never choose to watch it) is kind of cheesy, cringey and sensationalist (like most forms of entertainment), but the truth is the men are taking on the role that grandmothers (and mothers) used to occupy before society became fractured and woke.
Traditionally it was the 'female elders' (as well as folk tales) who would give young women incredibly stern advice and admonitions to not squander their youth and looks (their high sexual market value) on frivolous relationships (let alone prostitution) because female looks fade fast and it's easy to end up hitting the wall with no prospects and no hope of finding a decent husband to raise a family with. Cue 40+ years alone with bitter regret.
The advice of 'female elders' was always brutally frank, because the 'drug' of being a young hottie is so intoxicating. By contrast the men on Whatever are incredibly mild and forgiving. If they seem harsh (or misogynistic???) it's only because they are men and because you are not used to seeing anyone ever be straight and honest to young attractive women.
"But no one drags men to their computers by their ears and forces them, on the pain of death, to send money to naked women on the Internet. "
100 years of feminism has made it so perilous for men to engage with the opposite sex that many are driven to porn, or online simping, because they literally don't feel safe entering the dating game IRL. One night of drunken regretful sex can so easily lead to a rape accusation and their life is destroyed.
"Yet red-pilled content creators....."
What we call 'red pill' today used to be called 'common sense' or 'wisdom from granny' just a few short generations ago. These guys are not being edgy (the fact that they often present themselves that way just makes them cringey). The advice they give used to be said to young women on the bus, by old ladies in headscarves and sensible shoes.
"But for the most part this is a sad revenge fantasy — an attempt by lonely and embittered people to imagine that the women who reject them will get their comeuppance."
It's a 'revenge fanstasy' which BENEFITS young women who hear the story, understand the moral message, and make sure not to repeat the same story in their own lives. Again, look into the past and you will find most popular stories and fairy tales were about some idiot doing something idiotic and suffering the consequences. These tales were INSTRUCTION MANUALS on how to not fuck up in life.
These tales have have only become absent from society over the last 50 - 100 years and as a result we are suffering an epidemic of single motherhood, broken homes, childless women frantic to get pregnant from a pipette and women hitting the wall and spending a fortune on disguises to try and secure a husband before the window of fertility closes like a stone door in an Indiana Jones movie.
"What these fellows (and, occasionally, females) love to do is find some of the most debauched or manipulative examples of womanhood and imply if not assert that this is a reflection of the whole sex."
Yes. And such frank and self effacing talk is the only way to defeat the ego and the idiot in all of us, and stop us making catastrophic life choices. This is how it's been done for thousands of years. You expose all the glorious faults of men or women, all the patterns of behaviour, all the temptations while sitting around the camp fire. .... so that in real life these things won't be hidden and we can all be better placed to repeating the same mistakes as the people who fucked up before us.
There's no harm caused by highlighting all the games that women play to exploit their looks and manipulate men in the short term, for materialistic gain, ego boost and social status. But there is harm in NOT talking about these things and then letting another generation of young women fall into all those traps and fuck up their lives.
"But the nü-misogynists essentially invert it — we’re not the problem, you’re the problem."
By highlighting all the ways women make problems for themselves (ego, vanity, narcissism, hypergamy, sexual manipulation etc) they are giving women problems that they can solve. That is a fist. That is empowerment.
By contrast take a movement like feminism. Feminists tells women that all their problems are caused by men, which means all the problems are out of women's hands to solve, leaving women feeling utterly powerless and demoralised.
"The pathologies of the modern world afflict men and women, and to portray either sex as exceptionally problematic is to confuse the issue."
There are other shows out there that give men 'red pill' advice and berate men for falling prey to all of their male-specific flaws, foibles and weaknesses. In fact there are far more shows giving that kind of advice to men than to women.
'Whatever' is kind of unique. It only works because it is so mild and because they have a lot of female guests at the table which makes it feel less intimidating. People DO get offended by harsh criticism or hard truths ..... but shielding people from harsh criticism or hard truths will result in DESTROYED LIVES.
What you call nü-misogyny (previously known as 'advice from a grandmother') is by far the lesser of two evils.
I'm happily married. I'm not an incel. I have plenty of female friends at work, I don't hate the gender as a whole.
But I know EXACTLY why there's a growing hatred of women on the right, and I think articles like this are deeply ingenuous. A highly combative, deeply toxic brand of modern progressive feminism Is jammed down our throats on every campus, in every HR department, in every press room, in every classroom, on every tech platform, in every government bill. We can't watch a TV show or a movie without a strong, perfect girl boss ruining yet another IP we used to love. We are not allowed to question its tenets or debate its merits. Masculinity is toxic. The patriarchy is everywhere. Gender is a construct. Women were better hunters than men. They're better scientists than men. They're definitely just as strong as men. They're just BETTER than men, and the sooner men get with the programming that the future is female and step aside, the better.
When I hear fellow conservatives complain about women, they're not complaining about ALL women. They're not complaining about women who won't sleep with them -- they're complaining about AWFLs, the ones that keep showing up in poll after poll as being the most ideologically intolerant, the most inflexible, the most combative. They value safetyism over freedom, they trust experts over their own instincts. They're a specific breed of upper middle class midwit white liberal woman who gained way too many footholds over covid, and has taken over middle management, the HR department, colleges, big tech, all journalism, and the halls of government. She runs everything, she HATES white conservative males, and the feeling is mutual.
As long as you don’t fit the last sentence, I'm not criticising you (and I specifically listed the kind of people I *am* criticising) 👇
"In case anyone has reading comprehension issues, I shall state that this is not a call for girlbosses to smash the boys’ club like the strong independent women they are. Of course, the success of this phenomenon has roots in its ideological opposite — the attempt to problematise maleness. I’ve written a lot about this obnoxious phenomenon before. There is no denying that this is a problem — and a far more fashionable one. But the nü-misogynists essentially invert it — we’re not the problem, you’re the problem."
I understand what you're saying, and I'm normally a huge fan of your writing. I bought your most recent book. I just disagree here, fundamentally. You're attempting to find parity by reducing it to a "both sides" culture war squabble. It's the same thing liberals do talking about the media, ignoring that the entirety of mainstream media is utterly controlled by the left. And you're not alone. I've seen another five articles in right-wing circles that are the equivalent of "What's up with conservatives picking on girls?" It's this week's right-leaning think piece.
If your argument was simply, "Don't lash out blindly at ALL women, there are plenty of female allies out there," I'd applaud it. But don't present it as a fair fight. Conservative misogynists aren't "inverting" a paradigm, we're not lowering ourselves to their level of discourse. It's not discourse. We're being hunted. Look at the educational declines as young white men are chased out of academia. Look at the occupational declines as young white men are chased out of the workplace. Look at a TV screen as white men are chased out of modern myth. Talk to an AI and see how white men are being chased out of history. Look at the lowering testosterone numbers. We live in a feminized oligarchy. Men are lashing out at the longhouse. Because of COURSE we are.
Thanks for the kind words.
I see your point. I thought I'd made it clear enough that I don't believe the two phenomena are equivalent with my "far more fashionable" aside but in retrospect I should have emphasised that more. A failing of the piece, though trust me that I'm under no illusions that HRification is a far more powerful force.
That said, I focused on the woman-haters here in large part *because* I don't want the critique of managerial progressivism to be dragged off course. Leftists aren't going to listen to my points about their errors, for the most part, but right-wingers might (not the red-pilled podcasters, but the people who might have listened to them). So, there's a place for this sort of critique. But if it wasn't clear to a sympathetic reader that I didn't think this is a problem on par with that managerial progressivism then I should have dwelled on that more.
I think it's a bit pre-emptive to try and course correct something before it has gotten anywhere close to actually having any power. If it looked like leftwing bullshit was actually about to fall out of favor then it might be time to start policing the bad actors on the right. But it seems to me that we still have a long way to go before we're at that point.
"Look at a TV screen as white men are chased out of modern myth."......You might find this an interesting read: https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/non-binary-sibling-is-entertaining
"Tv schedules across the Western world are awash with drama serials of this kind, conforming to a formulaic scriptwriter’s tick-box: Non white person traduced but eventually revealed to be a surprisingly decent sort – Tick....Middle class white person eventually revealed to have a sinister dark side – Tick...Gay Couple included – Tick.... (Post 2017 update: transgender characters urgently needed). More recently it has become an integral part of the story that ‘lgbt’ people are abundant and everywhere. They are bound to be nice as well. Curiously though there is another box to be ticked: there needs to be some graphic depiction of violence especially towards attractive young women (by white men of course). By its final episode Collateral had ticked every box just as surely as this review of Episode1 predicted it would."
These guys want to deprive women of the vote. They’d go full taliban if they could. Women understand the battle of the sexes to be existential in a way men don’t because we only escaped slavery two generations ago.
Women were never slaves. What on Earth are you talking about? Women were fulfilling their biological role to our species and a critically important one. By every demonstrable measure men had more harsh lives, perhaps more agency, but also more responsibility. This notion of women were slaves is nothing more than an accountability dodge. An excuse to do whatever you want and be responsible to no one.
And also the right to beat and murder their wives who were obliged to obey them… get fucked mate, women are still slaves in half the world, and in those countries men sit on their holes in cafes doing as little as fucking possible- I’ve seen it up close and suspect it was always true.
Men are fucking grifters and shitheads except in countries where women have authority over their sons. Only then can you be turned to any kind of good.
Spoken like a true simp. Angry about it, no? You pedastalize women and drank the kool-aid. Grifters who built the entire first world.
What makes you think I disagree? I said the same in this very piece!
RW podcasts should focus on history, philosophy, literature, and above all humor. The moralizing and in-fighting will drive away any and all normal people.
This is very true (as much as I appreciate I'm sort of in-fighting here)
Imagine trying to win people over to your side and the first thing they see is "groypers" calling people who read BAP Jewish or weird and obscure Christians ranting about atomization and the need to ban "degeneracy." Very unattractive and easy to mock stuff!
Presumably they should also talk about contemporary social and political issues. Constantly dealing with esoteric theory will drive away any and all normal person as well.
People want to know that they aren't crazy for thinking that things that are happening nowadays are crazy. These are not mutually exclusive.
Not that you are saying otherwise, just making a point.
What does 'RW' mean in this context - an acronym for something presumably?
Right-wing 👍
I’m always struck by how they use the language of business and economics. Men and women alike are either “high value” or “low value”. They compete in a “sexual marketplace”. The goal is to find someone who “adds value to you”, by projecting or selling yourself as high value. The “sexual market” metaphor implies everyone is simultaneously a consumer of others and a producer of oneself as a product on the market. It’s all rubbish of course - dating isn’t a market, there’s no price mechanism, and relationships are not an “exchange”. But I think there’s an interesting story to tell about why so many people (mostly men but by no means exclusively) have started to see relationships through the vocabulary of LinkedIn.
It's off-putting and disturbing. I know the "touch grass" thing is a overused meme but it's also true. If these people were to have genuine relationships, platonic or otherwise, with woman they'd quickly realize that they are not evolutionary-tuned robots searching for the highest value mate 24/7.
With a bit of healthy introspection they might realize that they aren’t evolutionary-tuned robots searching for the highest value mate 24/7 either.
Great point, which would make a great essay.
Here’s where it all started. Andrew Tate is the slave of a defunct economist: https://www.nber.org/system/files/chapters/c2970/c2970.pdf
Would love to read your take on it!
That's the main thing that makes me dislike the whole "Manosphere" thing, which if toned down I could sympathise with. But it's their use of these cringe terms that makes them hard to listen to. Also the constant ratings they give themselves and others: "I'm a sub-5, but she's a 6 and her simp boyfriend is a sub-5 blah blah blah". It's incredibly off-putting.
Yes, they rate and objectify themselves as well as women. That’s something feminist critiques sometimes miss. It’s not just misogyny. They have a transactional, alienated view of human beings and human relationships in general.
I've always understood the self rating as being highly damaging, and a way to rationalize why they're unsuccessful in attracting a partner.
Apart from the psychological damage they're doing to themselves, they seem to be blind to the millions of sub-optional looking men in the world who do have partners. Stating the obvious, looks aren't everything. It's the less attractive men who are angry that the best looking women aren't interested in them causing a never ending circle of misguided hate and grievance.
I think the business lexicon is used by these guys more than the broader population.
"Also the constant ratings they give themselves and others: "I'm a sub-5, but she's a 6 and her simp boyfriend is a sub-5 blah blah blah". It's incredibly off-putting."
It's what everyone does, all the time, to everyone they lay eyes on. They are just being honest and frank about it.
In case you were not aware, the average woman has already assessed a man's potential as a mate within about 5 seconds of laying eyes on him. Basically a look up and down. Shoes, build/ stance, grooming, confidence etc.
The problem with looking at relationships through a feminist lens (as everybody here seems to be doing) is that feminists (the ones who set the rules anyway) tend to be people who have massive relationship issues, unresolved trauma, a hatred / fear of men, an ideological objection to heterosexual relationships, a non heterosexual orientation and of course (the biggy) a world view which literally defines men as the enemy of women throughout all of history and today as well.
It is quite astounding that feminists have been able to essentially 'write the rulebook' on dating and relationships (certainly dominate the narrative) given their unsuitability for the job.
There is a ribald Willie Nelson song about the warped perceptions caused by drunkenness with the line "Last night I came in at two with a 10 but at ten I woke up with a 2." I think that is as far as the normal person gets - there are clear extremes of really beautiful and really ugly, but most people are vaguely in between. The idea that everyone is on a perfect rigid rung on a 1 to 10 scale is not "what everyone does all the time to everyone they lay their eyes on."
Of course that's what everyone does, but their dehumanizing attempts at 'objectivity' are laughable at best.
Hmm. I feel that maybe arguing that dating doesn't meet an economist's formal definition of a market is maybe missing the point, that dating has become a lot more selfish and cynical than it used to be. It used to be about commitment, chivalry, and (cringe though it is to say) an attempt to find love. Now it is cold, calculating, and its practitioners are always on tenterhooks to withdraw if a better offer comes along.
Couldn’t that be an outcome of approaching it with a businesslike mindset?
Dating these days is certainly more transactional. The framing has shifted from "do I love this person?" to "what can this person do for me?"
This would explain men like this.
https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/hook-ups-break-ups/rock-star-divorces-aussie-creates-new-ben-folds-five-of-exwives/news-story/e2eecf8c6bbef486bc3a7e943065a5ef
For much of history it's had a market aspect. It's simply that parents often made the purchasing decision for their children, and nobody was allowed to return the goods - arranged marriage and no divorce.
It's just relatively recently in human history, from 1900 or so in the West, where the couple had a choice, and they still lack the choice in much of the world today.
I think it's a reaction to being told a bunch of lies and platitudes about dating, marriage, and gender relations. A lot of people grow up being told nothing useful or meaningful about this subject as to do so makes most normies feel really icky. For example, people grow up genuinely not knowing that taller men do better with women, that women are often hypergamous, etc. And when you do find out these things, you have to talk about them anonymously in random corners of the Internet. You can't bring them up to anyone you know IRL without being shamed or causing a shitfight or whatever.
This breeds a lot of resentment where people sort of go to the other extreme in response.
What’s interesting to me is that they don’t just think of women as “consumers/products on the dating market”, they think of themselves that way too. Hence all the talk about becoming “high value”. They end up dehumanizing themselves as much as others.
That comports with my theory that a lot of it is just a performative rejection of feminism and modern feel-good tripe.
"I’m always struck by how they use the language of business and economics."
This is not new. It's how dating and marriage has always been regarded. It's only in the last 50+ years that we've put dating and marriage into a vacuum, detached from reality (and from its primary role of reproduction and parenting).
What's actually happened is that the concepts of voluntary transactions, free markets and offering value to others have all been demonised..... mostly by people who engage in INVOLUNTARY transactions, MONOPOLISED markets and TAKING value from thers.
"It’s all rubbish of course - dating isn’t a market"
The happiest and most fulfilling (and long lasting) relationships are those where each party is fully aware that they are not ENTITLED to sex, love or companionship, and must therefore bring something to the table each day to EARN it. This humility and devotion is what keeps relationships fresh and strong. Imagine waking up and feeling an obligation to provide VALUE to your significant other.
The modern dating/ relationship scene is characterised by a sense of ENTITLEMENT and NARCISSISM. This is why it's become such a giant dumpster fire.
Without the concept of high value and low value men and women, there is can be no concept of virtue, character or integrity - and all that's left is hedonism, cynicism and lust (basically moral relativism + service to self AKA satanism).
" The goal is to find someone who “adds value to you”, by projecting or selling yourself as high value."
No. The goal is to work hard to become a person of value (of worth), so that people of equal value (equal worth) will want to form a partnership with you and make love (and babies).
Again, this is not a new concept from Linkedin, it's how pair bonding has been for all of time, and not just in humans. The mating rituals of thousands of pair bonding animals revolves around showing your potential mate what VALUE you can bring to the relationship.
One of the interesting things about working in finance is seeing these concepts in their original environment every day. People in the business press are always talking about “bringing value” and “providing value”, just as you do. Bosses tell subordinates that the most important thing for them to do is “add value to the company”. The criteria for every business decision is “does this increase value”. Value here literally means “what the company is worth to its shareholders”. It has a specific, technical meaning. It’s not a biological concept at all. It’s not the natural way pair bonding has been “for all time”. It’s a business concept that’s been borrowed by people who see relationships as businesslike and transactional.
"Bosses tell subordinates that the most important thing for them to do is “add value to the company”.
Pretty sure that's correct. An employee who makes no sales and just spends all day playing online backgammon at his desk is just a drain on the company. I am not sure what you are trying to argue.
The equivalent scenario in a relationship would be one (or both) partners refusing to cook, clean, get a job, pay the bills, stay faithful or take care of the children. Obviously, when one (or both) partners stops contributing anything of value to the relationship - and the enterprise called 'a family' - it will fall apart very quickly.
"It’s not a biological concept at all."
We started off hunting and gathering, and then farming and then specialising more and more until we ended up with modern businesses. But they are just a more efficient way of hunting, thanks to specialisation which allows for technological innovation. It's ALL biology because it's all entirely a product of human labour, human cooperation, human imagination and human to human transactions.
"It’s a business concept that’s been borrowed by people who see relationships as businesslike and transactional."
You use these terms as if they are somehow deviant or odious in some way. A voluntary association between two people (a marriage) is a mutual commitment to the business of living together and starting a family. It even has a formal contract signed by both parties.
If a married couple love each other and they own a bakery they will do all they can to make sure the bakery is a success. That means working really hard and being very meticulous about running the business efficiently and intelligently. There is nothing sinister or cynical about this. Are you suggesting that running the bakery with good business acumen and a good work ethic makes their marriage deviant or unsavoury in some way?
I'm not sure why any of this makes you uneasy or disapproving. You seem to have a problem with the basic concept of voluntary transactions between humans.
I’m not criticizing business or voluntary transactions. Nor am I criticizing the application of business priorities in business contexts. I do so myself in my own career. However, I am critiquing the application of business concepts to intimate relationships specifically. Romantic relationships should be ends in themselves. Business has its place, but I’m against the reduction of all human relationships to businesslike transactions. I believe it’s a distorted, misguided and harmful view of the world.
The fatal flaw in this argument is the concept of “value.”
Whenever I hear “value” I understand why people pluralize “truth.”
Value is inherently subjective.
The guy with the Lambo and the trophy wife gets to tell himself that he's higher value than the guy with the Mercury Tracer and the plus sized wife.
And the guy with the Mercury Tracer gets to tell himself that he's higher value than the guy with the Lambo because his wife loves him as evidenced by the fact that she dotes on a guy with a shit box while the trophy wife is on to the guy with the Bugatti at her earliest opportunity.
Value is subjective and susceptible to manipulation and projection. We see what we want to see as mediated by what we find to be worthy of measure.
The fact that many can be seduced does not make truth amenable to democracy.
A woman attracted to a man for his money is one thing (say, Melania to Trump), but a woman attracted to a man who doesn't have money . . . isn't that more impressive in a way? And going both directions--aren't both the woman and the man more impressive in that situation?
I don't know if that is more impressive, Robert.
It sounds like you think it is.
And if you do, it says something about what you choose to value, about your own personal value system.
Nothing wrong with seeing the world that way.
Hopefully your worldview leads to happiness, and acceptance.
Lots of people adopt a worldview that leads to anxiety, perpetual yearning, and endless sorrow. Yours might be the better way.
Hopefully you'll be around long enough to tell us.
"Value is inherently subjective."
WHAT qualities people choose to value is subjective. But that doesn't mean objective value systems don't exist and can't be used to measure a person's value - based on a set of fixed, objective metrics.
For example 'gangsta' is a value system. We can measure someone's level of 'gangsta' based on how many guns they own, how much time they've spent behind bars, how many fast cars they own, what kind of music they listen too, how much jewellery they wear etc etc.
'Traditional housewife' is a value system and this can also be measured by objective criteria like how much of the family meals are home cooked, whether the children are home schooled or sent to state schools, whether she likes being a feminine woman or prefers to be a feminist, whether she appreciates traditional men or views them as oppressors etc etc.
What people desire (or despise) at any given moment determines the value of an object, a product, a service or a person/ lifestyle. Some people value gangsta lifestyles and some people value traditional lifestyles. This will determine how they value YOU as a person - and as a potential mate.
And if YOU value a gangsta lifestyle then you will obviously care more about how you are valued by other gangstas and care less about how traditionalists rate you as a person, or potential mate.
"The guy with the Lambo and the trophy wife gets to tell himself that he's higher value than the guy with the Mercury Tracer and the plus sized wife"
Yes but what we tell ourselves does not determine our value. Our true value is determined by what OTHERS say about us, and how they feel about the kind of person we are.
A trophy wife is (by definition) the kind of woman who values a man with a Lambo above other considerations. She wants material wealth which is on display for all to see, and she wants a man to provide it to her. So if you want to attract a trophy wife (if you want to be valued by one) that's what you need to do to attract her (get a Lambo and some cool shades).
"Value is subjective and susceptible to manipulation and projection. We see what we want to see as mediated by what we find to be worthy of measure."
Exactly. That's why sensible people learn to be more discerning in what - or who - they value, as well as how they value themselves. The most successful and happy people (in the long term) tend to be those who learn to asses their own value through other people's eyes... BUT only if those other people are of high value themselves.
If you endeavour to become someone who other people value highly (a decent career, a good reputation, a pleasure to be around, always providing value to other people's lives and generally making the world a better place) then you will generally do well in life and you will attract people of EQUAL value.
Low value people who are a nightmare to be around and are constantly making life more difficult and dangerous for those around them tend to attract people of EQUALLY LOW value. High value people obviously do not want to associate with such people.
You are not being logical.
Your assertion that "objective value systems exist" is incoherent, and thus incorrect.
Your solution to the idea that "value" is subjective is to offload the objectivity analysis to "other people."
Which other people?
Stupid people?
Smart people?
People who hold erroneous views unsupported by evidence?
You are making an appeal to democracy. And doing it poorly, and being subject to the same penalties.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
The belief of the majority is insufficient to cause whatever is being considered to be true. Holding the majority opinion is not enough to make the majority opinion correct (or incorrect).
Imagine walking through the world believing you are high value because other people say you are and only because they say you are. So if they change their minds, and nothing about you changes, you've lost your value?
If they change their minds about you again then you are high value?
Your position just goes around in circles. You can't escape this loop. Because your argument is incoherent.
Value is not objective. And value systems are not objective.
How many times has the Tesla Corp. undergone some dramatic fluctuation in "value." Not because of anything changing in the company, but because people's PERCEPTION of the company (or what the CEO's actions mean for the future of the company) changed.
Value is inherently subjective. It is a measure of what the observer has arbitrarily determined to be important. The fact that many people choose to act as though value is a proxy for something real does not change the situation.
This is why we can both measure the same distance and I come up with 9 inches, and you come up with 22.86 centimeters.
"The most successful and happy people (in the long term) tend to be those who learn to asses their own value through other people's eyes..."
I would love a citation for this claim.
> What's actually happened is that the concepts of voluntary transactions, free markets and offering value to others have all been demonised..... mostly by people who engage in INVOLUNTARY transactions, MONOPOLISED markets and TAKING value from thers.
None of that has anything to do with dating.
It's not just the underlying vocabulary of capitalism.
They're also using democratic principles to assess accuracy and validity.
This woman is pretty because polling. 🙄
If you don't find so and so attractive you are in the minority and therefore wrong!
It's like idiots thinking that using Occams Razor to cut themselves and everyone who listens to them is an effective use of that tool.
But it is an efficient way to arrest attention and farm money for "sponsors" and other marketers engaged in capitalistic enterprise.
Was bracing for impact on the headline, but yeah, think you're over the target here.
"The irony of the nü-misogynists is that they exhibit the worst traits of a female caricature — being loud, whiny, histrionic and obsessed with surface-level status symbols."
Yeah, exactly. The cringe is real. Frustrated young men deserve less effeminate role models.
WOULD
" 6’4” bodybuilders with enormous genitals and a tremendous love for reading Simone de Beauvoir and doing the dishes"
more seriously -- glad to see a man on the right saying this.
On a tangent....I think something that goes a long way towards explaining (No not excusing) the bitterness on both sides of the aisle (radical feminism on the one side and the 'manosphere' on the other) is the huge difference between the sexual fortunes of The More Desired and The Less Desired. This fundamental substratum gets very little attention in journalist discourses on the battle of the sexes.... which are usually framed in crude terms of 'Men' do this and 'Women' do that. I explored this neglected theme in this piece: https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/the-less-desired
Interesting piece! I should probably have said in this piece that I have a lot of sympathy for young men disillusioned by the modern sexual marketplace, even if I don't have sympathy with blaming women at large for it. Dating apps have made it even tougher for the romantically disadvantaged.
As an aside....the piece was originally down to appear in The Critic (in David Scullion's time) but after a mix up (too trivial to explain) it ended up in Quadrant instead.
I think content like this is an inevitable counter-reaction to all of the man-hating that has become ascendant in the past few years. You can see a similar effect with race, I think a lot of bile expressed towards black people online is specifically driven by the fact that blacks are worshiped with pseudo-religious reverence everywhere else in life. People resent being force-fed lies.
That doesn't mean the content is good or that I approve of it. I don't watch this garbage. But when you combine social media which optimizes for clickbait/shock value with the resentment I described above, this is a predictable result. Hopefully people work it out of their system and then move on. As long as shitlib feminism is ascendant in public life though, this type of stuff is still going to be really popular online.
There are those who wish people of different ethnicities within a country to be divided. This is well-understood by most. Less well-understood is that people seek to divide men and women, too - it's part of creating a eunuch society.
This is not a deliberate conspiracy, but as George Carlin said, you don't need a conspiracy where interests converge. Lonely people who hate everyone are easier for governments to control, easier for corporations to sell useless junk to, easier for ideologues to persuade to their insane ideologies, and so on.
Followed this stuff for a while. It's very black-pilling content, out of phase with reality, through their selections. Out of phase with hope and nobility, and as a result drag you more in the direction of cynicalists and depressives. Likening it to hell isn't wrong. It takes advantage of the negativity in the air and turns it into something worse. Like a goblin emerging from filth.
I far prefer to follow stuff that has an idealistic nature. The cabin builders, the survivalists, military historians. Hope, accomplishment, persistence in the face of adversity. People who invite others down a similar path.
Dubbing them as you do, I think is effective. This isn't a group that doesn't belong in the Right's coalition. We'd be wise to keep them at a distance.
To be right wing is (at least in part) to acknowledge that men and women are fundamentally different. What I think happens is that once you find out this forbidden knowledge, and how hard people (especially left-leaning women) will fight to hide this from the world, you hyper-focus on these differences as a bad thing. I was able to avoid this phase by simply accepting that women are different and for all the ways that this can be frustrating or bad, there are just as many ways in which it's wonderful and good
I'm just a left-wing guy in New York who can't weigh in on these internecine conflicts...but it's always seemed to me that all of this is just adolescent male entitlement.
We all grow up in an environment that (tacitly or not) promises "babes" who will flock to you if you're nice and honest (and "funny," which always gets in there) — but most of us then enter the real world where actual, real women who don't comport with those juvenile fantasies turn out to be much more interesting and exciting than you expect (meaning just, in terms of romantic/sexual prospects).
If you don't have that experience — and if you're TRAINED by online voices to think that flaws in your approach (or just fear!) are actually manifestations of terrible problems with all women, you're going to get trapped in a terrible reductive struggle and just get angrier and more bitter.
It’s not necessarily wrong that they shame those women for being superficial and only going after high-status men. But they should also shame those same men for being obsessed with status.
Yes. These men are angry at real-world women being less subservient than the ones featured in modern pornography. They want to be "high-status" because they think that being high-status means they can be sucked off by a train of ravishing concubines.
But it doesn't follow that "those same men" are "obsessed with status": some may be born with it, some may achieve it, and some may have it thrust upon them, so to speak.
That’s true, I shouldn’t have said ‘those same men’, I should have said ‘their male counterparts’. Not everyone who has status is obsessed with it.
But status obsession is worthy of shame, whether you’re male or female, successful or unsuccessful.
Women are attracted by status in much the same way that men are attracted by fertility. It's pretty much a sine qua non for a stable dyadic relationship. As social animals, we're always judging other on various parameters, and status is a biggie. I think we're all "status obsessed."
Women certainly judge men more by status (which means here, how other people think of them) more than men do women. There's a great old BT advert which ends with the line "If it's not good enough for Mrs Jones, it's not good enough for me."
https://youtu.be/AlQ1V1mJTco?si=_o6yYkV5x78J-w3n
Men, as I said, rate women for fecundity; women judge by how other men (and women) rate them. Being married > being divorced > being single (as the last two imply that other women found some fault). There's a tension in heterosexual relationships in that if a bloke is popular in say, his rugby club, he's more attractive than, for example, a lonely trainspotter, OTOH, our rugby player is also more likely to want to spend his evenings with his mates.
I think one of the reasons we have these Nu misogynists, is that men have less freedom simply to be in groups of men (inner city gangs excepted) to accrue status, while women are making ridiculous comparisons with a tiny group of celebrities. Consequently, fewer men have the visible social connectedness they need to signal "decent prospect" to women.
I think certain symbols of status are tacky—I rate Amol Rajan rather less than I did now I can't unsee the mugger-magnet watch he wears on "University Challenge," and no one needs a yacht, but I don't think anyone is altogether free from status signalling.
I think what's really weird in their philosophy is the total lack of self reflection. The implicit endorsement of Chad reveals so much.
'He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.'
"But if a feminist claimed to love 6’4” bodybuilders with enormous genitals and a tremendous love for reading Simone de Beauvoir and doing the dishes...."
Feminists only exist because of the state, which is a bunch of 6'4" bodybuildings in costumes with guns and a monopoly on the legal right to use them to transfer wealth from mostly male taxpayers to feminist women. Also feminism was only possible because of mechanical dishwashers (and other mod cons) manufactured by men. Also feminist ideology has always been funded by industrialist men (Rockerfellers etc). Feminism is literally a product of all the things you just listed.
"The nü-misogynists aren’t wrong about the sad state of modern relationships, of course — the dramatic levels of divorce, single parenthood, loneliness et cetera. Their problem is putting all of the responsibility for this onto women."
The men on the show are encouraging female agency and self actualisation, over female self objectification and dependency, which (in our hyper progressive culture) FEELS like placing the burden of responsibility onto women (and it literally is because with agency, comes responsibility). But you are implying this as a negative thing, which implies you think women should remain objectified and dependent on others.
You are essentially accusing them of treating the women as adults, which you call nü-misogyny. When teenagers are treated like adults the extra responsibility that comes with that status also feels like a kind of oppression or hateful act. It's much 'kinder' and 'nicer' to treat teenagers (or women) like children. But this does not allow for self actualisation. If you want these women to experience agency and self actualisation WITHOUT any burden of responsibility you have drifted into the realm of magical thinking and white knighting.
I agree the show (I'd never choose to watch it) is kind of cheesy, cringey and sensationalist (like most forms of entertainment), but the truth is the men are taking on the role that grandmothers (and mothers) used to occupy before society became fractured and woke.
Traditionally it was the 'female elders' (as well as folk tales) who would give young women incredibly stern advice and admonitions to not squander their youth and looks (their high sexual market value) on frivolous relationships (let alone prostitution) because female looks fade fast and it's easy to end up hitting the wall with no prospects and no hope of finding a decent husband to raise a family with. Cue 40+ years alone with bitter regret.
The advice of 'female elders' was always brutally frank, because the 'drug' of being a young hottie is so intoxicating. By contrast the men on Whatever are incredibly mild and forgiving. If they seem harsh (or misogynistic???) it's only because they are men and because you are not used to seeing anyone ever be straight and honest to young attractive women.
"But no one drags men to their computers by their ears and forces them, on the pain of death, to send money to naked women on the Internet. "
100 years of feminism has made it so perilous for men to engage with the opposite sex that many are driven to porn, or online simping, because they literally don't feel safe entering the dating game IRL. One night of drunken regretful sex can so easily lead to a rape accusation and their life is destroyed.
"Yet red-pilled content creators....."
What we call 'red pill' today used to be called 'common sense' or 'wisdom from granny' just a few short generations ago. These guys are not being edgy (the fact that they often present themselves that way just makes them cringey). The advice they give used to be said to young women on the bus, by old ladies in headscarves and sensible shoes.
"But for the most part this is a sad revenge fantasy — an attempt by lonely and embittered people to imagine that the women who reject them will get their comeuppance."
It's a 'revenge fanstasy' which BENEFITS young women who hear the story, understand the moral message, and make sure not to repeat the same story in their own lives. Again, look into the past and you will find most popular stories and fairy tales were about some idiot doing something idiotic and suffering the consequences. These tales were INSTRUCTION MANUALS on how to not fuck up in life.
These tales have have only become absent from society over the last 50 - 100 years and as a result we are suffering an epidemic of single motherhood, broken homes, childless women frantic to get pregnant from a pipette and women hitting the wall and spending a fortune on disguises to try and secure a husband before the window of fertility closes like a stone door in an Indiana Jones movie.
"What these fellows (and, occasionally, females) love to do is find some of the most debauched or manipulative examples of womanhood and imply if not assert that this is a reflection of the whole sex."
Yes. And such frank and self effacing talk is the only way to defeat the ego and the idiot in all of us, and stop us making catastrophic life choices. This is how it's been done for thousands of years. You expose all the glorious faults of men or women, all the patterns of behaviour, all the temptations while sitting around the camp fire. .... so that in real life these things won't be hidden and we can all be better placed to repeating the same mistakes as the people who fucked up before us.
There's no harm caused by highlighting all the games that women play to exploit their looks and manipulate men in the short term, for materialistic gain, ego boost and social status. But there is harm in NOT talking about these things and then letting another generation of young women fall into all those traps and fuck up their lives.
"But the nü-misogynists essentially invert it — we’re not the problem, you’re the problem."
By highlighting all the ways women make problems for themselves (ego, vanity, narcissism, hypergamy, sexual manipulation etc) they are giving women problems that they can solve. That is a fist. That is empowerment.
By contrast take a movement like feminism. Feminists tells women that all their problems are caused by men, which means all the problems are out of women's hands to solve, leaving women feeling utterly powerless and demoralised.
"The pathologies of the modern world afflict men and women, and to portray either sex as exceptionally problematic is to confuse the issue."
There are other shows out there that give men 'red pill' advice and berate men for falling prey to all of their male-specific flaws, foibles and weaknesses. In fact there are far more shows giving that kind of advice to men than to women.
'Whatever' is kind of unique. It only works because it is so mild and because they have a lot of female guests at the table which makes it feel less intimidating. People DO get offended by harsh criticism or hard truths ..... but shielding people from harsh criticism or hard truths will result in DESTROYED LIVES.
What you call nü-misogyny (previously known as 'advice from a grandmother') is by far the lesser of two evils.
In my experience, there's a lot of man-blaming going around for the past 60 years. I wouldn't be surprised if someone turned it around.
For sure! I say as much towards the end.