Richard, the issue you are missing is that feminist women don't care about men, and never have. That is why they are called feminists. Feminists in Congress funded women's health, but ignored men's health. Unaddressed male health issues include the fact that there are 4 times more male suicides than female suicides. Men instinctively grasped that they have been short-changed by feminists in the political realm, and will seek out the Party of Men.
Most young men reject feminism, and the party of feminism, because they know that feminists in government have no concern for men. And, it's apparent that you don't have concern for men, either.
This is not a new problem.; you describe similar stories in 1958 and 1975. Yet the failure rate of boys and young men is skyrocketing. Why? Today the discussion is so angry and adversarial. So much emphasis on toxic masculinity. Very little discussion about masculinity that they don't consider toxic.
I’ve heard kids going around calling other kids “Hitler” but have also heard one (in Scandinavia!) call another “a Stalin” as a pejorative and even a “Mao”.
There’s hope.
But the schools need to teach that horseshoe theory and the moral equivalence between nsdap, ccp and cpsu. Certainly the latter murdered more, if typically for political rather than racial reasons.
Your point around less government sounds more libertarian/indivhdual/freedom oriented, whilst most associate right wing with top down conservatism.
The linear “political spectrum” was as much a govt scam as the “food pyramid”
But basically we were all taught that right wing is bad and left wing a welfare state, “fairness” and equity. While in reality some animals are more equal than others and deterioration is inevitable. Even there vaunted Scandinavian welfare long depended on cheap Eastern European labor and imports (and currently imported labor as we don’t know how to build much without polish and Ukrainian muscle)
The "rightward movement of young men" consists of having realized that the Left is lying about some things and then, upon breaking that ground initially, being able to realize that the Left is lying about many more things.
They are not going off some deep end; they are still to the Left of the 20th Century center.
Looking at the charts above, this appears correct in the Western countries. In the US and Germany charts, young men are split more or less evenly, and in the UK, young men are majority liberal. The more dramatic trend in all three countries is how far to the left young women are.
(South Korea being the outlier exception; young men there do appear to be seriously right-wing.)
You are placing a lot of faith in the methodology of the charts. It is almost impossible that they might have created a quality, objective measure of where someone lies on a grand spectrum of reality.
The only thing they plausibly did well is measure deltas, which is why that's the focus of the discussion.
"The editorial board of the Washington Post was worried enough to devote a column to the dangers to the fertility rate of liberal women refusing to date conservative men."
--- What are they "worried" about exactly? Are liberal women "worried" about their fertility rate? If they are not worried what makes the Washington Post think they should or would consider dating convservative men? Is the WP hoping those women will convert to conservatism via dating conservaative men? There's enough liberal men out there for the liberal women who are "worried" about their fertility. If conservative men are so concerned then they should adapt and drop their conservative politics and see if dating opportunities increase.
Maybe worried about the 40% of US states have shared custody as a default. Otherwise, it goes to the mother. Can you imagine? ONLY 40 PERCENT of states anll the while promoting egalitarianism during the marriage.
In that case why would they want liberal women to date conservative men? How will that increased the shared custody rate? And tell the Manosphere/Red Pill that 40% US states have shared custody. They think it's 0%.
It's not a good idea. It's like religion. Sure, ideally, maybe people of different religions should date/marry. And sometimes they do. But in the cases where inter-religious marriages succeed, neither spouse is very deeply involved in their respective religions. But if a person is very deeply involved in their religion, they want someone from their own religion and indeed, it may even be forbidden by their religion to marry someone outside of it. Same with politics. If the spouses are quiet voters and don't talk about their political views very much, it can work. But if they are deeply into it - activists or very vocal or keyboard warriors for one political party or another, it probably wouldn't work and I don't see why someone for whom a political party is that important to them and becomes their identity, would even want to be with someone who is the same but in the opposite direction.
I have five adults sons, four married with children, four with post secondary degrees. They are uniquely different from one another, as are their marriages. Yet, they all agree that males are being attacked, espeicially for something they are not- for instance the #Metoo movement that tarred all men, or the toxic masculinity ideology. None of them want to return to pre-feminism, yet much of what exists today is not working. Neither males nor females are content ; both want something different, something more ...shall I say, respectful about personhood, not about attacking simply because one is either male/female. As you say, it does not bode well, as both the left and the right accentuate the frustrations of both. This is not creating a place for dialogue, and to ponder together on how best to create a future that honours the potential in each male and each female, every individual .Which is precisely what we need.
It’s coming back I think. The French women were right all along. Me2 was somehow needed but overshot by a long way: guilty by default was never ok and the world should be ashamed. Enflamed anger and collective guilt was shameful on a biblical level, and there are countless examples of people whose lives were ruined over an unsubstantiated accusation. We all know deep down that was wrong but for some reason view it as collateral damage
Similar to why media talks about women and children as victims of war but takes the untold adult male military victims as a disposable by product that don’t deserve nearly as much attention or concern
"I have five adults sons, four married with children, four with post secondary degrees. Yet, they all agree that males are being attacked... None of them want to return to pre-feminism, yet much of what exists today is not working. Neither males nor females are content ; both want something different, something more "
--- What exactly do your sons feel are not working in their lives? They are married fathers with post secondary degrees so it at least sounds like they are doing well. What's going wrong for them exactly?
And maybe some govt institutions dedicated to male health and suicide? The UN 🇺🇳 to stop pushing female only issues?
Men to get 50% of higher education like they got in 1980? Their sons to not be drafted sent to war and die 5 years earlier and a far shorter retirement?
My teen boys are also experiencing this dysfunction. Lots of confusion all around. I think Meryl Streep said it beautifully in a recent interview: “Women have learned the language of men, have lived in the house of men all their lives (...) Women speak men but men don't speak women”. I think women have had decades of experience learning how to survive and thrive in a world built by and for men. Men have not yet made the same investment in learning how to exist in a women's world. Many of them denigrate or dismiss it. But the success of films like Barbie and the entry of Swifties into the NFL arena gives me hope that things will improve.
The world was built for children, not men. Men fight, build, plan, cooperate and construct in order to build homes, wealth, income generating assets in idee to provide for their kids. That’s the foundation of most nations. But you think Barbie and swift will be the difference.
Women administer, manage, discharge, delegater. They don’t build buildings, bridges, companies. They’re quite good at rule making and following, re distribution, and making things equitable. But they don’t build new things. As I see it, if you pull out a 100 each year you need to put in 101 to actually grow something, there must be a surplus. If you put in 99 each year, you shrink - slowly but surely.
Ooof. A lot of your statements do not reflect the data in much of the world, and certainly not in the US.
A major difference between the US and the rest of the world is that sadly, our country has not been built for children. Our tax laws, gun laws, schools and child care policies all harm children. Also, women financially support their families in a majority of US households - either as single mothers or with a spouse/partner.
Women literally create life - the ultimate act of building something. We also build buildings, bridges, companies. Your conception of what women do and are capable of doing seems rooted in the traditional norms of the patriarchy.
Both men and women are capable of building, administering, managing, discharging, delegating. I think we should strive for a society where individuals can work and live in accordance with their strengths and talents, rather than within the limitations of gendered norms.
America has 1000s of bridges. Tell me one designed Or built by women. One.
The rest of what you wrote I broadly agree with. Here where I live society is clearly built to support children first, and young women second. 70% of all tax benefits go to females while 60% taxes are paid by men. Income is taxed heavily, wealth hardly at all (women own most wealth, get the vast majority of inheritance, and have an extra 30% cost after retirement because they live so long). Oh and they’re 65% of university students nowadays. They also retire earlier around 60 despite living to 85. Men work to 67-68 despite only living to 78-80, ie much shorter time in the “golden years”.
Yet it is women that do virtually all the complaining about how unfair (even here!) because of the disproven gender pay gap. Single women make more than single men. When you factor in hours work it’s basically gone.
But again, everything else you said was true. As a mother to sons, I hope you recognize the threat to your boys lives - from militaries, governments, AI, and even many women.
Btw my understanding is that you in American don’t even cut your own grass nowadays. It’s largely done by immigrants from south of the border? Construction as well. So perhaps the binary isn’t really male female but rather intersectional and how your society basically subsists on largely (male) foreign labor so the rest of you can be entertained and shop.
Unfortunately it’s no better here - nothing would get built or fixed without Eastern European men.
"Men have not yet made the same investment in learning how to exist in a women's world. "
I can't figure out why they are so unadaptable. If they are crying because they can't laid due to political affiliation, then change that affiliation. Duh! The "worry" over low fertility rates doesn't seem to be coming from women. It's men that seem to be worried about it but then they don't want to change even in an attempt at reversing the fertility trend. It seems silly to complain that Democratic women won't date Republican men but then continue to remain Republican men.
Maybe because men see the politics of women leading the downfall and slow but steady disintegration of the institutions and wealth their grandfathers fought for and built?
Do you think the western world is on a sustainable path?
"Maybe because men see the politics of women leading the downfall and slow but steady disintegration of the institutions and wealth their grandfathers fought for and built?"
So then why would these "conservative" men want to date them?
If conservative women are boring just imagine the men! But anyway, I'm not convinced conservative men in the USA are all that upset liberal women won't date them. I think this is a made-up problem for clicks and views. If they really wanted a "challenge" and "change for the better" then they would have already adapted to those women to get those dates, see my comment above. Your reply here makes no sense. And you have 3 kids that need your attention more than Substack does.
Unfettered capitalism is not sustainable. I still believe capitalism is the best way to encourage creativity, innovation, freedom and economic growth. But we need better regulation to curb income inequality, excessive concentrations of wealth and power, and provide better safeguards to protect consumers and the environment. Even a hard core free-market libertarian economist like Milton Friedman would say that a strong democratic government and regulatory framework are a critical part of a successful capitalist economy.
As far as health outcomes, men just don't keep up with their physical or mental health. They let things go once they no longer have mommy to schedule appointments for them and drive them there. Once they leave mommy's house they don't make those appointments, get their check-ups, etc. And they are resistant to getting mental health help. They are more likely to believe in Youtube and online forums "bro-science" than actual medical science. They are even resistant to getting tested before having sex and loathe using condoms. I guess "risk taking" includes putting oneself at risk for disease too. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.
I'm responding to the link you posted on Feb 17 abpve . I'm talking about currently in the USA. Without a mom or a wife to make appointments for them and encourage (what they call "nag") them to go, American men don't keep up with health check-ups. The disparities in "health outcomes" are on them.
Here in USA we have advertisements on TV telling people to ask their doctors about this or that issue and this or that drug to manage that issue. At least half if not more of the actors in the commercials are men. So no. They are not "made" to believe their health isn't worth the cost.
I haven’t read all the comments here, but has anyone made the connection to transgender ideology? These ideas are further eroding relations between the sexes. We have men with narrow and stereotypical views on what it means to be a woman actually claiming to be a woman and then demanding access to women’s spaces. Words like “mother” and “breastfeeding” and any references to female anatomy are being erased.
Additionally, women’s empowerment is now defined as how successful you are at attracting the male gaze. Dressing provocatively and twerking on stage, having an OnlyFans account, being able to have sex without catching feelings, having sex Just. Like. A. Man. Why have women bought into the idea that self-objectification brings equality?
I wonder whether interest is trans is a consequence of our narrow/polarized concepts of what it means to be a man or women. If people felt more comfortable being who they are on a gender spectrum, and loving who they love, and living in accordance with their values, talents and preferences, perhaps they would not aspire to transition to another gender?
I think this may be part of it MDB. This polarization has increased since onslaught of social media. I don't remember it being so narrow when I was growing up.
See your points, but this issue also shines light on the absurd extent feminism has long surpassed its original, laudable goals that most of us supported. It’s why we often ask where is the goal, where is the finish line? Equal rights? No, that’s not enough. Equity aka redistribution and seemingly total control? 100% of consumption spend? It’s 80% today. It certainly doesn’t look like equality of opportunity was ever the goal. Should there be no boys in colleges? Should all new board nominations on corporate boards be for women?
The scariest part is that my generation and my sons must somehow pay for the purported sins of their great grandfathers!
To your point 30% of college students are supposedly LGBT today, thanks to the education system, and one wonders how that’s even possible as a species.
--- Colleges are not keeping boys out, or kicking them out. They just don't want to go. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.
"To your point 30% of college students are supposedly LGBT today, thanks to the education system, and one wonders how that’s even possible as a species."
--- Because it's LGBTQ+. If you research what the "plus" stands for then it makes more sense.
As for shopping, I’m not sure that’s true. Are you shooting from the hip? I suspect men used to pick the microwave, the fridge, the dryer, automobile, the fixed like phone, the stereo, the mower, the big ticket items. Seems like you managed to turn shopping into groceries - and even then I’m not sure you’re right.
Women also the ones that essentially pick their children’s genders nowadays.
It’s more than this though. Females control the universities where such sex-denying work is produced. Females are disproportionately concentrated in the academic fields—anthropology, biology, sociology—that have most radically changed their ideas on sex and gender (in contrast, history, a more male-dominated field, has stayed largely above the fray). Females increasingly control the levers of cultural power; if a topic feels “ideologically central,” then it is because females made it so. At the very least, they constitute the majority of reporters who cover health, social issues, and family policy. In short they control almost everything today outside of national defense and increasingly that too.
You can have said the same thing about females in university 5-6 decades ago - but they didn’t. They installed actions and plans to even the outcome. Why are they not doing that today when the gap is just as bad?
You’re being inconsistent.
I’ll look up +. But if + just means primate then sure I guess it’s devoid of meaning and will soon it 100%.
Not exactly. You'd have to look it all up. But 30% LGBTQ+ only makes sense when all these other categories are included. It's not that 30% are gay or trans.
Well, if men were in charge of EVERYTHING and failed to share power with women, and women suffered as a consequence (rape, sexual assault, lower compensation, poverty, absentee fathers for this children, etc. etc. etc.), it seems perfectly reasonable to hold men responsible for the poor outcomes of their decisions.
Those men have doubled down and removed women's agency over their bodies and reproductive choices, without a commensurate effort to require men to step up and care for the children they helped create.
It sounds to me like you want men to have power but not responsibility or accountability. This is the logic of children, not adults. Man up.
If you have a factual or logical argument to make, please do so. Attacking me personally is just silly and pointless.
My point was based on facts. Men have in fact been in charge of most/all institutions of power in the United States. Women have in fact suffered harms as a result. Loads of statistics back up my statement. Google the statistics about violence against women, women (and children) in poverty. This imbalance of power has been bad for men as well, especially for men raised in poverty by single moms with father in sight.
“Ad hominem” means personal attack. Often employed in place of a logical or factual argument. Still waiting to hear if you have an actual point to make about the subject at hand. Hint: I am not the subject of this conversation.
"Those men have doubled down and removed women's agency over their bodies and reproductive choices, without a commensurate effort to require men to step up and care for the children they helped create."
--- I just found out (here on this substack) that condoms will now be covere by the Affordable Care Act. So I guess that's the Federal Government's way of throwing women a bone - literally. Republicans are talking about banning womens' birth control methods but male condoms are still ok, I guess. Just like Viagra.
Men aren’t in charge of everything, and never have been.
It’s a reply to your outlandish claim in your first sentence.
I understand you caveated it with IF, but that doesn’t really matter here, does it.
Women have agency and for you to suggest otherwise is misogynistic. By contrast, men hardly now or ever have operated as a collective in such a way giving ‘them’ a monopoly over power.
Humans have optimized power within smaller groups, benefitting their sons and daughters and extended network.
Completely agree that fathers have a massive responsibility for their children, with but not limited to emphasis on protection, provision, guidance and love.
Women don’t have agency over our own bodies, thanks to Dobbs decision. Women have agency in other spheres, but most sectors of society have been designed and build by and for men.
Men are literally in charge of every power structure in this country and in much of the world. Every US President, most members of Congress (and Congressional leadership), majority of SCOTUS (99 of 115 justices since formation of court), Chairs, CEOs, and executive teams of almost every major corporation and bank, founders and creators of all the technology that governs so much of our lives and our media and our very thinking….all men. Women have more influence in society than we did in the past, but we would all be better off if the world looked more like all of us, not just half of us.
"Women don’t have agency over our own bodies, thanks to Dobbs decision. "
--- Hey MDB! Aren't you at least grateful the Federal Government has made male condoms coverable via the Affordable Care Act!? I guess that's the Federal Government's way of throwing women a bone - literally. Republicans are talking about banning womens' birth control methods but male condoms are still ok, I guess. Just like Viagra.
Maybe and just maybe feminism was never an equality movement. Maybe it was an empowerment movement. That’s not inherently evil. However when you give it the weight of a moral imperative, it is shockingly used and abused to harm the people the movement defines as the enemy. It also does so with a “right” and “just” cause. So it is not shocking that traditionalism is responding back with the same arguments. Both are movements about power and control and who gets to hold it. They then use that power to enforce an artificial morality and ethic to justify abuse and reinforcement of that power structure.
It doesn’t exist. That’s the point of using works like Justice and equality. They are good sounding but ultimately meaningless ideas. They are mutable and ever changing. Any movement will continuously refine them to justify the actions being taken. Doesn’t matter if it is feminism or traditionalism. The end goal is simply the creation and maintaining of a system of power that empowers those who are deemed “good” or “right” by that system.
Richard, the issue you are missing is that feminist women don't care about men, and never have. That is why they are called feminists. Feminists in Congress funded women's health, but ignored men's health. Unaddressed male health issues include the fact that there are 4 times more male suicides than female suicides. Men instinctively grasped that they have been short-changed by feminists in the political realm, and will seek out the Party of Men.
I wonder how many of those alienated men are going to embrace Christianity. I'm seeing sprouts of that movement happening.
Have you listened to Plain English with Derek Thompson (podcast)? He's been on top of this in this election cycle since the data started coming out.
" Is the problem we're trying to understand why the gap in ideologies is widening between men and women? "
Most young women will not support state policies that go against their interests and wellbeing.
Most young men reject feminism, and the party of feminism, because they know that feminists in government have no concern for men. And, it's apparent that you don't have concern for men, either.
This is not a new problem.; you describe similar stories in 1958 and 1975. Yet the failure rate of boys and young men is skyrocketing. Why? Today the discussion is so angry and adversarial. So much emphasis on toxic masculinity. Very little discussion about masculinity that they don't consider toxic.
The toxic masculinists are very popular with boys on social media.
Toxic feminists like you are abundant, and post on forums that are concerned for men.
I guessed you'd be clueless on this.
Candace Owens is most definitely not a feminist.
Megan Kelly is definitely not a feminist.
Ann Coulter is definitely not a feminist.
Lauren Southern is definitely not a feminist.
I've no idea who the rest are, but I'm pretty convinced they are as much feminist as Hitler was a Rabbi.
I'll ask, everyone assuming that males choosing to vote right wing is a bad thing while not stating females voting more left wing is also a bad thing.
Why is right wing politics wrong and left wing politics right?
I saw a guy giving a talk and answering questions.
A lefty called him a Nazi.
He responded with, "Can you name any right-wing political party that have the word 'socialist' in their name"
Then he talked about right wing government means less government not more, the Nazis had an enormous governmen reaching into people's lives.
So I ask, what exactly is wrong with voting right wing, compared to voting left wing?
I’ve heard kids going around calling other kids “Hitler” but have also heard one (in Scandinavia!) call another “a Stalin” as a pejorative and even a “Mao”.
There’s hope.
But the schools need to teach that horseshoe theory and the moral equivalence between nsdap, ccp and cpsu. Certainly the latter murdered more, if typically for political rather than racial reasons.
Your point around less government sounds more libertarian/indivhdual/freedom oriented, whilst most associate right wing with top down conservatism.
The linear “political spectrum” was as much a govt scam as the “food pyramid”
But basically we were all taught that right wing is bad and left wing a welfare state, “fairness” and equity. While in reality some animals are more equal than others and deterioration is inevitable. Even there vaunted Scandinavian welfare long depended on cheap Eastern European labor and imports (and currently imported labor as we don’t know how to build much without polish and Ukrainian muscle)
Does anyone here have links to studies showing that “men’s violence against women has escalated”.
I read this every day, especially on LinkedIn, but without a shred of hard evidence. Like here https://www.linkedin.com/posts/sarah-nelson-41b775200_these-last-few-weeks-have-been-alarming-activity-7188827623261667329-LsAC?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_ios
Typically there’s an anecdotal reference to a specific event - which is not the same thing as a factual trend (even if it is heart wrenching).
I see this now in reference to this murderous vengeful hate crime in Australia.
My understanding was that men’s violence toward women was FALLING not increasing and I’ve not seen evidence otherwise.
The narrative has always been that if women have more power then the violence will diminish (see https://plan4womenssafety.dss.gov.au/resources/what-is-violence-against-women/) . Is that not thus happening?
I also wonder why the goal is only to end violence against women? https://www.unwomen.org/en/what-we-do/ending-violence-against-women/facts-and-figures
The "rightward movement of young men" consists of having realized that the Left is lying about some things and then, upon breaking that ground initially, being able to realize that the Left is lying about many more things.
They are not going off some deep end; they are still to the Left of the 20th Century center.
Power is redistributed via leftist policies and tactics.
Looking at the charts above, this appears correct in the Western countries. In the US and Germany charts, young men are split more or less evenly, and in the UK, young men are majority liberal. The more dramatic trend in all three countries is how far to the left young women are.
(South Korea being the outlier exception; young men there do appear to be seriously right-wing.)
You are placing a lot of faith in the methodology of the charts. It is almost impossible that they might have created a quality, objective measure of where someone lies on a grand spectrum of reality.
The only thing they plausibly did well is measure deltas, which is why that's the focus of the discussion.
Older men must pay more attention to young men.
Spot on
"The editorial board of the Washington Post was worried enough to devote a column to the dangers to the fertility rate of liberal women refusing to date conservative men."
--- What are they "worried" about exactly? Are liberal women "worried" about their fertility rate? If they are not worried what makes the Washington Post think they should or would consider dating convservative men? Is the WP hoping those women will convert to conservatism via dating conservaative men? There's enough liberal men out there for the liberal women who are "worried" about their fertility. If conservative men are so concerned then they should adapt and drop their conservative politics and see if dating opportunities increase.
Maybe worried about the 40% of US states have shared custody as a default. Otherwise, it goes to the mother. Can you imagine? ONLY 40 PERCENT of states anll the while promoting egalitarianism during the marriage.
Makes no sense to a Scandinavian
In that case why would they want liberal women to date conservative men? How will that increased the shared custody rate? And tell the Manosphere/Red Pill that 40% US states have shared custody. They think it's 0%.
Very good questions
Opposites attract?
Avoid civil war?
Love triumphs?
It's not a good idea. It's like religion. Sure, ideally, maybe people of different religions should date/marry. And sometimes they do. But in the cases where inter-religious marriages succeed, neither spouse is very deeply involved in their respective religions. But if a person is very deeply involved in their religion, they want someone from their own religion and indeed, it may even be forbidden by their religion to marry someone outside of it. Same with politics. If the spouses are quiet voters and don't talk about their political views very much, it can work. But if they are deeply into it - activists or very vocal or keyboard warriors for one political party or another, it probably wouldn't work and I don't see why someone for whom a political party is that important to them and becomes their identity, would even want to be with someone who is the same but in the opposite direction.
I see your point
But anecdotally I’ve seen some of the best most passionate couples have been with her on the bleeding heart left and him on dispassionate right🙂
Key word there being "DISpassionate". If he's "passionate" about "the right"... the 'ship won't last.
I have five adults sons, four married with children, four with post secondary degrees. They are uniquely different from one another, as are their marriages. Yet, they all agree that males are being attacked, espeicially for something they are not- for instance the #Metoo movement that tarred all men, or the toxic masculinity ideology. None of them want to return to pre-feminism, yet much of what exists today is not working. Neither males nor females are content ; both want something different, something more ...shall I say, respectful about personhood, not about attacking simply because one is either male/female. As you say, it does not bode well, as both the left and the right accentuate the frustrations of both. This is not creating a place for dialogue, and to ponder together on how best to create a future that honours the potential in each male and each female, every individual .Which is precisely what we need.
It’s coming back I think. The French women were right all along. Me2 was somehow needed but overshot by a long way: guilty by default was never ok and the world should be ashamed. Enflamed anger and collective guilt was shameful on a biblical level, and there are countless examples of people whose lives were ruined over an unsubstantiated accusation. We all know deep down that was wrong but for some reason view it as collateral damage
Similar to why media talks about women and children as victims of war but takes the untold adult male military victims as a disposable by product that don’t deserve nearly as much attention or concern
"I have five adults sons, four married with children, four with post secondary degrees. Yet, they all agree that males are being attacked... None of them want to return to pre-feminism, yet much of what exists today is not working. Neither males nor females are content ; both want something different, something more "
--- What exactly do your sons feel are not working in their lives? They are married fathers with post secondary degrees so it at least sounds like they are doing well. What's going wrong for them exactly?
Good question
Probably “innocent until proven guilty”?
And maybe some govt institutions dedicated to male health and suicide? The UN 🇺🇳 to stop pushing female only issues?
Men to get 50% of higher education like they got in 1980? Their sons to not be drafted sent to war and die 5 years earlier and a far shorter retirement?
Good question.
My teen boys are also experiencing this dysfunction. Lots of confusion all around. I think Meryl Streep said it beautifully in a recent interview: “Women have learned the language of men, have lived in the house of men all their lives (...) Women speak men but men don't speak women”. I think women have had decades of experience learning how to survive and thrive in a world built by and for men. Men have not yet made the same investment in learning how to exist in a women's world. Many of them denigrate or dismiss it. But the success of films like Barbie and the entry of Swifties into the NFL arena gives me hope that things will improve.
The world was built for children, not men. Men fight, build, plan, cooperate and construct in order to build homes, wealth, income generating assets in idee to provide for their kids. That’s the foundation of most nations. But you think Barbie and swift will be the difference.
Women administer, manage, discharge, delegater. They don’t build buildings, bridges, companies. They’re quite good at rule making and following, re distribution, and making things equitable. But they don’t build new things. As I see it, if you pull out a 100 each year you need to put in 101 to actually grow something, there must be a surplus. If you put in 99 each year, you shrink - slowly but surely.
Ooof. A lot of your statements do not reflect the data in much of the world, and certainly not in the US.
A major difference between the US and the rest of the world is that sadly, our country has not been built for children. Our tax laws, gun laws, schools and child care policies all harm children. Also, women financially support their families in a majority of US households - either as single mothers or with a spouse/partner.
Women literally create life - the ultimate act of building something. We also build buildings, bridges, companies. Your conception of what women do and are capable of doing seems rooted in the traditional norms of the patriarchy.
Both men and women are capable of building, administering, managing, discharging, delegating. I think we should strive for a society where individuals can work and live in accordance with their strengths and talents, rather than within the limitations of gendered norms.
Completely agree with your last paragraph.
America has 1000s of bridges. Tell me one designed Or built by women. One.
The rest of what you wrote I broadly agree with. Here where I live society is clearly built to support children first, and young women second. 70% of all tax benefits go to females while 60% taxes are paid by men. Income is taxed heavily, wealth hardly at all (women own most wealth, get the vast majority of inheritance, and have an extra 30% cost after retirement because they live so long). Oh and they’re 65% of university students nowadays. They also retire earlier around 60 despite living to 85. Men work to 67-68 despite only living to 78-80, ie much shorter time in the “golden years”.
Yet it is women that do virtually all the complaining about how unfair (even here!) because of the disproven gender pay gap. Single women make more than single men. When you factor in hours work it’s basically gone.
But again, everything else you said was true. As a mother to sons, I hope you recognize the threat to your boys lives - from militaries, governments, AI, and even many women.
Btw my understanding is that you in American don’t even cut your own grass nowadays. It’s largely done by immigrants from south of the border? Construction as well. So perhaps the binary isn’t really male female but rather intersectional and how your society basically subsists on largely (male) foreign labor so the rest of you can be entertained and shop.
Unfortunately it’s no better here - nothing would get built or fixed without Eastern European men.
"Men have not yet made the same investment in learning how to exist in a women's world. "
I can't figure out why they are so unadaptable. If they are crying because they can't laid due to political affiliation, then change that affiliation. Duh! The "worry" over low fertility rates doesn't seem to be coming from women. It's men that seem to be worried about it but then they don't want to change even in an attempt at reversing the fertility trend. It seems silly to complain that Democratic women won't date Republican men but then continue to remain Republican men.
Maybe because men see the politics of women leading the downfall and slow but steady disintegration of the institutions and wealth their grandfathers fought for and built?
Do you think the western world is on a sustainable path?
"Maybe because men see the politics of women leading the downfall and slow but steady disintegration of the institutions and wealth their grandfathers fought for and built?"
So then why would these "conservative" men want to date them?
Maybe conservative women are boring
And men ultimately want to be challenged and to change for the better
If conservative women are boring just imagine the men! But anyway, I'm not convinced conservative men in the USA are all that upset liberal women won't date them. I think this is a made-up problem for clicks and views. If they really wanted a "challenge" and "change for the better" then they would have already adapted to those women to get those dates, see my comment above. Your reply here makes no sense. And you have 3 kids that need your attention more than Substack does.
"Do you think the western world is on a sustainable path?"
No. Capitalism is not sustainable.
Unfettered capitalism is not sustainable. I still believe capitalism is the best way to encourage creativity, innovation, freedom and economic growth. But we need better regulation to curb income inequality, excessive concentrations of wealth and power, and provide better safeguards to protect consumers and the environment. Even a hard core free-market libertarian economist like Milton Friedman would say that a strong democratic government and regulatory framework are a critical part of a successful capitalist economy.
What’s the alternative?
Davos/Soros/degrowth/globalEU ?
Davos, Soros and globalEU are capitalist. Degrowth? Don't know. I'll have to look into it.
When is it smashed 🔨?
https://www.instagram.com/reel/C3ctx2-to0I/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==
When does it stop?
As far as health outcomes, men just don't keep up with their physical or mental health. They let things go once they no longer have mommy to schedule appointments for them and drive them there. Once they leave mommy's house they don't make those appointments, get their check-ups, etc. And they are resistant to getting mental health help. They are more likely to believe in Youtube and online forums "bro-science" than actual medical science. They are even resistant to getting tested before having sex and loathe using condoms. I guess "risk taking" includes putting oneself at risk for disease too. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.
(Please stop with the cheesy horse metaphors in every message. It’s unbecoming)
That is not my experience at all. Where are you from? In Scandinavia it’s hiking, x-country skiing, walking, and in general balance.
Feels like you’re describing the 1980s in Iowa.
I'm responding to the link you posted on Feb 17 abpve . I'm talking about currently in the USA. Without a mom or a wife to make appointments for them and encourage (what they call "nag") them to go, American men don't keep up with health check-ups. The disparities in "health outcomes" are on them.
Ok I found some evidence for your claim!
https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/39687119/some-fans-frigid-chiefs-dolphins-playoff-game-required-amputations-per-hospital
🥜
And why is that? Have they been made to believe their health - their lives indeed - aren’t worth the cost?
That self-sacrifice is their primary task in life?
Or - as you seem to suggest- it’s rather a combo incompetence/laziness let momma take care of it. Would appear irrational and non Darwinian
Here in USA we have advertisements on TV telling people to ask their doctors about this or that issue and this or that drug to manage that issue. At least half if not more of the actors in the commercials are men. So no. They are not "made" to believe their health isn't worth the cost.
I haven’t read all the comments here, but has anyone made the connection to transgender ideology? These ideas are further eroding relations between the sexes. We have men with narrow and stereotypical views on what it means to be a woman actually claiming to be a woman and then demanding access to women’s spaces. Words like “mother” and “breastfeeding” and any references to female anatomy are being erased.
Additionally, women’s empowerment is now defined as how successful you are at attracting the male gaze. Dressing provocatively and twerking on stage, having an OnlyFans account, being able to have sex without catching feelings, having sex Just. Like. A. Man. Why have women bought into the idea that self-objectification brings equality?
I wonder whether interest is trans is a consequence of our narrow/polarized concepts of what it means to be a man or women. If people felt more comfortable being who they are on a gender spectrum, and loving who they love, and living in accordance with their values, talents and preferences, perhaps they would not aspire to transition to another gender?
I think this may be part of it MDB. This polarization has increased since onslaught of social media. I don't remember it being so narrow when I was growing up.
See your points, but this issue also shines light on the absurd extent feminism has long surpassed its original, laudable goals that most of us supported. It’s why we often ask where is the goal, where is the finish line? Equal rights? No, that’s not enough. Equity aka redistribution and seemingly total control? 100% of consumption spend? It’s 80% today. It certainly doesn’t look like equality of opportunity was ever the goal. Should there be no boys in colleges? Should all new board nominations on corporate boards be for women?
The scariest part is that my generation and my sons must somehow pay for the purported sins of their great grandfathers!
To your point 30% of college students are supposedly LGBT today, thanks to the education system, and one wonders how that’s even possible as a species.
"100% of consumption spend? It’s 80% today."
--- Women have always done the shopping.
"Should there be no boys in colleges? "
--- Colleges are not keeping boys out, or kicking them out. They just don't want to go. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.
"To your point 30% of college students are supposedly LGBT today, thanks to the education system, and one wonders how that’s even possible as a species."
--- Because it's LGBTQ+. If you research what the "plus" stands for then it makes more sense.
As for shopping, I’m not sure that’s true. Are you shooting from the hip? I suspect men used to pick the microwave, the fridge, the dryer, automobile, the fixed like phone, the stereo, the mower, the big ticket items. Seems like you managed to turn shopping into groceries - and even then I’m not sure you’re right.
Women also the ones that essentially pick their children’s genders nowadays.
It’s more than this though. Females control the universities where such sex-denying work is produced. Females are disproportionately concentrated in the academic fields—anthropology, biology, sociology—that have most radically changed their ideas on sex and gender (in contrast, history, a more male-dominated field, has stayed largely above the fray). Females increasingly control the levers of cultural power; if a topic feels “ideologically central,” then it is because females made it so. At the very least, they constitute the majority of reporters who cover health, social issues, and family policy. In short they control almost everything today outside of national defense and increasingly that too.
You can have said the same thing about females in university 5-6 decades ago - but they didn’t. They installed actions and plans to even the outcome. Why are they not doing that today when the gap is just as bad?
You’re being inconsistent.
I’ll look up +. But if + just means primate then sure I guess it’s devoid of meaning and will soon it 100%.
Primate? The "plus" includes "ace" (asexual) and demisexual.
Ok so anyone that ISN’T hetero monogamous?
Why not just say “non-hetero-monoamorous” or something.
Not exactly. You'd have to look it all up. But 30% LGBTQ+ only makes sense when all these other categories are included. It's not that 30% are gay or trans.
Well, if men were in charge of EVERYTHING and failed to share power with women, and women suffered as a consequence (rape, sexual assault, lower compensation, poverty, absentee fathers for this children, etc. etc. etc.), it seems perfectly reasonable to hold men responsible for the poor outcomes of their decisions.
Those men have doubled down and removed women's agency over their bodies and reproductive choices, without a commensurate effort to require men to step up and care for the children they helped create.
It sounds to me like you want men to have power but not responsibility or accountability. This is the logic of children, not adults. Man up.
Leftists project. They always, only, ever project.
And you are a doozy.
If you have a factual or logical argument to make, please do so. Attacking me personally is just silly and pointless.
My point was based on facts. Men have in fact been in charge of most/all institutions of power in the United States. Women have in fact suffered harms as a result. Loads of statistics back up my statement. Google the statistics about violence against women, women (and children) in poverty. This imbalance of power has been bad for men as well, especially for men raised in poverty by single moms with father in sight.
I think you may genuinely be so self-important that you don't think that any of this reply isn't a giant goalpost move from what you first wrote.
“Ad hominem” means personal attack. Often employed in place of a logical or factual argument. Still waiting to hear if you have an actual point to make about the subject at hand. Hint: I am not the subject of this conversation.
"Those men have doubled down and removed women's agency over their bodies and reproductive choices, without a commensurate effort to require men to step up and care for the children they helped create."
--- I just found out (here on this substack) that condoms will now be covere by the Affordable Care Act. So I guess that's the Federal Government's way of throwing women a bone - literally. Republicans are talking about banning womens' birth control methods but male condoms are still ok, I guess. Just like Viagra.
But they aren’t and never have been.
Does that make the rest of your point invalid?
I don’t understand your first sentence - would you please complete the thought? “Arent’ and never have been_____________”?
Men aren’t in charge of everything, and never have been.
It’s a reply to your outlandish claim in your first sentence.
I understand you caveated it with IF, but that doesn’t really matter here, does it.
Women have agency and for you to suggest otherwise is misogynistic. By contrast, men hardly now or ever have operated as a collective in such a way giving ‘them’ a monopoly over power.
Humans have optimized power within smaller groups, benefitting their sons and daughters and extended network.
Completely agree that fathers have a massive responsibility for their children, with but not limited to emphasis on protection, provision, guidance and love.
Women don’t have agency over our own bodies, thanks to Dobbs decision. Women have agency in other spheres, but most sectors of society have been designed and build by and for men.
Men are literally in charge of every power structure in this country and in much of the world. Every US President, most members of Congress (and Congressional leadership), majority of SCOTUS (99 of 115 justices since formation of court), Chairs, CEOs, and executive teams of almost every major corporation and bank, founders and creators of all the technology that governs so much of our lives and our media and our very thinking….all men. Women have more influence in society than we did in the past, but we would all be better off if the world looked more like all of us, not just half of us.
"Women don’t have agency over our own bodies, thanks to Dobbs decision. "
--- Hey MDB! Aren't you at least grateful the Federal Government has made male condoms coverable via the Affordable Care Act!? I guess that's the Federal Government's way of throwing women a bone - literally. Republicans are talking about banning womens' birth control methods but male condoms are still ok, I guess. Just like Viagra.
Are you also for parity in suicide rates, deaths on the job, bricklaying, and life expectancy?
Yes! Ideally in the form of lower suicide rates, lower deaths, and longer life expectancy for everyone!
Agree.
Maybe and just maybe feminism was never an equality movement. Maybe it was an empowerment movement. That’s not inherently evil. However when you give it the weight of a moral imperative, it is shockingly used and abused to harm the people the movement defines as the enemy. It also does so with a “right” and “just” cause. So it is not shocking that traditionalism is responding back with the same arguments. Both are movements about power and control and who gets to hold it. They then use that power to enforce an artificial morality and ethic to justify abuse and reinforcement of that power structure.
Empowering someone shouldn't fill someone with hatred for the other 50% of the human population.
"Feminism" was always a female supremacy movement.
Where’s the finish line? When is “mission accomplished”?
It doesn’t exist. That’s the point of using works like Justice and equality. They are good sounding but ultimately meaningless ideas. They are mutable and ever changing. Any movement will continuously refine them to justify the actions being taken. Doesn’t matter if it is feminism or traditionalism. The end goal is simply the creation and maintaining of a system of power that empowers those who are deemed “good” or “right” by that system.
Are you saying it's simply about a never-ending power play? What's the end game then?
I've seen feminists saying keep men to 5% of the population for breeding stock and for those nasty jobs women refuse to do.
You just need to look at before and after pictures of feminists to know it's a hate ideology.
Many have signed up to “scum manifesto”, sadly
We all support first and second wave, but again… when there’s no specific goal (it’s about equal “power” 🤔), what are people fighting for exactly
Nah the feminist ideology was always toxic.
Did you know the suffragettes were pushing the White Feather campaign?
They were happy to shame men into going to fight in the trenches while they got to sleep in their own beds.
Huh, it's almost as if demonizing men and blaming them for everything might have some drawbacks.
Anyone who wants to exit the unreal fantasy world of feminism and return to reality should read John Tierney's "The Misogyny Myth": https://www.city-journal.org/article/the-misogyny-myth