Media-Backed Misandry
Major outlets warn about “online misogyny” while pushing unhinged man-hate
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced earlier this year that the Netflix series Adolescence would be shown in schools throughout the UK. The show imaginatively depicts a real-life murder as the result of online misogyny. (Reality had no connection to this fictional narrative.) Starmer said it was important for British youth to watch the show to “help students better understand the impact of misogyny, dangers of online radicalization and the importance of healthy relationships.”
The announcement epitomizes western society’s obsession with the menace of online misogyny. It’s frequently blamed for inspiring terrorism and ruining dating. The powers that be demand more censorship and surveillance to curb this apparent threat.
The panic over online misogyny is also connected to the West’s declining fertility. It was reported last week that the American birthrate hit an all-time low this year. Many causes are offered for this sad state of affairs. Some commentators point to online misogyny as a contributing factor to the dismal dating market, which leads to fewer marriages and fewer kids.
No one doubts the existence of incels, but this is a low-status demographic confined to the margins. Even the redpill influencers like Andrew Tate are not as influential as the merchants of social panic believe. While many guys aren’t fond of the state of modern women, their opinions are condemned and kept out of mainstream discourse. Online misogyny is not disrupting dating.
If we want to blame a social pathology for the poor state of dating and the decline in marriage, socially-approved misandry rather than socially-condemned misogyny is a more logical culprit. This gender animosity is more encouraged and more indulged by our society, as illustrated by our biggest outlets promoting anti-male ramblings.
The New York Times, our nation’s paper of record, recently published two different unhinged screeds against heterosexual men. The articles indulge popular delusions about “good men scarcity” and how everything wrong with dating is due to the guys. These articles were published at the same time the app Tea–which purports to give women the power to share dirt on exes and bad dates–became the number one downloaded app. It’s tough out there for a single man.
One essay, written by Jean Garnett, claims many women are becoming “heterofatalists” because they can’t deal with men. Are these women fed up with men over legitimate reasons, such as men being abusive or failing to find employment? Of course not. These are affluent, college-educated women losing their shit over texting infractions and failing to meet uncommunicated communication standards. The essay reads like a satire of a delusional feminist.
Garnett gives her own story about how she gave up on men. In short: her open marriage fell apart after she fell in love with one of her boyfriends but the man didn’t want to pursue a serious relationship. Instead of learning the right lessons from her own stupidity, Garnett has decided men are the problem. The author gives herself away as a narcissist who blames other people for her own failures to obtain the impossible. The Times’ editors should have rejected this article as it makes a poor case for heterofatalism. But the editors, who I assume must be women, accepted it as a powerful tale of how bad modern men are. If amoral, polyamorous women can’t find Mr. Right, who else can?
Garnett’s story is, hopefully, too strange for most women to relate to. But the NYT managed to find a more relatable “problem” to make women heterofatalist. That issue is “mankeeping.” What the hell is mankeeping? According to the New York Times: “It describes the work women do to meet the social and emotional needs of the men in their lives, from supporting their partners through daily challenges and inner turmoil, to encouraging them to meet up with their friends.”
So… basic things people do for their significant other. But this is now an unbearable burden among young women. The NYT interviewed one 37-year-old lawyer who unloaded on how her stupid boyfriend leaves her to “manage” their social affairs. The henpecked boyfriend endured additional nagging from the Times’ reporter about his horrible behavior, with him promising to do better in the future. If your girlfriend humiliates you to the entire world for not planning enough couple trips, it’s time to move on.
The article also interviews experts who say men’s diminishing social circles makes them more reliant on their girlfriends and wives to share their inner thoughts and emotions. Despite years of telling men to be more in tune with their emotions, we now consider it a bad thing. Maybe that’s progress.
In any case, this is not a real problem. It’s just another media-encouraged excuse to vent against men.
These articles reflect and affirm attitudes that are widely expressed among young people. “Where are all the GOOD MEN?” has now become a cliche, hence my many tweets about GOOD MEN scarcity. Both conservative and liberal media outlets pump out regular complaints about men.
There’s a reason for this.
The modern West has witnessed a social revolution which has left young men less important than ever before. Less important doesn’t mean that their lives are harder than that of their ancestors. It just means they have less status and influence than ever before. Young women, on their hand, have never had as much power as they do today. They’re earning more than ever before, their tastes dictate culture and the office, and they’ve even made America care about the WNBA. Young women have never had as many opportunities as they do now, and our society is awkwardly adjusting to this.
One of the effects of this change is a relative power imbalance between young men and young women. In the past, men were doing far better economically than women and experienced greater deference. That’s no longer the case, which is why women bemoan GOOD MEN scarcity ad nauseam.
More women are graduating from college than ever before, which has the unintentional effect of leaving them fewer men to marry. Studies show women prefer to marry men of equal or greater perceived status. A corporate lawyer is unlikely to be swept off her feet by a Chipotle cashier. This gender imbalance should make the smaller number of college-educated men hot commodities. While the situation certainly benefits a small group of men, the rest aren’t so lucky. Women still feel these guys don’t add up and the power imbalance plays out in their relationships. The mankeeping couple illustrates this. The guy sits and takes the woman humiliating him in a national newspaper, while the woman feels emboldened to treat the boyfriend like shit simply because he doesn’t plan enough of their social calendar. The media encourages this unhealthy dynamic. This might be the only guy such a woman can get, but she isn’t happy about it.
These women all want the top-tier men. But there are not enough of them to go around. While dating apps allow them to sometimes match with them, these guys refuse to settle for the average girl. So these women feel forced to settle for regular guys, and they resent this. It’s why they make up fake issues like “mankeeping.” It gives these women a way to transfer their frustration in not getting the men they want on to their less-desired, henpecked boyfriends. If they dated a real Chad, they would not complain about mankeeping.
Women have built up standards that few men can meet. Rather than change their standards to be more realistic, they’re encouraged to turn minor gripes about men into problems of apocalyptic proportions. It’s natural for people to complain about their dating lives. Both men and women will bemoan how there are no GOOD WOMEN/MEN and bitch about their significant other. It’s a normal part of life. What is abnormal is to convince women that men absolutely suck and they should be “heterofatalists.” The media feels empowered to spread this insidious message.
Of course, there are problems with young men. Their employment numbers are plummeting, fewer of them are getting an education, many of them get into drugs, and a lot of them seem aimless and without purpose. Women don’t want to date losers. Many women, particularly working class-women, do deal with legitimate problems in their dating partners. Their boyfriends could be permanently unemployed, have a substance abuse problem, be abusive, or even have a criminal record.
But these aren’t the problems the women nodding their heads along with the NYT’s misandry experience. Their dates just have an odd hobby, don’t text exactly right, mansplain, misuse pronouns, or commit some other minor imaginary offense.
Love is a matter of the heart. We can’t force people to date or marry people they can’t stand. But we should refuse to indulge socially-induced neuroses and resentments. Major media outlets cannot complain about the decline in fertility and humor “heterofatalism” and “mankeeping.” It’s idiotic to encourage these neuroses among single women, when all it leads to is unhinged misandry and despair.
Society should encourage both genders to accept the oddities and differences of one another, not promote the idea that the opposite sex is the enemy.
But when the mainstream media (and conservative media) tell young men that they suck, that they need to dramatically lower their standards to find a girlfriend, and that women are right to be heterofatalist, it’s no wonder that they turn to dreaded “redpill” influencers like Andrew Tate. At least he won’t tell them to apologize for the sin of mankeeping.