I think one of the issues here is there hasn't been an effective and coherent strategy to challenge and/or seriously critique feminism in western countries. There are a number of reasons this is very difficult to do. I can list out a few but there are number of others that could be commented on further, I'm sure.
1. It is a core aspect of Liberalism which is the dominant ideology.
2. Economic production and growth is greatly helped by women's full participation in the workforce. This is obviously offset in the long run to some degree by parental neglect of future generations. This is the most unavoidable of all the points I'm making here. It's simply not feasible or desirable for women to not participate at a high rate in today's labor market.
3. Technological change has favored women's economic value while diminishing men's. I've seen this point made over and over again so it's obviously at top of mind for many people. This has occurred while recent iterations of feminism have actively propagandized people to believe men are an economic threat to women and must step aside. The end result is a rapid decline of men's levels of educational attainment as well as earning power relative to women.
4. Men's biological and consequently psychological state of being has deteriorated. The causes of this are varied (bad food/plastics/vices/pharmaceuticals Ect.) but have been collectively severe in nature. This has made them weaker and more vulnerable than previous generations of men without significant recognition by any institutions or places of power/influence.
5. Women are more sexually desirable than men. This has only become truer as men's health, earning power, and vitality have declined. This results in 'simping' and men of all classes and age groups catering to women and avoiding public criticism that might be harmful to social standing.
6. It's mostly young men and low status men who have been the most negatively impacted by feminism. Unfortunately, they're also the mostly easily ignored and dismissed. These men are usually less experienced and often less educated than other cohorts of men and therefore command less respect in society. This reality is further complicated by the fact that higher status men (who have strong earning power & marriage rates) don't want to be associated with less well-off men and so they don't make any effort to push back against the feminist movement. In many cases they have wives/girlfriends, friend groups, and work environments who might shun them if they seriously rebuked feminism.
7. Women don't seem to care that much about the downsides associated with feminist ideology. Obviously, it would be much easier to mount some opposition if they did.
I think overall you make good points but I’m not sure about number 3. I think with AI much of traditional female work like scheduling will be automated away.
Blaming muh “neoliberalism” and “capitalism” are easy cop outs and are not backed by evidence. The excesses of the civil rights era had the MOST benefits for women, then blacks. Most women do not real work in the organizations they’re in, but are there to be warm bodies for DEI and Civil Rights reasons.
"Church going" in American culture as a social event has always been female-coded. Many prominent figures in our culture's history have been deeply religious and regular attenders, yet the view of the sphere under the steeple has always been rife with social gossip, especially in a time when Christianity was much more attached to the general population. The clergy were often mistrusted as busybodies with too much time on their hands, even enabling said female behavior. It was largely ministers in Washington siding with elite political wives who were responsible for the Petticoat Affair that nearly blew Jackson's presidency assunder.
Scott made the claim 2 years ago, but Tateism will replace the dissident right or whatever remnants of the 2010’s identitarian right there currently are. For better or for worse. There may be low IQ excesses but it seems to be the only faction that has any real traction now. Tate is a real libertine cultural icon akin to Trump, and trad cons really do hate the fact that both of these guys have had so much political sway as of late.
I think one of the issues here is there hasn't been an effective and coherent strategy to challenge and/or seriously critique feminism in western countries. There are a number of reasons this is very difficult to do. I can list out a few but there are number of others that could be commented on further, I'm sure.
1. It is a core aspect of Liberalism which is the dominant ideology.
2. Economic production and growth is greatly helped by women's full participation in the workforce. This is obviously offset in the long run to some degree by parental neglect of future generations. This is the most unavoidable of all the points I'm making here. It's simply not feasible or desirable for women to not participate at a high rate in today's labor market.
3. Technological change has favored women's economic value while diminishing men's. I've seen this point made over and over again so it's obviously at top of mind for many people. This has occurred while recent iterations of feminism have actively propagandized people to believe men are an economic threat to women and must step aside. The end result is a rapid decline of men's levels of educational attainment as well as earning power relative to women.
4. Men's biological and consequently psychological state of being has deteriorated. The causes of this are varied (bad food/plastics/vices/pharmaceuticals Ect.) but have been collectively severe in nature. This has made them weaker and more vulnerable than previous generations of men without significant recognition by any institutions or places of power/influence.
5. Women are more sexually desirable than men. This has only become truer as men's health, earning power, and vitality have declined. This results in 'simping' and men of all classes and age groups catering to women and avoiding public criticism that might be harmful to social standing.
6. It's mostly young men and low status men who have been the most negatively impacted by feminism. Unfortunately, they're also the mostly easily ignored and dismissed. These men are usually less experienced and often less educated than other cohorts of men and therefore command less respect in society. This reality is further complicated by the fact that higher status men (who have strong earning power & marriage rates) don't want to be associated with less well-off men and so they don't make any effort to push back against the feminist movement. In many cases they have wives/girlfriends, friend groups, and work environments who might shun them if they seriously rebuked feminism.
7. Women don't seem to care that much about the downsides associated with feminist ideology. Obviously, it would be much easier to mount some opposition if they did.
I think overall you make good points but I’m not sure about number 3. I think with AI much of traditional female work like scheduling will be automated away.
Blaming muh “neoliberalism” and “capitalism” are easy cop outs and are not backed by evidence. The excesses of the civil rights era had the MOST benefits for women, then blacks. Most women do not real work in the organizations they’re in, but are there to be warm bodies for DEI and Civil Rights reasons.
"Church going" in American culture as a social event has always been female-coded. Many prominent figures in our culture's history have been deeply religious and regular attenders, yet the view of the sphere under the steeple has always been rife with social gossip, especially in a time when Christianity was much more attached to the general population. The clergy were often mistrusted as busybodies with too much time on their hands, even enabling said female behavior. It was largely ministers in Washington siding with elite political wives who were responsible for the Petticoat Affair that nearly blew Jackson's presidency assunder.
Scott made the claim 2 years ago, but Tateism will replace the dissident right or whatever remnants of the 2010’s identitarian right there currently are. For better or for worse. There may be low IQ excesses but it seems to be the only faction that has any real traction now. Tate is a real libertine cultural icon akin to Trump, and trad cons really do hate the fact that both of these guys have had so much political sway as of late.
Scott, please use my monthly $5 to get yourself some orange juice and a tissue box!