A nice article but misssing one of the key elements to the problem of the rise of women and the fall of men: Family Law courts need to be radically changed so that men obtain equal rights to women in those courts and are no longer viewed as simply ATM machines to fund a capricious wife who decides to upgrade her life by absconding with the children, the house, and the car, all at the husband's expense. No wonder men are no longer willing to sign onto that slave ship.
There is so much unwarranted anger directed against men becaue of the women's movement and the revamped culture. Men are the ones who will ultimately protect women, but the way society and politics is going today, they will not be able to offer any protection. Matriarchies inevitably lose out to Patriarchies, so expect Islam to prevail over a gynocratic West sometime in the future. Women don't understand how much they need men, so they evade marriage for a different reason than do men -- they think men and marriage are unnecessary, because that's what the female hive collective has told them. And women are more easily propagandized and persuaded than are men. So, universities have an easy job radicalizing young women to the Left.
Because of female dominance, it will be a very rocky road ahead for all of us. Increased tyranny. Military defeats. Societal collapse.
I suspect this is happening in Britain right now. Women have rejected male authority and protection. Now the men can't protect them, and like clockwork, actual badguys are flooding in and having their way with them.
Right. It’s miserable enough for middle class men abandoned by their wives, but child and spousal support can be essentially life destroying for men in the bottom half of society. I’m sure it produces a lot of risk aversion.
"Family Law courts need to be radically changed so that men obtain equal rights to women in those courts and are no longer viewed as simply ATM machines to fund a capricious wife who decides to upgrade her life by absconding with the children, the house, and the car, all at the husband's expense. No wonder men are no longer willing to sign onto that slave ship." damn. preach.
A classic Wilcox sleight of hand here in the first paragraph. Telltale crypto-Christian sign to link young mens’ “dispiritedness” and “unhappiness” to marriage statistics, when it’s obvious that this dissatisfaction (and the resulting ill effects) come from not getting laid, not from being unmarried.
He’d likely counter that married men have more sex than unmarried men—but both the scale of the problem and the advice that follows logically are wrongly skewed by this not-so-subtle religiously-motivated focus on marriage
It isnt just white male neets and incels that have been marginalized in 21st century america. Men who have jobs but fight a huge uphill battle against dei and thought police in their careers. Men of all races who have families but feminism and antipatriarchy policies take away their authority and put women defacto at the head of the household. Neets and incels are just the straw men that society uses to shut down any consideration of mens issues or views. As soon as it becomes a neet, incel issue it becomes a joke. The neets and incels are just the men who were hit hardest by these issues, often because they are weaker men. Fine. But these things affect all men to some extent.
I dispute that young men aren't needed in society.
Young men are needed far more than women are, as young men are far better at jobs that maintain civilization than women. Look at the numbers of jobs that go unfilled in the construction industry, for example. No one talks about the dearth of HR workers.
The (supposedly) negative behaviors of young men are an adaptation to the current system. The things you suggest are things that won't happen unless those in charge want them to happen, in which case they'll happen with or without young men agitating and complaining for it.
Best case scenarios for young men is to get a job you can live with that makes a lot of money, and then:
1. Find one of the very few good women, settle down and have lots of kids.
2. Invest so you can retire early and enjoy your hobbies.
There is no reforming the system, only finding ways to slip through the cracks and still live a good life in spite of it all.
The black men between the age of 14 to 50 who commit a supermajority of the unprovoked stranger on stranger homicides and violent crime in the US are technically almost all NEETs. The NEETs you are talking about in this article are not going to be motivated to do anything because they are living in their boomer parent’s million dollar suburban McMansion, have their living expenses paid for by their boomer parents, and will be inheriting the largest wealth transfer in American history. I don’t blame them because they were screwed by DEI and affirmative action and recession in late 2000s and early to mid 2010s/inflation in the 2020s, but I don’t see what will make them get out of their comfort zone.
The McMansions getting repoed will do the trick. I knew lots of pretty hard white suburban kids going up because we had to go to school in town in largely Spanish speaking schools with gangs and lots of fighting. Eventually young white men will form a vangarian guard once they cannot dodge non white majorities, and are inevitably targeted. The future is ugly though
Even in an article all about young men getting screwed and left behind, Scott Greer just can't help but sneak in lines about how young men are helpless basement-dwelling losers.
Not necessarily. Surplus men have existed before without wars and revolutions. They formed secret societies and did other odd things. Surplus men are inherently very high risk, though.
Good work, but I disagree with the solutions proposed at the end. Well, I don't disagree with them. Rather, they're perfectly good policy approaches, but they won't solve the problem of the matriarchal society now in control. Men will have to get political and engage in civil disobedience. They should do this by creating male-focused political action groups, trying to elect men who will unabashedly pursue pro-men policies, and, most importantly, men as a collective are going to have to do things to force society's hand. Importantly, this doesn't mean violence - instead, as though they were a union, men are going to have to withdraw services en masse. Men, for their sake and for the sake of future men, are going to have to not go to work, not deliver services, not fight, just not show up. Likely, this will have to be done more than once; however many times, men have to make it so uncomfortable for society that it has no choice but to turn back or get rid of the policies that have destroyed the male gender. These policies are widely known and understood. Only when men collectively stand up for themselves and use their labour and intellectual firepower as leverage will things start to change.
A male NAACP would end up being a joke. There have been attempts at this before with no success. Guys don't want to join something that makes them seem low status
Respectfully, I'm not talking about the MGTOW. A male NAACP is closer, but if that ends up being a joke, then there's no hope. What's happening to men isn't funny. It's deadly serious, as you've made it in your piece. How high does the male suicide rate have to get before men as a whole start to take their plight seriously and band together politically? Indeed, it may start off as low status, and it will remain low status right up until things stop being shipped/delivered and things don't get built or fixed. What happens when even 10% of men stop doing their jobs? People won't be laughing then. Anyway, we're far beyond the point where adjusting a few policies and telling guys to go to college will make a difference. The entrenched powers won't make these policy changes, nor will they make accommodations to help more men go to college. They're in control now, and I suspect they quite like it that way. It's collective labour disruption, or it's something far worse.
MGTOW has been calling for this stuff for years. There have been numerous attempts at a male NAACP. Men are not going to stop going to work to demand the government give them better girlfriends
Thanks for the follow-up reply. I'm trying to be serious with my replies. You know that I'm not suggesting the government should be in the business of girlfriending. To pick up on one of your points, universities aren't giving scholarships and entrance places to men because they're men. That's what I'm talking about. By any measure, in today's day and age, this is unfair. Universities and governments don't seem to want to do anything about this, despite clear evidence that something needs to change. For heaven's sake, Harvard lost at the Supreme Court on this very matter, and it hasn't changed a bit. If nothing is going to change (even when you have a Trump in office), what is to be done? What I'm taking away from your approach is to hope that policies begin to change. They won't - at least in a majority of States, and certainly not where I'm from in Canada. Tinkering at the edges ain't going to change anything. There needs to be a robust political movement for men, or this gets worse before it gets better. But I understand you don't think this will fly. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
Not a bad article but "young men are also the primary demographic for transgenderism" isn't true. It's still women becoming FTM trans because of social contagion. While trasngenderism also affects young men quite a lot, it affects young women more statistically.
Structural changes in the economy is a way of describing a low growth economy mainly producing government and quasi government jobs in healthcare, education and make work bureaucracy. A young man who actually wants to make or produce something in the real world will find limited opportunities and even if they get the job, limited rewards.
There’s also a Soviet style situation where men aren’t going to work for scant rewards. If all your energies don’t earn you a real life, why slave away? It’s actually weirdly admirable that the NEETS can’t be bamboozled into 12 hour shifts at Home Depot or gruelling factory jobs barely above minimum wage.
We also need to end government-funded college financial aid and student loans. They disproportionately benefit women. Let them pay out of pocket for their gender studies degrees.
Strong post, and glad you had solution oriented action for the finish. 🏆🏆
I’ll take exception to the trad con portrayal here - a bit too cartoonish. I know a number of millennials and Gen Z going into construction, plumbing, railroads, etc. that are on course for a great living without college debt.
As a trad dad, my answer to the relationship side has been to find a traditional woman who is family (not career) focused and willing to sacrifice material comforts and luxuries for children. Even if you need a passport to find her.
I know the reaction that suggestion tends to get, but as you stated, it’s women getting the jobs after college in bigger numbers, and they are hypergamous; that’s why the “good men“ they are seeking can’t be found, because they have very high standards for that man including incomes that most of these men are not meeting.
A nice article but misssing one of the key elements to the problem of the rise of women and the fall of men: Family Law courts need to be radically changed so that men obtain equal rights to women in those courts and are no longer viewed as simply ATM machines to fund a capricious wife who decides to upgrade her life by absconding with the children, the house, and the car, all at the husband's expense. No wonder men are no longer willing to sign onto that slave ship.
There is so much unwarranted anger directed against men becaue of the women's movement and the revamped culture. Men are the ones who will ultimately protect women, but the way society and politics is going today, they will not be able to offer any protection. Matriarchies inevitably lose out to Patriarchies, so expect Islam to prevail over a gynocratic West sometime in the future. Women don't understand how much they need men, so they evade marriage for a different reason than do men -- they think men and marriage are unnecessary, because that's what the female hive collective has told them. And women are more easily propagandized and persuaded than are men. So, universities have an easy job radicalizing young women to the Left.
Because of female dominance, it will be a very rocky road ahead for all of us. Increased tyranny. Military defeats. Societal collapse.
I suspect this is happening in Britain right now. Women have rejected male authority and protection. Now the men can't protect them, and like clockwork, actual badguys are flooding in and having their way with them.
Right. It’s miserable enough for middle class men abandoned by their wives, but child and spousal support can be essentially life destroying for men in the bottom half of society. I’m sure it produces a lot of risk aversion.
It does. My parents divorced, I got a front row seat to so much BS.
"Family Law courts need to be radically changed so that men obtain equal rights to women in those courts and are no longer viewed as simply ATM machines to fund a capricious wife who decides to upgrade her life by absconding with the children, the house, and the car, all at the husband's expense. No wonder men are no longer willing to sign onto that slave ship." damn. preach.
A classic Wilcox sleight of hand here in the first paragraph. Telltale crypto-Christian sign to link young mens’ “dispiritedness” and “unhappiness” to marriage statistics, when it’s obvious that this dissatisfaction (and the resulting ill effects) come from not getting laid, not from being unmarried.
He’d likely counter that married men have more sex than unmarried men—but both the scale of the problem and the advice that follows logically are wrongly skewed by this not-so-subtle religiously-motivated focus on marriage
It isnt just white male neets and incels that have been marginalized in 21st century america. Men who have jobs but fight a huge uphill battle against dei and thought police in their careers. Men of all races who have families but feminism and antipatriarchy policies take away their authority and put women defacto at the head of the household. Neets and incels are just the straw men that society uses to shut down any consideration of mens issues or views. As soon as it becomes a neet, incel issue it becomes a joke. The neets and incels are just the men who were hit hardest by these issues, often because they are weaker men. Fine. But these things affect all men to some extent.
I dispute that young men aren't needed in society.
Young men are needed far more than women are, as young men are far better at jobs that maintain civilization than women. Look at the numbers of jobs that go unfilled in the construction industry, for example. No one talks about the dearth of HR workers.
The (supposedly) negative behaviors of young men are an adaptation to the current system. The things you suggest are things that won't happen unless those in charge want them to happen, in which case they'll happen with or without young men agitating and complaining for it.
Best case scenarios for young men is to get a job you can live with that makes a lot of money, and then:
1. Find one of the very few good women, settle down and have lots of kids.
2. Invest so you can retire early and enjoy your hobbies.
There is no reforming the system, only finding ways to slip through the cracks and still live a good life in spite of it all.
Agreed but the problem is even if most young men strategized perfectly, there aren’t enough good women to go around. So they’re screwed
#2 was intended to be separate from #1, as it's hard to save for early retirement with a lot of kids. It's the consolation prize, and isn't that bad.
The black men between the age of 14 to 50 who commit a supermajority of the unprovoked stranger on stranger homicides and violent crime in the US are technically almost all NEETs. The NEETs you are talking about in this article are not going to be motivated to do anything because they are living in their boomer parent’s million dollar suburban McMansion, have their living expenses paid for by their boomer parents, and will be inheriting the largest wealth transfer in American history. I don’t blame them because they were screwed by DEI and affirmative action and recession in late 2000s and early to mid 2010s/inflation in the 2020s, but I don’t see what will make them get out of their comfort zone.
The McMansions getting repoed will do the trick. I knew lots of pretty hard white suburban kids going up because we had to go to school in town in largely Spanish speaking schools with gangs and lots of fighting. Eventually young white men will form a vangarian guard once they cannot dodge non white majorities, and are inevitably targeted. The future is ugly though
Even in an article all about young men getting screwed and left behind, Scott Greer just can't help but sneak in lines about how young men are helpless basement-dwelling losers.
“We can still make America great again for them.”
Have you laid out that plan?
“These guys are unlikely to start a revolution” glib & ignorant of history
Not necessarily. Surplus men have existed before without wars and revolutions. They formed secret societies and did other odd things. Surplus men are inherently very high risk, though.
What happens when millions of young men are unmarried and unemployed?
Civil unrest- that’s what happens.
Good work, but I disagree with the solutions proposed at the end. Well, I don't disagree with them. Rather, they're perfectly good policy approaches, but they won't solve the problem of the matriarchal society now in control. Men will have to get political and engage in civil disobedience. They should do this by creating male-focused political action groups, trying to elect men who will unabashedly pursue pro-men policies, and, most importantly, men as a collective are going to have to do things to force society's hand. Importantly, this doesn't mean violence - instead, as though they were a union, men are going to have to withdraw services en masse. Men, for their sake and for the sake of future men, are going to have to not go to work, not deliver services, not fight, just not show up. Likely, this will have to be done more than once; however many times, men have to make it so uncomfortable for society that it has no choice but to turn back or get rid of the policies that have destroyed the male gender. These policies are widely known and understood. Only when men collectively stand up for themselves and use their labour and intellectual firepower as leverage will things start to change.
MGTOW has been around for years. Has that worked?
A male NAACP would end up being a joke. There have been attempts at this before with no success. Guys don't want to join something that makes them seem low status
Respectfully, I'm not talking about the MGTOW. A male NAACP is closer, but if that ends up being a joke, then there's no hope. What's happening to men isn't funny. It's deadly serious, as you've made it in your piece. How high does the male suicide rate have to get before men as a whole start to take their plight seriously and band together politically? Indeed, it may start off as low status, and it will remain low status right up until things stop being shipped/delivered and things don't get built or fixed. What happens when even 10% of men stop doing their jobs? People won't be laughing then. Anyway, we're far beyond the point where adjusting a few policies and telling guys to go to college will make a difference. The entrenched powers won't make these policy changes, nor will they make accommodations to help more men go to college. They're in control now, and I suspect they quite like it that way. It's collective labour disruption, or it's something far worse.
MGTOW has been calling for this stuff for years. There have been numerous attempts at a male NAACP. Men are not going to stop going to work to demand the government give them better girlfriends
Thanks for the follow-up reply. I'm trying to be serious with my replies. You know that I'm not suggesting the government should be in the business of girlfriending. To pick up on one of your points, universities aren't giving scholarships and entrance places to men because they're men. That's what I'm talking about. By any measure, in today's day and age, this is unfair. Universities and governments don't seem to want to do anything about this, despite clear evidence that something needs to change. For heaven's sake, Harvard lost at the Supreme Court on this very matter, and it hasn't changed a bit. If nothing is going to change (even when you have a Trump in office), what is to be done? What I'm taking away from your approach is to hope that policies begin to change. They won't - at least in a majority of States, and certainly not where I'm from in Canada. Tinkering at the edges ain't going to change anything. There needs to be a robust political movement for men, or this gets worse before it gets better. But I understand you don't think this will fly. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
Not a bad article but "young men are also the primary demographic for transgenderism" isn't true. It's still women becoming FTM trans because of social contagion. While trasngenderism also affects young men quite a lot, it affects young women more statistically.
Structural changes in the economy is a way of describing a low growth economy mainly producing government and quasi government jobs in healthcare, education and make work bureaucracy. A young man who actually wants to make or produce something in the real world will find limited opportunities and even if they get the job, limited rewards.
There’s also a Soviet style situation where men aren’t going to work for scant rewards. If all your energies don’t earn you a real life, why slave away? It’s actually weirdly admirable that the NEETS can’t be bamboozled into 12 hour shifts at Home Depot or gruelling factory jobs barely above minimum wage.
Women’s sports suck
We also need to end government-funded college financial aid and student loans. They disproportionately benefit women. Let them pay out of pocket for their gender studies degrees.
I teach young men and boys to never get married and never have kids because its not worth it. We are winning.
Strong post, and glad you had solution oriented action for the finish. 🏆🏆
I’ll take exception to the trad con portrayal here - a bit too cartoonish. I know a number of millennials and Gen Z going into construction, plumbing, railroads, etc. that are on course for a great living without college debt.
As a trad dad, my answer to the relationship side has been to find a traditional woman who is family (not career) focused and willing to sacrifice material comforts and luxuries for children. Even if you need a passport to find her.
I know the reaction that suggestion tends to get, but as you stated, it’s women getting the jobs after college in bigger numbers, and they are hypergamous; that’s why the “good men“ they are seeking can’t be found, because they have very high standards for that man including incomes that most of these men are not meeting.