Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Capitalism is undefeated. The pure genius of creating a whole new class of spenders has changed the dynamics forever. I'm old enough to remember one car households. Now husband and wife both have their own cars. We are not going back to the days of submissive women dependent on a man for security so only the men who are far ahead of the average woman will be considered for mating. The market will correct itself as birth rates decline to dangerous levels among western people. I don't think western men want harems.
You’ve shined a light on a very obscured truth here that few are even aware of. The feminist movement in it’s inception was most definitely a calculated and orchestrated movement to affect a new economic paradigm of a two income earner system. There is a significant body of evidence for this, starting with the fact that the mother of the feminist movement, Gloria Steinem, was a paid employee of the CIA, and promoted by globalist controlled media. But that new economic paradigm has been in place now for decades, and does not explain what is occurring now, relative to the interactions between men and women. That’s too much of an oversimplification of what is a much larger problem that can’t be expected to self correct.
Listen, the PTB, have made clear their desire to destroy the nuclear family, which is the foundation of middle class America, and really, the heart of the nation. And just about everything we see being popularized and promoted in the mainstream either directly or indirectly contributes to that goal.
None of the societal issues we are struggling with now are organic, but are indeed socially engineered to affect an outcome.
Does anyone really think people would wake up one day and say to themselves, you know, I think it would be nice to have transgender freaks dressed up in demonic drag read stories to my toddler? No, this is insanity. Nothing so glaringly contrary to basic common sense and moral decency would occur naturally.
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas View Post
Pot meet kettle.
You should be the last one alleging such things, because in the repeated attempts to engage a dialog about a well documented decline in male performance in society both educationally and socially, you insist no crisis exists, while labeling those suffering as whiny incels who just need to grow a pair. And the underlying disdain you have for men is revealed in many of your remarks.
Nobody has been belittling or marginalizing women here.
Oh contraire, nearly all your posts are discussing women's state of being their thoughts, their wants and standards, what is wrong with them, etc. And it is a shame because you have had some good points about some legitimate, documented men's issues. If only you would discuss those without turning the blame to women. This is what incels do.
Your opinions are not documentation, nor are the opinions of Youtube influencers.
Just because you dislike me does not mean I have any disdain for men. I have been married and had lots of relationships, have sons, grandsons, lots of male family and friends I absolutely adore. You are the one going on and on about women and generalizing them. Heck your last post starts: Women today.........Paragraphs about how women are and what women want.
My contention is that the talking points of this thread; lower percentage of college attendance among men, women not marrying men of lower socioeconomic circles and men not getting lots of sex, does not a crisis make. I have pointed out over and over the majority of men (and women) are enjoying life, are employed and are partnered up with a mate within their socioeconomic group and that there is no evidence of hordes of single men in crisis.
All I hear from you is how women are today, is not what men want, thus crisis.
Except that the most satisfied societies also tend to be the ones that have the most gender equity. That doesn’t seem to support the argument that pairings shouldn’t be anything but a partnership where both partners derive a benefit from the relationship. As it is in the US, men tend to report that things are the status quo at worst with marriage, while women tend to report that things are the status quo at best. That doesn’t seem to show that we have gender equity if life isn’t improving for women when they get married. Ideally, both parties should benefit, but they don’t.
I'm sorry but I fail to see the connection between what you're saying and what I said in the post you were responding to.
Even with your posts you do- you talk explicitly about the women’s status, not about whether her life is actually improved by having a man in it. The ideal should be for both parties to see an improvement in quality of life with a partner. For many, it’s not about status. If you have a high status partner, but also have a good job and are expected to pick up on extra chores because the partner does none, then it is not an improvement for you. If you are expected to do 90% of the childcare (despite both parents working challenging jobs), it is not an improvement for you. That’s what often gets lost in these conversations.
How is that belittling or marginalizing females exactly? Listen, you can cherry pick a sentence here and there and craft whatever false narrative you choose. But it’s not legitimate. But if you need me to explain to you the value a man brings to a woman’s life, you have bigger issues than I’m qualified to help you with.
But let’s break your thoughts down into its constituent elements. First, relative to a man’s value, you seem to be speaking more in terms of “utility”, or practical value, rather than intrinsic value, when it comes to what the man may or may not be contributing to a woman’s life. While practical value does have its place, intrinsic value is a bit more important in the greater scheme of things, since people are not appliances. That’s the first point.
Secondly, you insinuate that men are by and large failing to shoulder their fair share of the child rearing responsibilities, and because the proposition of managing a career and motherhood is so bloody difficult a task, his failure in this area renders him useless to her, from a practical standpoint, so why should she keep him around? LOL. This, I would suggest is another manifestation of female narcissism rearing it’s ugly head. It’s all about what is good for the woman … what helps the woman … what is beneficial to the woman … what offers practical value to the woman .. what helps her, which now includes offloading a portion of the tasks of motherhood to the man, to help facilitate her desires and choice to take on the dual roles of corporate executive and mother, simultaneously. Surely you cannot be missing the repeating theme here? She wants to be a part time man, so she requires the man to be a part time woman. That’s the recipe you want to follow?
So, when the woman CHOOSES to pursue a demanding career, and motherhood simultaneously, it’s now the man’s responsibility to take on a similarly dual role of father AND part time mother, the latter of which is a role he is ill equipped to perform. So often now, this then leads to divorce. Then what? Now, she’s a divorced mother of two, with the same responsibilities she had before, only now, she’s relegated to sleeping with casual strangers, or celibacy, instead of the intimacy she once shared with the father of her children. Who wins here? Nobody. Everyone loses.
And magically, this boils down to the man being at fault. Surprise surprise.
So, when the woman CHOOSES to pursue a demanding career, and motherhood simultaneously,
The problem is that women have no way of knowing if some man will find her alluring enough to marry so they MUST pursue the career in the first instance to be safe.
Women will never give this up. Prior to the women's movement if you didn't marry (and there were plenty of pretty people who didn't marry for whatever reason) you would have a horrible life and really couldn't work. The only work was like laundrymats. Read the "House of Mirth" by Edith Wharton.
There is no choice.
So, you say, well, they should give the career up... of course, if they do that... you will cheat on them and divorce them. Just try to get that career back after 20 years of being a "stay at home mom".
So no woman in her right mind is going to give up her "career".
The bottom line, men have to change.
If they refuse... women will just go their own way... as they are right now.
Men are in crisis because they refuse to accept it. They had it good for 100 years and now they have to pay the piper... and the refuse. So be it.
College enrollment has decreased overall. Does anyone wonder why lowered college enrollment in itself is not a crisis, the fact that less men are going to college is not a crisis. It only becomes a crisis when male enrollment is compared to female enrollment. Let that marinate.
The problem is that women have no way of knowing if some man will find her alluring enough to marry so they MUST pursue the career in the first instance to be safe.
Women will never give this up. Prior to the women's movement if you didn't marry (and there were plenty of pretty people who didn't marry for whatever reason) you would have a horrible life and really couldn't work. The only work was like laundrymats. Read the "House of Mirth" by Edith Wharton.
There is no choice.
So, you say, well, they should give the career up... of course, if they do that... you will cheat on them and divorce them. Just try to get that career back after 20 years of being a "stay at home mom".
So no woman in her right mind is going to give up her "career".
The bottom line, men have to change.
If they refuse... women will just go their own way... as they are right now.
Men are in crisis because they refuse to accept it. They had it good for 100 years and now they have to pay the piper... and the refuse. So be it.
Exactly. My grandmother and her sisters were brought up with this way of thinking 100 years ago when it was unusual, but my great grandmother had experienced the challenges of having to go into the workforce with no real skills once her husband became disabled. She did not want that for her girls and they were able to go into fairly skilled careers and support themselves without a man. It was much more difficult to do this in the 1920s and 1930s, particularly when they were becoming adult women at the start of the depression.
These are the same men who seem to complain about permanent alimony. While this is going by the wayside, it made sense when you expected women to not work to help raise a family. Raising a family is ideally done by TWO parents, both of whom contribute in a meaningful way other than by paying for things. That includes taking kids to activities, assisting with household chores, and otherwise pulling one’s weight in the relationship. A wife is not a servant. A relationship is a partnership and both parties must contribute approximately equally for it to be successful. It’s certainly not “narcissism” on the part of women to want relationships to be equal partnerships.
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas View Post
Pot meet kettle.
You should be the last one alleging such things, because in the repeated attempts to engage a dialog about a well documented decline in male performance in society both educationally and socially, you insist no crisis exists, while labeling those suffering as whiny incels who just need to grow a pair. And the underlying disdain you have for men is revealed in many of your remarks.
Nobody has been belittling or marginalizing women here.
Oh contraire, nearly all your posts are discussing women's state of being their thoughts, their wants and standards, what is wrong with them, etc. And it is a shame because you have had some good points about some legitimate, documented men's issues. If only you would discuss those without turning the blame to women. This is what incels do.
Your opinions are not documentation, nor are the opinions of Youtube influencers.
Just because you dislike me does not mean I have any disdain for men. I have been married and had lots of relationships, have sons, grandsons, lots of male family and friends I absolutely adore. You are the one going on and on about women and generalizing them. Heck your last post starts: Women today.........Paragraphs about how women are and what women want.
My contention is that the talking points of this thread; lower percentage of college attendance among men, women not marrying men of lower socioeconomic circles and men not getting lots of sex, does not a crisis make. I have pointed out over and over the majority of men (and women) are enjoying life, are employed and are partnered up with a mate within their socioeconomic group and that there is no evidence of hordes of single men in crisis.
All I hear from you is how women are today, is not what men want, thus crisis.
You acknowledge certain issues, then turn right around and deny there is a problem. Just because it’s not a “crisis” for you, doesn’t mean there is no crisis. Must your backyard be in flames before you accept there is a Forrest fire nearby?
When significant numbers of young men are experiencing declining prospects in the most important areas of life, to include education and employment prospects, and romantic relationships, it may not constitute a crisis in your life, but it certainly seems to be pretty “real” for them. The data collected shows that 30+% of young men are sex-less, and have no viable relationship prospects on their horizon, and their prospects for employment success doesn’t appear much brighter. And 30% hardly constitutes “a few incels complaining”, as you keep insisting. It’s a palpable issue, that you dismiss out of hand.
Furthermore, I have not placed the “blame” for this solely in the laps of women, as you also suggest. Quite to the contrary. There are a significant number of factors involved, but none of them are you willing to discuss honestly, when you deny the problem even exists.
Many of us older guys have noticed a stark decline in the masculinity of today males, while also noticing the contradictory narrative being promoted regarding the problem of “toxic masculinity” plaguing society. You can’t make this kinda crap up. But, I wouldn’t for a moment blame young women for not being attracted to effeminate males, which a significant number of males today can be so labeled. It’s a biological reality (which is often contradicted within the popular narratives) that females are drawn to mate with what they perceive to be the most powerful males. It’s basic human psychology 101. So, there is a huge problem, and it’s trending in the wrong direction. And it’s not just a conceptual construct, or popular fad, but is real, and biologically based, hence the measurable decline in testosterone levels of young men, that on average have fallen below the levels of 7 year old boys, 75 years ago.
So, I couldn’t rationally blame females for this, anymore than I can blame the males. However, contrary to your protestations that there is no crisis, it’s a legitimate problem that will not be addressed by pretending it doesn’t exist.
You might want to educate yourself regarding the consequences of past polygamous societies, where only a minority of the most powerful males monopolized access to the females, leaving the majority of males excluded. We haven’t yet reached that level of exclusion, but trending in that direction. And, violence tends to be the inevitable outcome.
Food, water and females are fundamental necessities to men, and I would argue that the the females are often the first priority, since men have historically been responsible for providing the food and the water to the females and offspring, which the males have done for thousands of years.
But now, today, women like you, and so many others, are quick to point out that men aren’t needed for that anymore, because the women are now perfectly capable of providing for themselves. So, what do we have here … we have a very significant portion of young men who are being chemically castrated, by some mechanisms yet to be determined, and to add insult to injury, they are being psychologically castrated by a growing body among the female members of society, dismissing them as no longer necessary.
Capitalism is undefeated. The pure genius of creating a whole new class of spenders has changed the dynamics forever. I'm old enough to remember one car households. Now husband and wife both have their own cars. We are not going back to the days of submissive women dependent on a man for security so only the men who are far ahead of the average woman will be considered for mating. The market will correct itself as birth rates decline to dangerous levels among western people. I don't think western men want harems.
"Far ahead" these days is to mate with the socially proofed dominant bad boy, regardless if he has money or not. They know the government will help raise any kids. They don't care. It's what their biology craves. The ones that want the dominant male who also makes six figures are the ones who will end up with cats instead.
Bottom line...those in charge know how to play on our cravings and biology. Blaming women...nobody is really to blame. We don't have that much free will to overcome our genetics...probably why women choose the winners in the first place, and the losers....well... Nature is cruel. The strong survive and thrive.
There have been incels for hundreds of thousands of years....look at the science...maybe 1/3 of men tops ever passed on their seed. I have these visions of Roman incels pining about the dating scene as Rome was on the decline...same stuff, different century. Blame evolution. Get mad at the bear for pooping in the woods? Don't get mad at women for being what their DNA would have them be. Don't get mad, get better.
Last edited by sholomar; 09-29-2022 at 11:40 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
