I am editing out many abusive, or inane comments from this discussion. Sorry if this makes it hard to follow but I am responsible for ensuring a civilised debate on these pages.
Disappointing that abusive and inane comments had to be edited. I thought I was joining a more civilised community and one that is hopefully unlike other social media platforms. Isn’t the expectation that we are all responsible for being respectful and are skilled at disagreeing rationally.
I’m so sorry, I have life to live and it’s much too short to be wasted in hyperventilating online in asinine discourse about issues that are unchanging in the world by any amount of discussion about it. Take action on it in a real, measurable, and meaningful way or cease the incessant rambling over it.
Good day, sir.
May your heart someday be warmed to the comfortable temperature of your mother’s basement where you spend the inordinate amounts of time debating with strangers you know nothing about and wouldn’t even dare to approach in real life.
The fact that you have to edit out comments just strengthens the assertions made here. As an older happily married female for over 40 years, I survey the landscape frequently when we are out and I am disheartened. I am saddened for the younger females generations - it seems they will never know the joy I have experienced in my marriage and my career!
If your husband gets prostate cancer, he will find that your fellow feminists made sure there is three times more taxpayer funding for breast cancer than prostate cancer.
1) How was this an appropriate response to her comment?
2) Arguably, breast cancer poses is ~3x the burden that prostate cancer does. I think that when we prioritize interventions, we should account for the number of life-years lost from it, not simply the number of lives, and breast cancer affects women at younger ages than prostate cancer affects men.
Apologies for butting in here, mate... but, who made you judge and mediator of appropriateness in one's comments? It's a bloke and his thoughts. Nothing could be more appropriate than that.
Also, what defines burden in the eyes of those afflicted? Life-years is not really a measurable metric, nor is it technical jargon, so why resort to it? It's what leftists and those without merit in the argument tend to do most when the ground upon which they stand is shale, loose footing. They renegotiate the terms and redefine the language. I think you're better than that, mate.
Lastly, aren't YOU a man? Don't you have a pair of testes and a prostate? Please give them a tug and a poke, respectively, and sound off in solidarity of the team that you were born to play for.
Humanity as a whole, in its entirety, is my “team.” No sides, it’s not a competition to love all and live in peace, striving to bring Heaven to this earth, to care for all people everywhere and spend our lives serving others and living as Christ, with compassion and empathy for every last soul.
You should try it, it’s incredibly invigorating!
The less time spent thinking about yourself and listing your struggles, challenges, and obstacles, the more you quell the ego, allow space for true and honest growth, and pave the way for radical gratitude.
What truth do you perceive in all of this rhetoric and repeated platitudes? What truth are you trying to extract and refine to better understand your environment and define your own life experience?
There’s really only one Truth, one Life, and one Way. If it doesn’t align with the teaching of Christ and the Laws of The Father, it is a lie, a deception, and false to the core. That’s not the most popular opinion, but it’s my personal conviction.
God bless you, and may the Lord our God, the One True and Living Yahweh bring you peace, clarity, and happiness, by His grace.
Breast cancer is NOT three times the burden - there are 20% more breast cancer deaths, but it gets 300% more funding.
If you want to look at life years lost, consider that men die at younger ages and in greater numbers from every major cause of death in the USA - but there are 10 offices for women’s health, but not even one for men’s health. There are four times more male suciides than female suicides, but there is no government program to address that
2 points Frank. In your initial reply to me you called me a feminist. Please define what you mean by that. Second, as a small business owner for 25 years, be thankful government is NOT more in “sick care”. It’s NOT healthcare. There is an unholy alliance between corporations and the government with regards to “healthcare”. I am 30 years a healthcare provider, & my family has several healthcare workers (big pharma reps, BSN, DO, OD…)in it. As for male suicides - my 40 yr old brother (BSN/firefighter) killed himself in 2004, and my 70 yr old brother (scientist) killed himself on the same date in 2025. I do have a window into that world and it’s ugly…..
The fact that you tragically lost two brothers to suicide will hopefully help you see that there is an absence of concern for men in the culture, and that nobody is doing anything about it.
I was aware of the threefold difference in funding from your other comments, which is why I specified "3x".
Your second paragraph moves the goalposts. Your original claim was that prostate cancer research is underfunded relative to breast cancer research, and I explained why that's incorrect.
I'm willing to discuss disparities in non-cancerous causes of death, but not until one of us concedes the original point--a point which you've ham-fistedly shoved into multiple points throughout the comment section.
There are 20% more breast cancer deaths than prostate cancer deaths per year, but breast cancer gets 300% more funding. The American Cancer Society does this, as well as government agencies. I asked the ACS on Facebook how they could justify far more funding for breast cancer. Their answer was, “we want to fund where it does the most good”.
I'm seeing about 40% higher breast cancer incidence worldwide, and much higher burden of years lost (as it tends to be diagnosed earlier and progresses faster). Both are important, so why compete? Research into hormonal treatment can inform each other.
As a mother of two pretty decent sons I am often disheartened by the vile comments I read. Have met many lovely young people, and some horrors…women and men. You often find wht you seek in people.
If you get falsely accused if rape - and about half of rape accusations are false - you will run crying to the nearest men’s rights group. They will laugh at you, and rightly so.
I understand the demands of moderating comment sections and appreciate it. I also understand why on some sites they turn off the comments on certain articles because they KNOW what's coming!
I think an article like this is always going to elicit many negative as well as positive reactions…and the author likely expected that. The problem is when people become abusive instead of giving their honest comments on a subject matter.
Unfortunately, any article where there's a comment section inevitably turns negative, because people are miserable. People don't know how to engage in polite, civil discourse.
This is an odd article. It seems like the sort of thing a wounded man would write after a break-up, but is posited as a semi-journalistic essay of social critique written by a very sympathetic woman. As a man myself, I have certainly met some women who fit the description of the embittered women the author presents as the new standard. But only a few. Most women seem pleasant to me. Then again, I don't assault or insult them or expect anything beyond the same consideration I give. I have also known men all my life, and I've always been surprised that so many women seem to be genuinely attracted to them. I write it off to reproductive biology. This fits with my observations (which are no better researched than the opinions in this article) that many women realize they prefer to be without men as they reach financial independence, menopause, or both. I can't be sure. I haven't interviewed dozens of women to get their thoughts on my hypothesis. Come to think of it, I didn't see any interview excerpts from any men for this article either...
I understand that this is largely an opinion piece. But you are making claims that ascribe points of views to a large proportion of men. In my personal experience, it doesn't hold up. If this problem of men being completely turned off by feminists is as widespread as you claim there should be some supporting data.
If you get prostate cancer, you will learn that your feminist pals in Congress made sure that three times more taxpayer funds are spent on breast cancer than prostate cancer. Then you will be a wounded man.
If you get prostate cancer, you will learn that your feminist pals in Congress made sure that three times more taxpayer funds are spent on breast cancer than prostate cancer. Then you will be a wounded man.
"If there's war between the sexes, then there'll be no people left" -- Joe Jackson pop song (1982?).
Jordan Peterson encourages young men to pull their socks up and lead from the front, effectively challenging men to raise their status and attract females who will then select an acceptable male. Is there an equivalent leader grounded in research encouraging young women in whatever is the sustainable response to the rise of the pill and service economy, the destruction wrought by the welfare state, and the deleterious effects of whatever wave(s) of feminism they experienced? If not, a lot of unhappiness (e.g., unplanned childlessness), unfulfilled potential (e.g., the maturing from being a parent), or negative effects of a shrinking population (e.g., decline of the Ponzi-scheme welfare state) await all concerned.
So are you suggesting women stepping away from workforce and education just to be marriagiable and the men can come back to the function? I'm conservative enough to know the value of marriage of a healthy masculine man, but education and having a job is a basic human rights it doesn't even having anything to do with being a woman or man because guess what capitalism doesn't value those who don't add a direct value to society which means stay at home mothers. Even if women have chosen this path and have a good husband, what do you suggest she will do when he dies too early? How will she survive? Even the average working man is unable to provide alone to the family and intentionally choose to marry women who are willing to split the bills with them for better quality of life. Men themselves shame women who look at them like ATM they started now to require partnership and be looked at as partners. Funny, you assume the non feminist woman who ended up being stay at home mother like their men. Most of our grandmothers and some of their mothers were thinking if they have been feminine, nurturing tradwives, men would like them ending up being abused in marriages they can't leave so they have been forces to stay with men they don't like and had to sex with them not to be beaten up . Before social media, we had our mother and grandmothers telling us not to fully depend on a man. With the rising statistics of femicide, rape, pedophilia, and domestic abuse, it makes women feel unsafe to go on a date without sharing their locations with friends. Men don't even trust other men with their daughters' safety. Women negativity towards men isn't nonsense and not necessarily hating but fear. My worries to be killed, raped or abused by a gender who is biologically stronger than me is valid. However, I don't use it as a reason to hate men, and neither my education nor work was supposed to be used against men it's for survival and I don't think most women working and getting degrees intentionally to take a man place more they just want autonomy over their life choices not to end up in their mothers and grandmothers situations. If men are opting out workforce that's on them. I don't know why everything should be women's fault. I'm not advocating for wokeness, but education and the ability to get a job are basic human rights. Your claims are like saying black people don't deserve equal opportunities with white people because white people are the superior race and provided a lot of innovations to the world historically neglectong the fact they were enslaved before which I may not be surprised if you believe in that. Women don't owe men their bodies , their jobs, or even their affection if they are not treating them well. Women now don't need men to provide for them they just want a partner who shares their life with. Actually, women who want to be tradwives are more hypergamic than women who want a partnership because tradwives won't be able to be trad if their men won't be able to provide for a family alone. A working woman will accept men with lower wages because she can compensate financially for half of the bills. It's less financially stressful for men, but sure, women wanting basic human rights is just misnadrist for you.
I'm sure this article is true, but as a happily married old boomer, why aren't more of these idiotic young women looking towards Mom and Dad? Do they really think that young men are all scum, unlike Dad and Uncle Dave and Dad's old buddy Chuck? And Mom and Aunt Connie seem to be getting along fine with the old boys. Do they not think that humans haven't changed that much, except for shorter attention spans?
I dunno. I have two adult daughters, two adult stepdaughters; three have found lovely men for boyfriends (2) or husband (1) and the fourth is focusing on an intensive education right now. I accept that some of this is true, but it also smacks of a sort of wishful narrative mixed with polemics. I'm way past experiencing any of this, but damn, I seem to be attending a lot of weddings this summer, crowded with happy-seeming exuberant young people, the marriages between dual-profession, smart, kind men and women (also some gay weddings). Maybe this is the margin, but it exists. No one said the middle was easy. One illusion is that "meritocracy" only applies to jobs and incomes; it also applies to EQ. Life is tough. It's a lot tougher elsewhere.
So many newer kids shows and movies portray men as bumbling incompetent duffers. You don’t have to make men look weak in order to make women look strong. I just love Aragorn and Arwen; they were both grounded, competent, and courageous.
A very interesting read, quite similar to an article I wrote, however, this one dives directly at the value of marriage equation from the perspective of a man and hits feminism in the eyes. Well written!
So what do you propose as the solution? How should we reverse this?
Women are also institutionally shielded by social media and the MSM. Men don't get to cry to the MSM about a breakup unless they admit it is their fault somehow.
And to add to the prospectus: they are usually fat and uninterested in changing that and unaccomplished and think they are special despite doing nothing interesting.
> Encountering these women isn’t much fun for men. Reddit recently published this telling comment: “It’s exhausting. You might be having a decent conversation, then she drops a casual “men suck” comment like it’s small talk. Feels like you’re starting every interaction with a presumption of guilt.”
I want to point something out here. Men hate feminism. Women hate men. The difference seems to be that men identify the poison as an ideology that is temporarily changing the behavior of women, whereas women just believe that whatever they're observing is just the true essence of all men.
I won't go into arguing why I think the ideology angle and temporary change angle make more sense than the true, permanent essence angle. Instead, I want to point out the cognitive difference of arriving at either of these conclusions. If you are so locked-in that you believe your current observation represents a true and permanent essence, then you are less observant and more prone to confabulation than someone who recognizes nuance and temporality. This difference is the gradient that men have to fight in. It's not simply a difference of opinion. It's a difference of methodology of thought, which most men aren't really capable of elucidating to women, and most women aren't really capable of seeing in themselves.
AI will wipe out far more female jobs than male jobs. So I think this "female victory" is going to be short-lived. I guess the future isn't female after all. Lmao!
There are two other issues that feed into this that, rarely, get discussed because they're triggering. Birth control and Abortion. The pill mostly shifted when women had children, not whether they did. It moved births from the early-to-mid twenties into the late twenties and thirties. If we take America as an example (but this is true elsewhere), it also had massive secondary effects such as participation rates among women born in 1955 were 24 percentage points higher at age 25 and 20 percentage points higher at age 30 than those of women born in 1940, as the "fertility dip" in female labour force participation disappeared. That labour market integration then does feed back into completed family size over generations, but indirectly. The pill's primary demographic legacy, then, is spacing and timing with some long-run reduction in total fertility through the indirect economic pathway, not a simple headcount subtraction. Access to abortion significantly reduces motherhood, and does so primarily among women who in the counterfactual would have had small families. The legalisation of abortion in pre-Roe states led to a 4% to 11% decline in births in those states relative to the rest of the country, with particularly large effects for teens and women of colour, who experienced birth rate reductions nearly three times greater than the overall population. Cumulative numbers are striking. Commonly cited totals for US abortions coinciding with Gen Z birth years (roughly 1997–2012) alone run to around 24–26 million, framed as roughly one quarter to one third of the generation although researchers modelling net population effects when accounting for behavioral adaptation arrive at much smaller figures. If you model the removal of both you end-up with an upper range population size in the USA of 400-500m instead of todays 340m. What makes the upper range plausible is second-order effects: the children never born in 1965–1980 are also not having their children, and grandchildren, cascading down. A 10% reduction in one generation becomes roughly a 19% reduction by the third, even holding TFR constant. This compounding is what pushes some models well above 400 million, and now we have men going 'nope' to marriage as well (very much simplified it's also college educated women refusing to marry guys who aren't equally well educated which is especially ironic as now the majority of students are female). So we have: Fewer marriages → fewer children → smaller working-age cohort → heavier dependency ratio → fiscal pressure on state. Meanwhile, fewer marriages → lower male productivity → lower household wealth accumulation → higher poverty rates → greater state expenditure. Both vectors point the same direction and they're pulling simultaneously. The really uncomfortable structural observation is this: the pill and abortion shifted fertility timing and reduced family size. That reduced the population base. The male marriage retreat now compounds that by reducing the economic productivity of those who are here, while simultaneously suppressing the next generation's formation rate further. Western democracies have essentially been quietly liquidating their demographic and social capital for sixty years through a series of individually rational, culturally valorised choices with each one defensible in isolation, collectively constituting something that looks, in aggregate, like slow civilisational drawdown. Whether that's a crisis or a transition to a different equilibrium is the genuinely open question. Japan offers one possible preview of the endpoint. It isn't especially encouraging. Sorry for the long reply your article was great and inspired additional words ;)
I am editing out many abusive, or inane comments from this discussion. Sorry if this makes it hard to follow but I am responsible for ensuring a civilised debate on these pages.
Disappointing that abusive and inane comments had to be edited. I thought I was joining a more civilised community and one that is hopefully unlike other social media platforms. Isn’t the expectation that we are all responsible for being respectful and are skilled at disagreeing rationally.
I’m so sorry, I have life to live and it’s much too short to be wasted in hyperventilating online in asinine discourse about issues that are unchanging in the world by any amount of discussion about it. Take action on it in a real, measurable, and meaningful way or cease the incessant rambling over it.
Good day, sir.
May your heart someday be warmed to the comfortable temperature of your mother’s basement where you spend the inordinate amounts of time debating with strangers you know nothing about and wouldn’t even dare to approach in real life.
Please take the hint.
God bless you, wandering mind.
Have a blessed day!
Did you mean inane or insane?
It's really depressing to see all the ,man-hating feminists here. But that just reinforces the points you make here.
The fact that you have to edit out comments just strengthens the assertions made here. As an older happily married female for over 40 years, I survey the landscape frequently when we are out and I am disheartened. I am saddened for the younger females generations - it seems they will never know the joy I have experienced in my marriage and my career!
If your husband gets prostate cancer, he will find that your fellow feminists made sure there is three times more taxpayer funding for breast cancer than prostate cancer.
I have two thoughts about this:
1) How was this an appropriate response to her comment?
2) Arguably, breast cancer poses is ~3x the burden that prostate cancer does. I think that when we prioritize interventions, we should account for the number of life-years lost from it, not simply the number of lives, and breast cancer affects women at younger ages than prostate cancer affects men.
Apologies for butting in here, mate... but, who made you judge and mediator of appropriateness in one's comments? It's a bloke and his thoughts. Nothing could be more appropriate than that.
Also, what defines burden in the eyes of those afflicted? Life-years is not really a measurable metric, nor is it technical jargon, so why resort to it? It's what leftists and those without merit in the argument tend to do most when the ground upon which they stand is shale, loose footing. They renegotiate the terms and redefine the language. I think you're better than that, mate.
Lastly, aren't YOU a man? Don't you have a pair of testes and a prostate? Please give them a tug and a poke, respectively, and sound off in solidarity of the team that you were born to play for.
Cheers!
I'm not interested in talking with someone who thinks of themselves as playing for a team instead of trying to find the truth.
Humanity as a whole, in its entirety, is my “team.” No sides, it’s not a competition to love all and live in peace, striving to bring Heaven to this earth, to care for all people everywhere and spend our lives serving others and living as Christ, with compassion and empathy for every last soul.
You should try it, it’s incredibly invigorating!
The less time spent thinking about yourself and listing your struggles, challenges, and obstacles, the more you quell the ego, allow space for true and honest growth, and pave the way for radical gratitude.
Again, peace to you, brother.
God bless.
As Pontius Pilate famously said, “What is truth?”
What truth do you perceive in all of this rhetoric and repeated platitudes? What truth are you trying to extract and refine to better understand your environment and define your own life experience?
There’s really only one Truth, one Life, and one Way. If it doesn’t align with the teaching of Christ and the Laws of The Father, it is a lie, a deception, and false to the core. That’s not the most popular opinion, but it’s my personal conviction.
God bless you, and may the Lord our God, the One True and Living Yahweh bring you peace, clarity, and happiness, by His grace.
Amen.
🙏
Breast cancer is NOT three times the burden - there are 20% more breast cancer deaths, but it gets 300% more funding.
If you want to look at life years lost, consider that men die at younger ages and in greater numbers from every major cause of death in the USA - but there are 10 offices for women’s health, but not even one for men’s health. There are four times more male suciides than female suicides, but there is no government program to address that
2 points Frank. In your initial reply to me you called me a feminist. Please define what you mean by that. Second, as a small business owner for 25 years, be thankful government is NOT more in “sick care”. It’s NOT healthcare. There is an unholy alliance between corporations and the government with regards to “healthcare”. I am 30 years a healthcare provider, & my family has several healthcare workers (big pharma reps, BSN, DO, OD…)in it. As for male suicides - my 40 yr old brother (BSN/firefighter) killed himself in 2004, and my 70 yr old brother (scientist) killed himself on the same date in 2025. I do have a window into that world and it’s ugly…..
The fact that you tragically lost two brothers to suicide will hopefully help you see that there is an absence of concern for men in the culture, and that nobody is doing anything about it.
I was aware of the threefold difference in funding from your other comments, which is why I specified "3x".
Your second paragraph moves the goalposts. Your original claim was that prostate cancer research is underfunded relative to breast cancer research, and I explained why that's incorrect.
I'm willing to discuss disparities in non-cancerous causes of death, but not until one of us concedes the original point--a point which you've ham-fistedly shoved into multiple points throughout the comment section.
What us the burden of breast cancer vs prostate cancer?
There are 20% more breast cancer deaths than prostate cancer deaths per year, but breast cancer gets 300% more funding. The American Cancer Society does this, as well as government agencies. I asked the ACS on Facebook how they could justify far more funding for breast cancer. Their answer was, “we want to fund where it does the most good”.
I'm seeing about 40% higher breast cancer incidence worldwide, and much higher burden of years lost (as it tends to be diagnosed earlier and progresses faster). Both are important, so why compete? Research into hormonal treatment can inform each other.
In the UK, there are now more prostate cancer cases than breast cancer cases.
The competition has come from feminists and their male enablers in the USA that created 10 offices for women’s health, but ignored men’s health.
By all means, if hormonal treatments can help both breast cancer and prostate cancer, I am for that.
As a mother of two pretty decent sons I am often disheartened by the vile comments I read. Have met many lovely young people, and some horrors…women and men. You often find wht you seek in people.
Feminism has power.
They've been indoctrinating three entire generations of women to hate men.
What he means is... women no longer have to take whatever men tell us and make due, and that threatens his sense of self.
Unlike feminists, I think women are powerful.
You clearly don’t. lol.
If you get falsely accused if rape - and about half of rape accusations are false - you will run crying to the nearest men’s rights group. They will laugh at you, and rightly so.
Rubbish.
Feminist statistics mean nothing.
Domestic violence is 50-50.
Initiation of violence is 70-30, women to men.
Pelicot was scum and deserves prison till he’s dead..
Weinstein, the male feminist, gave women what they wanted, stardom after they gave him their bodies.
Epstein had women trafficked to him by Maxwell, did you know she was a confounder of the Clinton Foundation?
“Rape academy”, you mean a porn site.
#MeToo I suffered domestic abuse from a woman, don't I count?
We'll take things that aren't happening for $400, Alex.
The kitchen is 👉 way….🙄
I understand the demands of moderating comment sections and appreciate it. I also understand why on some sites they turn off the comments on certain articles because they KNOW what's coming!
I think an article like this is always going to elicit many negative as well as positive reactions…and the author likely expected that. The problem is when people become abusive instead of giving their honest comments on a subject matter.
Unfortunately, any article where there's a comment section inevitably turns negative, because people are miserable. People don't know how to engage in polite, civil discourse.
This is an odd article. It seems like the sort of thing a wounded man would write after a break-up, but is posited as a semi-journalistic essay of social critique written by a very sympathetic woman. As a man myself, I have certainly met some women who fit the description of the embittered women the author presents as the new standard. But only a few. Most women seem pleasant to me. Then again, I don't assault or insult them or expect anything beyond the same consideration I give. I have also known men all my life, and I've always been surprised that so many women seem to be genuinely attracted to them. I write it off to reproductive biology. This fits with my observations (which are no better researched than the opinions in this article) that many women realize they prefer to be without men as they reach financial independence, menopause, or both. I can't be sure. I haven't interviewed dozens of women to get their thoughts on my hypothesis. Come to think of it, I didn't see any interview excerpts from any men for this article either...
I was simply putting together some research studies... not going out and interviewing a bunch of women!
We noticed it in your heavy anti-woman slant.
I understand that this is largely an opinion piece. But you are making claims that ascribe points of views to a large proportion of men. In my personal experience, it doesn't hold up. If this problem of men being completely turned off by feminists is as widespread as you claim there should be some supporting data.
Your White Knight comment is noted!
If you get prostate cancer, you will learn that your feminist pals in Congress made sure that three times more taxpayer funds are spent on breast cancer than prostate cancer. Then you will be a wounded man.
Well goody goody gumdrops for you dude but anyone that knows women under 40 know they are completely psychotic and unreasonable when it comes to men.
Thank you. Amen.
Says the bitter moron who is brainwashed by the media.
Reading the comments that remain I shudder thinking about the ones you deleted.
267 comments and but a few published.
Daresay the vitriol won.
Oh no however will we deal???
Oh please, like that wasn't your goal, you Sociopath.
Wow! You aren’t kidding! So much vitriol over a truthful article.
Except it was shit. Not truthful
If you get prostate cancer, you will learn that your feminist pals in Congress made sure that three times more taxpayer funds are spent on breast cancer than prostate cancer. Then you will be a wounded man.
OK simp
Your opinion, not shared by everyone obviously.
Everyone agreeing isn’t humanity; that’s satanic
C'moOon. Abusive and inane comments are my bread and butter here.
Right? Now I just want to read them more!
They can make for some entertaining reading.
Righto, subscribed then.
You are going to be busy!
"If there's war between the sexes, then there'll be no people left" -- Joe Jackson pop song (1982?).
Jordan Peterson encourages young men to pull their socks up and lead from the front, effectively challenging men to raise their status and attract females who will then select an acceptable male. Is there an equivalent leader grounded in research encouraging young women in whatever is the sustainable response to the rise of the pill and service economy, the destruction wrought by the welfare state, and the deleterious effects of whatever wave(s) of feminism they experienced? If not, a lot of unhappiness (e.g., unplanned childlessness), unfulfilled potential (e.g., the maturing from being a parent), or negative effects of a shrinking population (e.g., decline of the Ponzi-scheme welfare state) await all concerned.
So are you suggesting women stepping away from workforce and education just to be marriagiable and the men can come back to the function? I'm conservative enough to know the value of marriage of a healthy masculine man, but education and having a job is a basic human rights it doesn't even having anything to do with being a woman or man because guess what capitalism doesn't value those who don't add a direct value to society which means stay at home mothers. Even if women have chosen this path and have a good husband, what do you suggest she will do when he dies too early? How will she survive? Even the average working man is unable to provide alone to the family and intentionally choose to marry women who are willing to split the bills with them for better quality of life. Men themselves shame women who look at them like ATM they started now to require partnership and be looked at as partners. Funny, you assume the non feminist woman who ended up being stay at home mother like their men. Most of our grandmothers and some of their mothers were thinking if they have been feminine, nurturing tradwives, men would like them ending up being abused in marriages they can't leave so they have been forces to stay with men they don't like and had to sex with them not to be beaten up . Before social media, we had our mother and grandmothers telling us not to fully depend on a man. With the rising statistics of femicide, rape, pedophilia, and domestic abuse, it makes women feel unsafe to go on a date without sharing their locations with friends. Men don't even trust other men with their daughters' safety. Women negativity towards men isn't nonsense and not necessarily hating but fear. My worries to be killed, raped or abused by a gender who is biologically stronger than me is valid. However, I don't use it as a reason to hate men, and neither my education nor work was supposed to be used against men it's for survival and I don't think most women working and getting degrees intentionally to take a man place more they just want autonomy over their life choices not to end up in their mothers and grandmothers situations. If men are opting out workforce that's on them. I don't know why everything should be women's fault. I'm not advocating for wokeness, but education and the ability to get a job are basic human rights. Your claims are like saying black people don't deserve equal opportunities with white people because white people are the superior race and provided a lot of innovations to the world historically neglectong the fact they were enslaved before which I may not be surprised if you believe in that. Women don't owe men their bodies , their jobs, or even their affection if they are not treating them well. Women now don't need men to provide for them they just want a partner who shares their life with. Actually, women who want to be tradwives are more hypergamic than women who want a partnership because tradwives won't be able to be trad if their men won't be able to provide for a family alone. A working woman will accept men with lower wages because she can compensate financially for half of the bills. It's less financially stressful for men, but sure, women wanting basic human rights is just misnadrist for you.
They like to chat about the dresses they will wear tonight
They chew the fat about their tresses and the neighbor's fight
Inconsequential things that men don't really care to know
Become essential things that women find so ap-pro-pos
But that's a dame, they're all the same it's just a game they call it
Girl talk, girl talk
They all meow about the ups and downs of all their friends
The who, the how, the why, they dish the dirt, it never ends
The weaker sex, the "speaker" sex we mortal males behold
BUT THOUGH WE JOKE, WE WOULDN’T TRADE YOU FOR A TON OF GOLD
So baby stay and gab away, but hear me say that after
Girl talk, talk to me
So baby stay, and gab away, but hear me say
That after girl talk, talk to me
It's all been planned, so take my hand; please understand
The sweetest girl talk talks of me
How many of these men are addicted to online games?
I'm sure this article is true, but as a happily married old boomer, why aren't more of these idiotic young women looking towards Mom and Dad? Do they really think that young men are all scum, unlike Dad and Uncle Dave and Dad's old buddy Chuck? And Mom and Aunt Connie seem to be getting along fine with the old boys. Do they not think that humans haven't changed that much, except for shorter attention spans?
You have identified a problem, hypothesized the cause, may I ask your proposed solution?
Do you believe the cause is a symptom of a deeper issue or is it the original cause of the problem you identified?
I dunno. I have two adult daughters, two adult stepdaughters; three have found lovely men for boyfriends (2) or husband (1) and the fourth is focusing on an intensive education right now. I accept that some of this is true, but it also smacks of a sort of wishful narrative mixed with polemics. I'm way past experiencing any of this, but damn, I seem to be attending a lot of weddings this summer, crowded with happy-seeming exuberant young people, the marriages between dual-profession, smart, kind men and women (also some gay weddings). Maybe this is the margin, but it exists. No one said the middle was easy. One illusion is that "meritocracy" only applies to jobs and incomes; it also applies to EQ. Life is tough. It's a lot tougher elsewhere.
EQ doesn't exist.
I never thought it existed as a measurable index. I thought it was an analogy. And in that sense it certainly exists.
I used to adore women, the first two-thirds of my life. Now I savor peaceful solitude
So many newer kids shows and movies portray men as bumbling incompetent duffers. You don’t have to make men look weak in order to make women look strong. I just love Aragorn and Arwen; they were both grounded, competent, and courageous.
A very interesting read, quite similar to an article I wrote, however, this one dives directly at the value of marriage equation from the perspective of a man and hits feminism in the eyes. Well written!
So what do you propose as the solution? How should we reverse this?
Women are also institutionally shielded by social media and the MSM. Men don't get to cry to the MSM about a breakup unless they admit it is their fault somehow.
And to add to the prospectus: they are usually fat and uninterested in changing that and unaccomplished and think they are special despite doing nothing interesting.
> Encountering these women isn’t much fun for men. Reddit recently published this telling comment: “It’s exhausting. You might be having a decent conversation, then she drops a casual “men suck” comment like it’s small talk. Feels like you’re starting every interaction with a presumption of guilt.”
I want to point something out here. Men hate feminism. Women hate men. The difference seems to be that men identify the poison as an ideology that is temporarily changing the behavior of women, whereas women just believe that whatever they're observing is just the true essence of all men.
I won't go into arguing why I think the ideology angle and temporary change angle make more sense than the true, permanent essence angle. Instead, I want to point out the cognitive difference of arriving at either of these conclusions. If you are so locked-in that you believe your current observation represents a true and permanent essence, then you are less observant and more prone to confabulation than someone who recognizes nuance and temporality. This difference is the gradient that men have to fight in. It's not simply a difference of opinion. It's a difference of methodology of thought, which most men aren't really capable of elucidating to women, and most women aren't really capable of seeing in themselves.
AI will wipe out far more female jobs than male jobs. So I think this "female victory" is going to be short-lived. I guess the future isn't female after all. Lmao!
There are two other issues that feed into this that, rarely, get discussed because they're triggering. Birth control and Abortion. The pill mostly shifted when women had children, not whether they did. It moved births from the early-to-mid twenties into the late twenties and thirties. If we take America as an example (but this is true elsewhere), it also had massive secondary effects such as participation rates among women born in 1955 were 24 percentage points higher at age 25 and 20 percentage points higher at age 30 than those of women born in 1940, as the "fertility dip" in female labour force participation disappeared. That labour market integration then does feed back into completed family size over generations, but indirectly. The pill's primary demographic legacy, then, is spacing and timing with some long-run reduction in total fertility through the indirect economic pathway, not a simple headcount subtraction. Access to abortion significantly reduces motherhood, and does so primarily among women who in the counterfactual would have had small families. The legalisation of abortion in pre-Roe states led to a 4% to 11% decline in births in those states relative to the rest of the country, with particularly large effects for teens and women of colour, who experienced birth rate reductions nearly three times greater than the overall population. Cumulative numbers are striking. Commonly cited totals for US abortions coinciding with Gen Z birth years (roughly 1997–2012) alone run to around 24–26 million, framed as roughly one quarter to one third of the generation although researchers modelling net population effects when accounting for behavioral adaptation arrive at much smaller figures. If you model the removal of both you end-up with an upper range population size in the USA of 400-500m instead of todays 340m. What makes the upper range plausible is second-order effects: the children never born in 1965–1980 are also not having their children, and grandchildren, cascading down. A 10% reduction in one generation becomes roughly a 19% reduction by the third, even holding TFR constant. This compounding is what pushes some models well above 400 million, and now we have men going 'nope' to marriage as well (very much simplified it's also college educated women refusing to marry guys who aren't equally well educated which is especially ironic as now the majority of students are female). So we have: Fewer marriages → fewer children → smaller working-age cohort → heavier dependency ratio → fiscal pressure on state. Meanwhile, fewer marriages → lower male productivity → lower household wealth accumulation → higher poverty rates → greater state expenditure. Both vectors point the same direction and they're pulling simultaneously. The really uncomfortable structural observation is this: the pill and abortion shifted fertility timing and reduced family size. That reduced the population base. The male marriage retreat now compounds that by reducing the economic productivity of those who are here, while simultaneously suppressing the next generation's formation rate further. Western democracies have essentially been quietly liquidating their demographic and social capital for sixty years through a series of individually rational, culturally valorised choices with each one defensible in isolation, collectively constituting something that looks, in aggregate, like slow civilisational drawdown. Whether that's a crisis or a transition to a different equilibrium is the genuinely open question. Japan offers one possible preview of the endpoint. It isn't especially encouraging. Sorry for the long reply your article was great and inspired additional words ;)