First, I appreciate how you expertly weaved together several arguments from multiple writers, and I'm so gratified to know that my writing has contributed to that. Secondly, I think we read some of the same sources; I saw those charts somewhere this week too. I've been thinking about this a lot since I read Of Boys and Men. I think the Democratic party needs to speak to men, specifically, and offer solutions to lift them up and enable their economic mobility. They need to see that this will only be good for women, because several in the upper economic echelons can't find partners, and there's a dearth of men with degrees in comparison to women. We can't force women to date down, because we're simply not evolutionarily wired that way and because two incomes are needed to raise a child.
Many I know want a kid but can't find a man who can pool resources with them. Dems are constantly talking about things women need, like affordable child care, but no one is talking about the specific needs of men who have been trapped in poverty and drug addiction. I appreciate your point that social media is working against their interests while also fomenting hatred for men among women.
Finally, I'm curious if you have any thoughts on what men might need to further hear from a women about this topic. I want to go in that direction but I don't want to limit myself to romantic advice.
Thanks for the kind words. Your writing has informed a lot of my thinking on the so-called gender divide and how men and women could support each other more.
In terms of what men need to hear from a woman, good relationship advice might be good life advice. I think men are desperate to hear a compliment. There is a lot of information out there about how men should not be and very little about what makes for a good man. My wife is generous about giving me compliments — usually some mix of recognizing household work, my caring for others, and displaying a quiet confidence. (I try to be equally generous in how I compliment her.) But I get the sense that most of my male friends rarely receive a compliment and have given up trying to get one. Inevitably, it creates an atmosphere of mutual resentment.
My partner has also told me that my complimenting and encouraging him has given him confidence to succeed outside the home and that I’ve encouraged a sort of positive masculinity in him by not demonizing and instead exalting so-called male traits of leadership and fortitude. So, I appreciate this. I think I have much to say from my experience of divorce, especially.
Oof, this was a tough read. I think there are a few things to think about that aren't included here. First, when a person (any person) has been hurt (like by a system), it's natural for them to go against it. To feel anger towards the thing that hurt them. Women have been oppressed forever - we know this. It's a natural and normal thing for them to feel angry and to express that anger. I don't think we should be shaming women for their anger. Maybe we can perhaps empathize with that hurt. I'm not saying it's productive, but perhaps we can extend some grace? To me, I think of these "angry feminists" you mention at the beginning of their healing journey. As they move along and move through it (which hopefully they do!), they discover that men, too, suffer deeply in the system we've created. Just in a different way. They suffer from loneliness, from not feeling like they have community, from not learning or understanding their emotions. The republican party, I think, is trying to offer them that sense of community. They're being sold this idea that as women rise, the men are losing something, that they need to TAKE it back. It's not a helpful mindset or narrative. To me, it's sad all around.
I think that is a great point, Marsha, and it’s something I can relate to. I grew up with less money and fewer credentials than most of the people around me. Deep down, I was angry, and that anger motivated a class consciousness that still informs my politics. It took me a long time to learn — in fact, I’m still learning — that someone isn’t a bad person just because they grew up rich and went to some prep school.
In fact, part of the “lack of grace” I may have showed the group of women who tried to get me fired is that they are all upper-class and mostly went to expensive liberal arts colleges. If it had been a working class woman from a town in Mexico, I know my reaction would have been different.
Anger and resentment can be useful when directed in the spirit of helping others, but it’s dangerous when it turns to righteous, mean spirited bullying. I’ve been to enough feminist conferences by now to recognize that kind of mean spirited bullying that reminds me of Trump.
Chimamanda Ngozi Adichi took on a lot of flak from feminists when she published an essay about the dynamic. I found it incredibly brave. It’s hard to find the courage to point out the bad stuff about the community whose opinion you value the most.
I would take issue with your statement. For most of human history, there was no such thing as a house wife. Humans lived in tribes hunting and gathering. Men and women divided up work based on their comparative advantages. There was no patriarchy.
Formal society only came after productive agriculture. Even then, people worked in areas where they did the work that needed to be done.
Now, this does not matter if you think bearing children is "oppression." If that is the case, then I cannot argue with you. Your anger is directed at nature, not human societal and social structures. If you are someone who simply wants women to have the freedom to flourish, then rules preventing females attending public education and such are really quite recent (the last century or two).
Most men are happy to change society so women can positively contribute to the country. What makes us uncomfortable are the mental health crisis as activism types, who scream at the injustice of women not being able to give birth at the age of 45, or women not possessing upper body strength, or other raging psychotic views that have become shockingly common. There is nothing a sane person can do with such individuals. For reasons we cannot understand, many young women have been joining the ranks of the anti-nature squad.
I am more worried about isolated men because they are dangerous, as opposed to annoying. As Christianity fades, humanity will regress to the natural sexual preferences of humanity (high status males get many females, most men get none). This will create great instability. We have already gotten a taste of it in the African-American community, but the rest of us are half way there already. What to do with those leftover men will define our society going forward. As much as women hate to acknowledge it, their greatest contribution is their children. Most men contribute nothing and a handful of men do more. In a world where women do not bear children, they will join the worthless pile of men. So we have even more dead weight,
The solutions to these problems are all extreme and violent. It may turn out that Christianity was some really useful social technology. No matter what, the current mental masturbation consuming too many pseudo-intellectuals is not helping any one. If we keep decomposing as a culture, our collapse will be inevitable. Perhaps the Mormons or the Muslims will do better than we have. If we want to preserve our unique Western culture, then we need to start having babies again. At current trends, Europe will disappear in two generations, replaced by Muslims.
We keep arguing pointless debates while our civilizations are racing into oblivion. It makes me wonder the Gulf states are funding radical feminism in an intergenerational plan to take over the west over the next two to three generations.
I feel like I just got told to just “smile more” ;)
I think it’s interesting that you are focused on women’s anger. What I’m seeing right now among the left and intersectional feminists in the US is an embracing of the idea that we don’t have to conform to trad gender roles or institutions, and there’s a lot of joy and liberation in that realization and feeling of autonomy. But it’s also showing up as lots of women opting out of marriage and kids - likely because in our patriarchal society unfortunately those are life choices that reinforce and entrench inequality. This opting out entirely is really pissing off white dudes who are terrified of losing their privilege, and there is a very angry backlash on their part.
The recent joy and energy around Harris’ nomination and the cat-lady “insults” from Vance (and subsequent joyful OWNING of that stereotype) have demonstrated this perceived threat so clearly. So explain how women’s anger is the problem? This seems like more normalizing of men’s anger and telling women to suppress ours.
Meanwhile, we are still fighting for basic bodily autonomy, and watching women die because our rights are being rolled back, all in a desperate effort to keep women in their place. So hell yes, on a systems level we are angry! And I hope that we stay angry because smiling and accepting our fate is far more dangerous. In fact, I wish more men would get angry about these things and speak out more to change them. But giving up the perks of patriarchy is a tough pill to swallow.
I think an important distinction is the one between how we view ourselves and beliefs on an individual level, vs. the collective, or how we channel our anger with the inequitable systems in place that continue to harm us. We can be angry about what’s going on at the national (or global, or even company) level and channel that to work to dismantle patriarchal norms that foster things like suppressed male emotions and female perfectionism, without that anger being responsible for all the problems of our day-to-day life and personal relationships. It’s not an either/or. We can do the (very different) work in both arenas.
You don’t need to smile with me, my friend. I don’t want to come off as nitpicking, but can you quote the parts of the piece that strike you as focused on women’s anger and blaming women?
We can’t know for sure, but my sense isn’t that more young men are voting Republican because they feel threatened by women and want to control them. I’m sure there is some minority that feels that way, but I think it’s small. My sense is that young men don’t feel welcome in the democratic coalition. I want many more progressive men who advocate for women’s rights while feeling positive about their masculinity.
My fear is that we’re headed toward a gender segregated future where republicans become the party of me and dems of women.
🙂 As far as the parts that focus on women's anger, I guess I felt like the thread - from the opening anecdote about your experience (which I agree was a ridiculous accusation on their part!) to the end about women being less judgemental, was that feminist anger is causing a lot of the gender divide and therefore, a problem. I'm (too?) sensitive to it for sure. But when we simply ask for equal rights and freedom, dudes like Plato come out of the woodwork to tell us why we don't need to be free because they know what's best, so please just get back in your place (and stop being so angry). It's exhausting.
I think it's a important point that young men need to feel more welcome in the Dem party. I haven't really thought about it that way because the party (politics) has been so dominated by men, but they are mostly old. I really feel like the Harris campaign to-date has tried to create an atmosphere of including everyone, and it's been joyful. Everyone cheered on the "white dudes for Harris" call that raised over $4M. But it's hard to say what is representative or including new young folks since this country is so diverse.
I always appreciate your takes, and I know you're on team equity - thanks for indulging my pushback :)
The only thing I love more than equity is democracy. And while I like to think that they march together, Dulce and I have had an interesting back on forth on the frequent tension between the two and what it means for our politics.
I’m mystified by the energy of “white dudes for Harris.” What a weird way to organize. What do these guys have in common and how would a Harris presidency benefit them? I’d get “dads for Harris” or “autoworkers for Harris.” But white guys organizing around their racial and gender identity? It makes no sense.
Meanwhile, Black Lives Matter issued a statement I largely agree with:
“Democratic Party elites and billionaire donors are attempting to manipulate Black voters by anointing Kamala Harris and an unknown vice president as the new Democratic ticket without a primary vote by the public. While the potential outcome of a Harris presidency may be historic, the process to achieve it must align with true democratic values. We have no idea where Kamala Harris stands on the issues. Installing Kamala Harris as the Democratic nominee and an unknown vice president without any public voting process would make the modern Democratic Party a party of hypocrites. It would undermine their credibility on issues related to democracy. Imagine our first Black woman president not having won some sort of public nomination process. The pundits would immediately label it as affirmative action or a DEI move, and any progress made by a President Harris would be on shaky foundations.”
In other words, we should evaluate candidates by their policies and not just their racial or gender identity. Obviously, I’m voting for Harris and relieved by the enthusiasm about her campaign. But also, what a weird weird moment in identitarian politics!
Democracy vs. equity - interesting debate - the first thing that comes to mind for me is how can you have a true democracy with systematically inequitable access to participation in it?
It IS kinda weird, but the white dudes thing is more to make a point that just because they are white dudes doesn't mean they are going to vote for Trump, which demographically we know white dudes do. To your previous point of creating an example for young white dudes in the Democratic party....
Wow that BLM statement is bizarre to me! This situation is unprecedented, and a big part of the decision came out of urgency. But also she was already VP, would have been on the ticket if Biden had stayed in, and would have automatically become president if anything happened to him during either term. And the people already voted for that ticket. It wasn't just some random black woman - in fact it has nothing to do with her being a black woman. Also, "we have no idea where she stands on the issues"?! Really? She already ran a primary and has been VP for 4 years, what else are we going to learn in a (massively accelerated) primary campaign? And we're also talking about an election in 3 months against someone who says "vote for me, and you'll never have to vote again." I'm not saying we shouldn't call out or hold the parties accountable to the democratic process, but in that case, what about systematic black voter oppression? The electoral college? Gerrymandering?
All I can think is - Really, this is the hill you want to die on?! Mmkay.
I think a key issue is that feminist anger is an important tool for us to use and channel towards continuing to forward the cause of women and our interests. I personally feel that anger towards a subset of men: rich men continuing to hold the highest areas of power and misogynists who take their distress out on the women in their lives. I think that there is an uncomfortable amount of sweeping hostility towards men as a whole for something they cannot control-their sex. I think we should remain disgusted by examples of unacceptable behavior and loudly call it out. But I think we should also uplift struggling young men with examples to strive for. I’ve noticed an unwillingness to try to uplift young men in liberal spaces, and that unfortunately leads lost men towards people like Jordan Peterson or god forbid Andrew Tate
I always find it troubling that people hate on Jordan Peterson or compare him to that monster Tate. What has Peterson said that is so offensive? That men should not commit suicide or hurt other people? Is that really so bad? Do people really believe he is anti-trans (he is not) just because he did not want random laws that could be used to imprison anyone based on banned speech that was never defined?
In addition, anger is not something that translates into positive action. Optimists rule the world. Rage and anger lead to misery. Hating successful men will never bring women up. If you want to have successful female executives, you need more female engineering graduates and elite MBA's. You need to invest in women by pooling capital. CEO's are not distributed by government agencies. These are individuals who built companies and created wealth. You can make political offices 50% female, but for companies you need to convince women to take enormous risks, then work themselves close to death to achieve success. It will be difficult and fewer women desire such lifestyles. The worst thing you could do is hold an unreasonable position, like assuming that CEO's are lucky and get picked randomly. Jenson Huang, the guy who founded Nvidia, he left a great job to make better video games. Everyone thought he was an idiot. He proved them all wrong, and did nothing but work for the last thirty years. If you want more female CEO's, you need to make them want that lifestyle. Most men crave this because it is the only way a short, weak gamer will ever get laid. Obviously such motivations will not work for women. You will need to find new motivations.
In general, I think most of us want the same thing (nothing limiting the ambitions of people save their abilities and drive). Everyone loses when intelligent women are kept from jobs where they would thrive. We mostly disagree on strategies to get there. What I cannot understand are the willful lies surrounding good people like Peterson who are just trying to reduce the suicide rate and keep young men from crime or a fentanyl overdose. If guys like Peterson are driven away and discouraged, only the Andrew Tate characters will remain. We cannot survive that. It would only take a few thousand men like him to bring down a city. A million would bring America into anarchy and death. Antifa are populated by Andre Tate-type guys with a better publicist.
I guess it wasn’t clear with my phrasing but I see Peterson as an example of what men are looking for in terms of inspiration, but with views I disagree with occasionally (he promotes the idea of hierarchies quite a bit and is very very traditional). Overall though, I think his message of pulling yourself up and finding meaning is a good one. We don’t really have a liberal version of Peterson that promotes that sort of self efficacy and an idea of what positive masculinity could look like the way Peterson does, so men head towards the right due to a vacuum of inspiration on the left. I believe Tate is scummy disgusting garbage compared to Peterson, hence the “God forbid” distinguisher.
"But it’s also showing up as lots of women opting out of marriage and kids - likely because in our patriarchal society unfortunately those are life choices that reinforce and entrench inequality."
I think this is true. We have feminism to thank for redefining natural female behaviour as 'patriarchal oppression'. Throughout history there have always been outliers who opted out of the reproductive cycle, but for most women this has always been a recipe for 40+ years of intense regret, loneliness and mental health issues.
Ironically, the feminist narrative that marriage and parenting was 'oppression' would never have washed with women in the past, when homemaking was hard manual labour (washing clothes by hand, darning, preparing food from scratch, preserving food for the winter, tending to goats, chickens and the allotment, making her husband a sandwich and taking it out to the fields for him to eat during the harvest etc etc). When woman's work was a) backbreaking and b) essential for survival women felt a strong sense of identity and worth - as women. As valuable and contributing members of society.
The feminist narrative only took hold AFTER mod cons (invented by men) created a whole generation of bored housewives with lots of free time on their hands and an easy, soft lifestyle which allowed them to swap practical clothing and practical skills with a sassy attitude and modern dress and makeup (like, all day long) - allowing them to extend and heighten their youthful sexual power over men, and therefore remain in a permanent adolescent state (think Sex and the City). This permanent state of adolescent beauty can now be enjoyed from adolescence right through until 30 or even 40 if you have enough products. This allows women to completely skip out the 'young adult' part of their life and jump directly from adolescent to crone.
Today the modern feminist is now able to use social media and OF to both play the eternal victim and bleed men of their resources in return for garish makeup, cleavage or even nudity, without offering anything of actual value in return. Not to him or to society at large. This, we are told is 'progress' and 'female empowerment'. The mental health of women, and particularly leftist women is at an all time low with the MAJORITY of leftist women now on anti depressant medication.
Women in the past (before feminism) enjoyed and appreciated their role, loved their children, loved being the boss of their household, and loved their husbands and appreciated the work he put into supporting the family. She even enjoyed making him a sandwich because she was not insecure about her place in society. She felt a huge sense of sense worth, knowing that society would collapse without her unique female contributions.
Today most women do jobs which are not necessary (HR etc) and when women have gone on strike generally nobody notices (there are no power outages, the food does not run out). The one job which desperately needs doing is parenting. Children being thrown to the state (the patriarchy) from age 4 to 16 is not only child abandonment but child abuse. But feminism has convinced women that children require no special attention, and that even raising your own child is optional, an annoyance and a menial task that can be outsourced to strangers so you can get back to your HR department and a bit of shopping at lunch.
To have one's identity and gender role denigrated and devalued in this way has been utterly devastating for women and for society as a whole. Feminism is without doubt the worst oppression women have faced in history.
I think it’s great that we now have so much choice now to define how we live our lives. My wife and I decided not to have children and we are far from suffering loneliness, regret, or mental health issues.
I don’t understand this desire to tell other people how they should live their lives. I don’t get it when feminists criticize trad wives, and I don’t get why you would denigrate a woman who works in HR and enjoys fashion. There are many ways to live a fulfilled life. As the old saying goes, “we seek to control others when we are not in full ownership of ourselves.”
Do understand that if we stop having children, our ways die with us. The Muslims are still having children. That will be the future of humanity. I understand. My wife and I are not having children either, but we are harming our country and our culture by doing so. The humanity that survives us will be one of polygamy and actual female oppression.
"I think it’s great that we now have so much choice now to define how we live our lives."
Unless you want to raise your own children naturally (AKA 'stay at home mother') which - thanks to decades of feminism halving wages and doubling taxes - is now a privilege reserved for rich people only.
"My wife and I decided not to have children and we are far from suffering loneliness, regret, or mental health issues"
Well that's great. As I said there will always be outliers. And if you made a choice that is not really what I am talking about. But a lot of young women today genuinely believe they can pursue a career/ clubbing/ only fans lifestyle throughout their 20's (and perhaps longer) and then pick up a quality man, marry and settle down to have kids when it suits them (when they begnto lose their SMV). This is a delusion. Even Emma Watson is now a childless femcel (female incel) after spending her 20's 'living the dream' as feminism's golden girl and spokeswoman for UN Women.
Also birth rates are plummeting and we are facing a demographic collapse unprecedented in history. What happens when there are not enough young people to support a massive ageing population? This is already the situation today, and even if birth rates went back to normal tomorrow (they keep getting worse) this still would not be able to stop a catastrophe in the coming decades.
Even the men who WANT to get married and have a family are now dropping out because feminist policies have made a) marriage far too risky and dangerous for them b) modern women insufferable to date and the furthest thing from wife material.
"I don’t understand this desire to tell other people how they should live their lives"
It's pretty straightforward. Telling young, impressionable women that they can 'be anything' and 'have it all' and that they SHOULD 'aim higher' than 'just' getting married and having a family is very profitable for feminist authors, bloggers, influencers .... and it furthers the careers of politicians and woke corporations ... and in the long term it makes lots of money for the drug industry too (anti depressants).
The car crash lives of unstable women, single mothers, high crime 'man desert' neighbourhoods etc is converted into huge profits for the prison industrial complex, abortion clinics and an excuse for the continual expansion of government programs and global think thanks and agencies. They all profit from social dysfunction and social collapse.
When black neighbourhoods were dominated by traditional family values there was no crime or social decay, even in the most poor neighbourhoods. Once welfare was introduced which incentivised reckless living by young women and terrible mate selection (with no marriage at all) crime went through the roof and now we have a gang culture and single mother epidemic.
"I don’t get it when feminists criticize trad wives"
Trad wives are living proof that feminism's patriarchy theory is nonsense and that women who trust and love their men are the furthest thing from oppressed.
"....and I don’t get why you would denigrate a woman who works in HR and enjoys fashion"
It's not denigration to point out how feminist policies and attitude have had a negative effect on women's lives. It's just an observation.
"There are many ways to live a fulfilled life"
Sure, but some lifestyles do lead to misery, regret, suffering, social breakdown and the collapse of civilisation. Feminism is one of those lifestyles unfortunately. The facts bear this out.
There is so much unsubstantiated nonsense here that I don't know where to start, but I'l just say thank you for demonstrating exactly the point I was making: men feel so threatened by women's autonomy and freedom that they feel the need to control them. You couldn't have made it clearer!
1. "unsubstantiated nonsense" .... Everything I said is factual.
2. "men feel so threatened by women's autonomy" ... I think men are right to feel threatened by women's autonomy. Anything else is insulting and belittling. A respectful man understand that women are also adults with free will which means they are perfectly capable of doing bad things to him.
To imply women do not pose a threat to men is belittling and objectifying. A woman can destroy a man's life with a single false accusation. He will lose his house , career, access to his children - the lot! Men do not have this power.
3. "feel the need to control" .... So in a healthy relationship women offer men VALUE in return for the things men offer to them. It is a mutual and consensual exchange. Both serve and provide for the needs of the other.
Feminists don't offer men anything of value, and instead use a THREAT NARRATIVE and DISPLAYS OF VICTIMHOOD to control men's behaviour and extract resources from them (he for she). Basically feminists use shaming tactics and false accusations (patriarchy theory is a false accusation). So feminists win the prize for being the most controlling and manipulative.
4. "freedom" ..... feminists are not free. They are trapped in a narrative which defines them as powerless victims of male dominance. While this does work as a way to control men through shame, it is ultimately a trap for women too because it means having to always play the victim and place men above you.
Feminism is essentially a Male Power Fantasy because feminism defines women as having no autonomy (helpless victims) and men as having total autonomy (all powerful patriarchs).
Critics of feminism are different because they recognise women's agency (both today and throughout history) and do not think that women were ever 'oppressed' by men.
If you start out with the notion that traditional gender roles were 'imposed' onto women by men then obviously you are going to always be offended by behaviour and attitudes that are feminine, because (in the feminist world view) femininity = lack of autonomy, lack of agency, lack of choice, lack of free will and defeat.
But this is because feminism views women through the lens of MALE power and MALE consciousness which is very different. Natural femininity is a state of being which is very different to masculinity.
Feminists have been taught to look down on femininity and try to self actualise by embracing masculine behaviours, identities and ambitions instead (like being a CEO, politician or fighter pilot). This is why feminists are more likely than normal women to end up with mental health issues and a lot of regret in later life.
Achieving success in masculine terms often PREVENTS you from being able to self actualise in feminine terms - as a woman - not just because you are living a kind of pseudo masculine life, but also because you've just spent 10 - 20 years competing with men in their sphere, instead of attending to your own uniquely female drives and ambitions as a woman.
Thanks to generations of feminist propaganda if you promote the idea of pursuing a distinctly feminine life path you will get attacked and labelled a misogynist!
Don't forget feminism was very much a creation of the ruling classes (the 'patriarchy'). It was funded by the Rockefellers who admitted they just wanted to get women into the (male) workplace to be taxed like men, and get children away from their mothers at the earliest possible age and into the state indoctrination camps. It worked!
Zach de la Rocha said "anger is a gift", homie. :)
I'm scratching my head a bit with this post because looking around, there's a damn nuclear war happening against women's rights. Not only do I want to see women angry, I want to find ways to support their anger, even if some of it is directed to me as a representative of "men." What I don't see above are the data illustrating the largest regression of women's rights in the United States and why blame is exactly what is needed. A man who won a presidency after losing a popular vote was given power to nominate other men to a lifetime of judicial power that is now mingled with some idea of divine order to regress women's rights. And, hey, he's coming for more!
What else is there but anger and blame? And why should men ask women to tone it down?
I can understand your points above that, at the end of the day, we need a lot more discourse than just spraying blame everywhere and/or generalizing that blame to an entire population of people. But I also don't think we should diminish that there is a party out there right now running a very open message that white men should be back in large scale power in this country. And if it doesn't happen, there will be violence. And that violence will be directed to women, to minorities, to anyone nonconforming to whatever "norms" they've outlined. What then?
I agree. The anger is justified and I’d love to see it leveraged to expand women’s rights and diminish male violence. (Rather than performatively posting photos of thighs or trying to get someone like me fired for a harmless tweet.)
When has anger ever helped anyone? Seriously, when? Name a dozen angry men you admire and trust? It is a negative emotion. It helps nothing. We a can only build a better society by making positive, well thought-out changes. Too often, anger leads to rushed decisions and mistakes that result in backlash.
We need to get rid of that anger and focus on improvement. No one listens to screaming people making demands. The increasingly hysterical nature of American politics is helping no one. That is a game men like Trump know how to win. Let's stop handing it to them.
I always wondered how so many people willing took up the victim label and called it empowerment. It is really sad, and frustrating. Rich white ladies have decided that they are horrifically oppressed, spending their time trying to get random people fired so they can feel joy in his children's suffering.
The military continues to do a good job of creating heros, but I fear for the young men who never find their way into that proper head space. They seem to be a growing number every day, and they are angry. I have met more angry racist young men in the last few years than in the previous forty. If we do not change course, it will only be a question of time until poor whites begin to organize and demand their share, and our democracy will fail. There are millions of single mothers hard at work to make this happen. I have seen it in my own family. It is terrifying. These women will denigrate all males in front of their sons, say their father is worthless, then say "you are just like your father" to little boys. It is like a grooming school for psychopaths. Donald Trump is simply the beginning.
I hope I am wrong. I hope the lost boys find their way to the military or some other place to man up. The consequences of modern victim culture could be horrifying. I have read old Nazi speeches. They read just like feminist diatribes, only replace "the Jews" for "the patriarchy." We know how that mindset always ends.
I see you're getting a bunch of comments on this. It's not your best - or maybe it is good because it's provoking responses. I see others have made valuable points and corrections (esp. @annadlc).
But I want to hone in on the tweet/apology point. I've been in pretty close to that exact position (casual comment/tweet-> feminist outrage -> HR called in). It was a learning experience and I still have bruises. And I do think that some of my tormentors were disproportionate and mean, over-sensitive, etc. But my learning is that it's good to apologize - even for harm you didn't mean to cause. Even for things that don't seem harmful. Even when the demander seems disingenuous or incorrect. Apologies are very very cheap and go a long way to righting the social and emotional boat so you can get back to sailing. They also (should) require some introspection and reflection, "why did I say that? what did I think would happen? why did something else happen?" and "could I have done/said something different? was I thinking of everyone who might be affected?" One thing I learned is that people in positions of power and privilege have an obligation to be more careful, more mindful. We can't just say whatever pops up. It doesn't seem fair. But that's what structural inequality means. Our words and interactions are more influential and powerful - even if we don't realize it or wish it to be true.
So now, when asked to apologize, I think - what principle or value am I upholding by refusing to apologize? Is it that I should be able to say whatever I want? Or that I should be interpreted correctly? Or that other people should be less sensitive?
I recently apologized in a very public way for something that, technically, I didn't do. I could have argued the point. I was annoyed because there were a lot of bad-faith arguments and old resentments involved. But, it was a way of healing a rift and, importantly, putting it behind me.
Usually, an apology is a way to say "hey - I see you and acknowledge your importance and feelings." So I just do it and it makes the world better. I'm much more proud of the times I have apologized than the times I refused to.
I appreciate you taking the time to draft and share this comment. Usually, I would respond in private. But I'll respond in public since the unabashed point of this post was to, however, modestly, influence The Culture.
A previous version of me relates to your impulse to apologize in a very public way for something that you didn't do so that others feel acknowledged, and so that you don't have to deal with the unpleasantries of conflict.
To put a finer point on it, it used to be that I would apologize to any woman, person of color, or LGBQT person in a way that I would never apologize to a straight, white male. In a similar vein, I stopped challenging the arguments of my female colleagues for fear of perceived mansplaining. Frequently, I endorsed their views even when I disagreed so that they would like and accept me.
It took a couple of friends (of color) to point out how insidious and patronizing this can become when you adjust your principles and behaviors based on a (rapidly evolving) demographic status hierarchy.
We agree about the value of introspection, but I have learned that introspection doesn't have to end in self-criticism. I stand by my tweet and decision not to apologize. If I were in their shoes, if I was offended on behalf of others by something I read on Twitter, I would reach out directly. It would never occur to me to ask someone's employer to fire them. And if I did, then I would introspect, and I would apologize for my behavior.
So what is the value of saying what you believe instead of what others would prefer to hear? It doesn't make you more popular, or more liked. It certainly doesn't get you elected. But to be the most genuine version of me makes me love myself more. It clarifies my relationships with those who love me for who I am as much as how I make them feel.
After all, the Golden Rule goes both ways: treat others how you'd like to be treated. But also, expect to be treated how you treat others.
I’m currently reading The Coddling of the American Mind and I really like the book. The authors organize their thoughts around three untruths: Fragility, Emotional Reasoning and Us Versus Them: Life is a Battle. As a teacher, I’ve observed these truths play out in my school and among the students for the past 5 years mostly, probably the worst between 2019-2023. My only interest in reading this book and things like your Substack is merely to learn and understand. I say this because after being on Substack for some time now, I’m starting to see some of the negatives for me: writers who for some reason think they are experts or think their ideas are the correct ideas, and writers who seem to judge. When it comes to feminism, I stand on the side of Chelsea Handler, she just does it for me.
I like how modern men think they are clever because they’re blaming “feminists” instead of “feminism” for women feeling miserable and poor men feeling oh so beat down. You aren’t. Men having been blaming feminism, and feminists, for any woe or bad feeling men might feel at any women calling any man out for misogyny. This isn’t new, or interesting.
First, I appreciate how you expertly weaved together several arguments from multiple writers, and I'm so gratified to know that my writing has contributed to that. Secondly, I think we read some of the same sources; I saw those charts somewhere this week too. I've been thinking about this a lot since I read Of Boys and Men. I think the Democratic party needs to speak to men, specifically, and offer solutions to lift them up and enable their economic mobility. They need to see that this will only be good for women, because several in the upper economic echelons can't find partners, and there's a dearth of men with degrees in comparison to women. We can't force women to date down, because we're simply not evolutionarily wired that way and because two incomes are needed to raise a child.
Many I know want a kid but can't find a man who can pool resources with them. Dems are constantly talking about things women need, like affordable child care, but no one is talking about the specific needs of men who have been trapped in poverty and drug addiction. I appreciate your point that social media is working against their interests while also fomenting hatred for men among women.
Finally, I'm curious if you have any thoughts on what men might need to further hear from a women about this topic. I want to go in that direction but I don't want to limit myself to romantic advice.
Thanks for the kind words. Your writing has informed a lot of my thinking on the so-called gender divide and how men and women could support each other more.
In terms of what men need to hear from a woman, good relationship advice might be good life advice. I think men are desperate to hear a compliment. There is a lot of information out there about how men should not be and very little about what makes for a good man. My wife is generous about giving me compliments — usually some mix of recognizing household work, my caring for others, and displaying a quiet confidence. (I try to be equally generous in how I compliment her.) But I get the sense that most of my male friends rarely receive a compliment and have given up trying to get one. Inevitably, it creates an atmosphere of mutual resentment.
My partner has also told me that my complimenting and encouraging him has given him confidence to succeed outside the home and that I’ve encouraged a sort of positive masculinity in him by not demonizing and instead exalting so-called male traits of leadership and fortitude. So, I appreciate this. I think I have much to say from my experience of divorce, especially.
Oof, this was a tough read. I think there are a few things to think about that aren't included here. First, when a person (any person) has been hurt (like by a system), it's natural for them to go against it. To feel anger towards the thing that hurt them. Women have been oppressed forever - we know this. It's a natural and normal thing for them to feel angry and to express that anger. I don't think we should be shaming women for their anger. Maybe we can perhaps empathize with that hurt. I'm not saying it's productive, but perhaps we can extend some grace? To me, I think of these "angry feminists" you mention at the beginning of their healing journey. As they move along and move through it (which hopefully they do!), they discover that men, too, suffer deeply in the system we've created. Just in a different way. They suffer from loneliness, from not feeling like they have community, from not learning or understanding their emotions. The republican party, I think, is trying to offer them that sense of community. They're being sold this idea that as women rise, the men are losing something, that they need to TAKE it back. It's not a helpful mindset or narrative. To me, it's sad all around.
I think that is a great point, Marsha, and it’s something I can relate to. I grew up with less money and fewer credentials than most of the people around me. Deep down, I was angry, and that anger motivated a class consciousness that still informs my politics. It took me a long time to learn — in fact, I’m still learning — that someone isn’t a bad person just because they grew up rich and went to some prep school.
In fact, part of the “lack of grace” I may have showed the group of women who tried to get me fired is that they are all upper-class and mostly went to expensive liberal arts colleges. If it had been a working class woman from a town in Mexico, I know my reaction would have been different.
Anger and resentment can be useful when directed in the spirit of helping others, but it’s dangerous when it turns to righteous, mean spirited bullying. I’ve been to enough feminist conferences by now to recognize that kind of mean spirited bullying that reminds me of Trump.
Chimamanda Ngozi Adichi took on a lot of flak from feminists when she published an essay about the dynamic. I found it incredibly brave. It’s hard to find the courage to point out the bad stuff about the community whose opinion you value the most.
https://www.chimamanda.com/news_items/it-is-obscene-a-true-reflection-in-three-parts/
Couldn't agree more, Marsha.
I would take issue with your statement. For most of human history, there was no such thing as a house wife. Humans lived in tribes hunting and gathering. Men and women divided up work based on their comparative advantages. There was no patriarchy.
Formal society only came after productive agriculture. Even then, people worked in areas where they did the work that needed to be done.
Now, this does not matter if you think bearing children is "oppression." If that is the case, then I cannot argue with you. Your anger is directed at nature, not human societal and social structures. If you are someone who simply wants women to have the freedom to flourish, then rules preventing females attending public education and such are really quite recent (the last century or two).
Most men are happy to change society so women can positively contribute to the country. What makes us uncomfortable are the mental health crisis as activism types, who scream at the injustice of women not being able to give birth at the age of 45, or women not possessing upper body strength, or other raging psychotic views that have become shockingly common. There is nothing a sane person can do with such individuals. For reasons we cannot understand, many young women have been joining the ranks of the anti-nature squad.
I am more worried about isolated men because they are dangerous, as opposed to annoying. As Christianity fades, humanity will regress to the natural sexual preferences of humanity (high status males get many females, most men get none). This will create great instability. We have already gotten a taste of it in the African-American community, but the rest of us are half way there already. What to do with those leftover men will define our society going forward. As much as women hate to acknowledge it, their greatest contribution is their children. Most men contribute nothing and a handful of men do more. In a world where women do not bear children, they will join the worthless pile of men. So we have even more dead weight,
The solutions to these problems are all extreme and violent. It may turn out that Christianity was some really useful social technology. No matter what, the current mental masturbation consuming too many pseudo-intellectuals is not helping any one. If we keep decomposing as a culture, our collapse will be inevitable. Perhaps the Mormons or the Muslims will do better than we have. If we want to preserve our unique Western culture, then we need to start having babies again. At current trends, Europe will disappear in two generations, replaced by Muslims.
We keep arguing pointless debates while our civilizations are racing into oblivion. It makes me wonder the Gulf states are funding radical feminism in an intergenerational plan to take over the west over the next two to three generations.
I feel like I just got told to just “smile more” ;)
I think it’s interesting that you are focused on women’s anger. What I’m seeing right now among the left and intersectional feminists in the US is an embracing of the idea that we don’t have to conform to trad gender roles or institutions, and there’s a lot of joy and liberation in that realization and feeling of autonomy. But it’s also showing up as lots of women opting out of marriage and kids - likely because in our patriarchal society unfortunately those are life choices that reinforce and entrench inequality. This opting out entirely is really pissing off white dudes who are terrified of losing their privilege, and there is a very angry backlash on their part.
The recent joy and energy around Harris’ nomination and the cat-lady “insults” from Vance (and subsequent joyful OWNING of that stereotype) have demonstrated this perceived threat so clearly. So explain how women’s anger is the problem? This seems like more normalizing of men’s anger and telling women to suppress ours.
Meanwhile, we are still fighting for basic bodily autonomy, and watching women die because our rights are being rolled back, all in a desperate effort to keep women in their place. So hell yes, on a systems level we are angry! And I hope that we stay angry because smiling and accepting our fate is far more dangerous. In fact, I wish more men would get angry about these things and speak out more to change them. But giving up the perks of patriarchy is a tough pill to swallow.
I think an important distinction is the one between how we view ourselves and beliefs on an individual level, vs. the collective, or how we channel our anger with the inequitable systems in place that continue to harm us. We can be angry about what’s going on at the national (or global, or even company) level and channel that to work to dismantle patriarchal norms that foster things like suppressed male emotions and female perfectionism, without that anger being responsible for all the problems of our day-to-day life and personal relationships. It’s not an either/or. We can do the (very different) work in both arenas.
You don’t need to smile with me, my friend. I don’t want to come off as nitpicking, but can you quote the parts of the piece that strike you as focused on women’s anger and blaming women?
We can’t know for sure, but my sense isn’t that more young men are voting Republican because they feel threatened by women and want to control them. I’m sure there is some minority that feels that way, but I think it’s small. My sense is that young men don’t feel welcome in the democratic coalition. I want many more progressive men who advocate for women’s rights while feeling positive about their masculinity.
My fear is that we’re headed toward a gender segregated future where republicans become the party of me and dems of women.
🙂 As far as the parts that focus on women's anger, I guess I felt like the thread - from the opening anecdote about your experience (which I agree was a ridiculous accusation on their part!) to the end about women being less judgemental, was that feminist anger is causing a lot of the gender divide and therefore, a problem. I'm (too?) sensitive to it for sure. But when we simply ask for equal rights and freedom, dudes like Plato come out of the woodwork to tell us why we don't need to be free because they know what's best, so please just get back in your place (and stop being so angry). It's exhausting.
I think it's a important point that young men need to feel more welcome in the Dem party. I haven't really thought about it that way because the party (politics) has been so dominated by men, but they are mostly old. I really feel like the Harris campaign to-date has tried to create an atmosphere of including everyone, and it's been joyful. Everyone cheered on the "white dudes for Harris" call that raised over $4M. But it's hard to say what is representative or including new young folks since this country is so diverse.
I always appreciate your takes, and I know you're on team equity - thanks for indulging my pushback :)
The only thing I love more than equity is democracy. And while I like to think that they march together, Dulce and I have had an interesting back on forth on the frequent tension between the two and what it means for our politics.
I’m mystified by the energy of “white dudes for Harris.” What a weird way to organize. What do these guys have in common and how would a Harris presidency benefit them? I’d get “dads for Harris” or “autoworkers for Harris.” But white guys organizing around their racial and gender identity? It makes no sense.
Meanwhile, Black Lives Matter issued a statement I largely agree with:
“Democratic Party elites and billionaire donors are attempting to manipulate Black voters by anointing Kamala Harris and an unknown vice president as the new Democratic ticket without a primary vote by the public. While the potential outcome of a Harris presidency may be historic, the process to achieve it must align with true democratic values. We have no idea where Kamala Harris stands on the issues. Installing Kamala Harris as the Democratic nominee and an unknown vice president without any public voting process would make the modern Democratic Party a party of hypocrites. It would undermine their credibility on issues related to democracy. Imagine our first Black woman president not having won some sort of public nomination process. The pundits would immediately label it as affirmative action or a DEI move, and any progress made by a President Harris would be on shaky foundations.”
https://blacklivesmatter.com/black-lives-matter-statement-on-kamala-harris-securing-enough-delegates-to-become-democratic-nominee/
In other words, we should evaluate candidates by their policies and not just their racial or gender identity. Obviously, I’m voting for Harris and relieved by the enthusiasm about her campaign. But also, what a weird weird moment in identitarian politics!
Democracy vs. equity - interesting debate - the first thing that comes to mind for me is how can you have a true democracy with systematically inequitable access to participation in it?
It IS kinda weird, but the white dudes thing is more to make a point that just because they are white dudes doesn't mean they are going to vote for Trump, which demographically we know white dudes do. To your previous point of creating an example for young white dudes in the Democratic party....
Wow that BLM statement is bizarre to me! This situation is unprecedented, and a big part of the decision came out of urgency. But also she was already VP, would have been on the ticket if Biden had stayed in, and would have automatically become president if anything happened to him during either term. And the people already voted for that ticket. It wasn't just some random black woman - in fact it has nothing to do with her being a black woman. Also, "we have no idea where she stands on the issues"?! Really? She already ran a primary and has been VP for 4 years, what else are we going to learn in a (massively accelerated) primary campaign? And we're also talking about an election in 3 months against someone who says "vote for me, and you'll never have to vote again." I'm not saying we shouldn't call out or hold the parties accountable to the democratic process, but in that case, what about systematic black voter oppression? The electoral college? Gerrymandering?
All I can think is - Really, this is the hill you want to die on?! Mmkay.
The Electoral College is a good thing. Be very careful when trying to change essential plumbing. It always seems like the toilet backs up first.
I think a key issue is that feminist anger is an important tool for us to use and channel towards continuing to forward the cause of women and our interests. I personally feel that anger towards a subset of men: rich men continuing to hold the highest areas of power and misogynists who take their distress out on the women in their lives. I think that there is an uncomfortable amount of sweeping hostility towards men as a whole for something they cannot control-their sex. I think we should remain disgusted by examples of unacceptable behavior and loudly call it out. But I think we should also uplift struggling young men with examples to strive for. I’ve noticed an unwillingness to try to uplift young men in liberal spaces, and that unfortunately leads lost men towards people like Jordan Peterson or god forbid Andrew Tate
I always find it troubling that people hate on Jordan Peterson or compare him to that monster Tate. What has Peterson said that is so offensive? That men should not commit suicide or hurt other people? Is that really so bad? Do people really believe he is anti-trans (he is not) just because he did not want random laws that could be used to imprison anyone based on banned speech that was never defined?
In addition, anger is not something that translates into positive action. Optimists rule the world. Rage and anger lead to misery. Hating successful men will never bring women up. If you want to have successful female executives, you need more female engineering graduates and elite MBA's. You need to invest in women by pooling capital. CEO's are not distributed by government agencies. These are individuals who built companies and created wealth. You can make political offices 50% female, but for companies you need to convince women to take enormous risks, then work themselves close to death to achieve success. It will be difficult and fewer women desire such lifestyles. The worst thing you could do is hold an unreasonable position, like assuming that CEO's are lucky and get picked randomly. Jenson Huang, the guy who founded Nvidia, he left a great job to make better video games. Everyone thought he was an idiot. He proved them all wrong, and did nothing but work for the last thirty years. If you want more female CEO's, you need to make them want that lifestyle. Most men crave this because it is the only way a short, weak gamer will ever get laid. Obviously such motivations will not work for women. You will need to find new motivations.
In general, I think most of us want the same thing (nothing limiting the ambitions of people save their abilities and drive). Everyone loses when intelligent women are kept from jobs where they would thrive. We mostly disagree on strategies to get there. What I cannot understand are the willful lies surrounding good people like Peterson who are just trying to reduce the suicide rate and keep young men from crime or a fentanyl overdose. If guys like Peterson are driven away and discouraged, only the Andrew Tate characters will remain. We cannot survive that. It would only take a few thousand men like him to bring down a city. A million would bring America into anarchy and death. Antifa are populated by Andre Tate-type guys with a better publicist.
I guess it wasn’t clear with my phrasing but I see Peterson as an example of what men are looking for in terms of inspiration, but with views I disagree with occasionally (he promotes the idea of hierarchies quite a bit and is very very traditional). Overall though, I think his message of pulling yourself up and finding meaning is a good one. We don’t really have a liberal version of Peterson that promotes that sort of self efficacy and an idea of what positive masculinity could look like the way Peterson does, so men head towards the right due to a vacuum of inspiration on the left. I believe Tate is scummy disgusting garbage compared to Peterson, hence the “God forbid” distinguisher.
"But it’s also showing up as lots of women opting out of marriage and kids - likely because in our patriarchal society unfortunately those are life choices that reinforce and entrench inequality."
I think this is true. We have feminism to thank for redefining natural female behaviour as 'patriarchal oppression'. Throughout history there have always been outliers who opted out of the reproductive cycle, but for most women this has always been a recipe for 40+ years of intense regret, loneliness and mental health issues.
Ironically, the feminist narrative that marriage and parenting was 'oppression' would never have washed with women in the past, when homemaking was hard manual labour (washing clothes by hand, darning, preparing food from scratch, preserving food for the winter, tending to goats, chickens and the allotment, making her husband a sandwich and taking it out to the fields for him to eat during the harvest etc etc). When woman's work was a) backbreaking and b) essential for survival women felt a strong sense of identity and worth - as women. As valuable and contributing members of society.
The feminist narrative only took hold AFTER mod cons (invented by men) created a whole generation of bored housewives with lots of free time on their hands and an easy, soft lifestyle which allowed them to swap practical clothing and practical skills with a sassy attitude and modern dress and makeup (like, all day long) - allowing them to extend and heighten their youthful sexual power over men, and therefore remain in a permanent adolescent state (think Sex and the City). This permanent state of adolescent beauty can now be enjoyed from adolescence right through until 30 or even 40 if you have enough products. This allows women to completely skip out the 'young adult' part of their life and jump directly from adolescent to crone.
Today the modern feminist is now able to use social media and OF to both play the eternal victim and bleed men of their resources in return for garish makeup, cleavage or even nudity, without offering anything of actual value in return. Not to him or to society at large. This, we are told is 'progress' and 'female empowerment'. The mental health of women, and particularly leftist women is at an all time low with the MAJORITY of leftist women now on anti depressant medication.
Women in the past (before feminism) enjoyed and appreciated their role, loved their children, loved being the boss of their household, and loved their husbands and appreciated the work he put into supporting the family. She even enjoyed making him a sandwich because she was not insecure about her place in society. She felt a huge sense of sense worth, knowing that society would collapse without her unique female contributions.
Today most women do jobs which are not necessary (HR etc) and when women have gone on strike generally nobody notices (there are no power outages, the food does not run out). The one job which desperately needs doing is parenting. Children being thrown to the state (the patriarchy) from age 4 to 16 is not only child abandonment but child abuse. But feminism has convinced women that children require no special attention, and that even raising your own child is optional, an annoyance and a menial task that can be outsourced to strangers so you can get back to your HR department and a bit of shopping at lunch.
To have one's identity and gender role denigrated and devalued in this way has been utterly devastating for women and for society as a whole. Feminism is without doubt the worst oppression women have faced in history.
I think it’s great that we now have so much choice now to define how we live our lives. My wife and I decided not to have children and we are far from suffering loneliness, regret, or mental health issues.
I don’t understand this desire to tell other people how they should live their lives. I don’t get it when feminists criticize trad wives, and I don’t get why you would denigrate a woman who works in HR and enjoys fashion. There are many ways to live a fulfilled life. As the old saying goes, “we seek to control others when we are not in full ownership of ourselves.”
Do understand that if we stop having children, our ways die with us. The Muslims are still having children. That will be the future of humanity. I understand. My wife and I are not having children either, but we are harming our country and our culture by doing so. The humanity that survives us will be one of polygamy and actual female oppression.
"I think it’s great that we now have so much choice now to define how we live our lives."
Unless you want to raise your own children naturally (AKA 'stay at home mother') which - thanks to decades of feminism halving wages and doubling taxes - is now a privilege reserved for rich people only.
"My wife and I decided not to have children and we are far from suffering loneliness, regret, or mental health issues"
Well that's great. As I said there will always be outliers. And if you made a choice that is not really what I am talking about. But a lot of young women today genuinely believe they can pursue a career/ clubbing/ only fans lifestyle throughout their 20's (and perhaps longer) and then pick up a quality man, marry and settle down to have kids when it suits them (when they begnto lose their SMV). This is a delusion. Even Emma Watson is now a childless femcel (female incel) after spending her 20's 'living the dream' as feminism's golden girl and spokeswoman for UN Women.
Also birth rates are plummeting and we are facing a demographic collapse unprecedented in history. What happens when there are not enough young people to support a massive ageing population? This is already the situation today, and even if birth rates went back to normal tomorrow (they keep getting worse) this still would not be able to stop a catastrophe in the coming decades.
Even the men who WANT to get married and have a family are now dropping out because feminist policies have made a) marriage far too risky and dangerous for them b) modern women insufferable to date and the furthest thing from wife material.
"I don’t understand this desire to tell other people how they should live their lives"
It's pretty straightforward. Telling young, impressionable women that they can 'be anything' and 'have it all' and that they SHOULD 'aim higher' than 'just' getting married and having a family is very profitable for feminist authors, bloggers, influencers .... and it furthers the careers of politicians and woke corporations ... and in the long term it makes lots of money for the drug industry too (anti depressants).
The car crash lives of unstable women, single mothers, high crime 'man desert' neighbourhoods etc is converted into huge profits for the prison industrial complex, abortion clinics and an excuse for the continual expansion of government programs and global think thanks and agencies. They all profit from social dysfunction and social collapse.
When black neighbourhoods were dominated by traditional family values there was no crime or social decay, even in the most poor neighbourhoods. Once welfare was introduced which incentivised reckless living by young women and terrible mate selection (with no marriage at all) crime went through the roof and now we have a gang culture and single mother epidemic.
"I don’t get it when feminists criticize trad wives"
Trad wives are living proof that feminism's patriarchy theory is nonsense and that women who trust and love their men are the furthest thing from oppressed.
"....and I don’t get why you would denigrate a woman who works in HR and enjoys fashion"
It's not denigration to point out how feminist policies and attitude have had a negative effect on women's lives. It's just an observation.
"There are many ways to live a fulfilled life"
Sure, but some lifestyles do lead to misery, regret, suffering, social breakdown and the collapse of civilisation. Feminism is one of those lifestyles unfortunately. The facts bear this out.
There is so much unsubstantiated nonsense here that I don't know where to start, but I'l just say thank you for demonstrating exactly the point I was making: men feel so threatened by women's autonomy and freedom that they feel the need to control them. You couldn't have made it clearer!
1. "unsubstantiated nonsense" .... Everything I said is factual.
2. "men feel so threatened by women's autonomy" ... I think men are right to feel threatened by women's autonomy. Anything else is insulting and belittling. A respectful man understand that women are also adults with free will which means they are perfectly capable of doing bad things to him.
To imply women do not pose a threat to men is belittling and objectifying. A woman can destroy a man's life with a single false accusation. He will lose his house , career, access to his children - the lot! Men do not have this power.
3. "feel the need to control" .... So in a healthy relationship women offer men VALUE in return for the things men offer to them. It is a mutual and consensual exchange. Both serve and provide for the needs of the other.
Feminists don't offer men anything of value, and instead use a THREAT NARRATIVE and DISPLAYS OF VICTIMHOOD to control men's behaviour and extract resources from them (he for she). Basically feminists use shaming tactics and false accusations (patriarchy theory is a false accusation). So feminists win the prize for being the most controlling and manipulative.
4. "freedom" ..... feminists are not free. They are trapped in a narrative which defines them as powerless victims of male dominance. While this does work as a way to control men through shame, it is ultimately a trap for women too because it means having to always play the victim and place men above you.
Feminism is essentially a Male Power Fantasy because feminism defines women as having no autonomy (helpless victims) and men as having total autonomy (all powerful patriarchs).
Critics of feminism are different because they recognise women's agency (both today and throughout history) and do not think that women were ever 'oppressed' by men.
If you start out with the notion that traditional gender roles were 'imposed' onto women by men then obviously you are going to always be offended by behaviour and attitudes that are feminine, because (in the feminist world view) femininity = lack of autonomy, lack of agency, lack of choice, lack of free will and defeat.
But this is because feminism views women through the lens of MALE power and MALE consciousness which is very different. Natural femininity is a state of being which is very different to masculinity.
Feminists have been taught to look down on femininity and try to self actualise by embracing masculine behaviours, identities and ambitions instead (like being a CEO, politician or fighter pilot). This is why feminists are more likely than normal women to end up with mental health issues and a lot of regret in later life.
Achieving success in masculine terms often PREVENTS you from being able to self actualise in feminine terms - as a woman - not just because you are living a kind of pseudo masculine life, but also because you've just spent 10 - 20 years competing with men in their sphere, instead of attending to your own uniquely female drives and ambitions as a woman.
Thanks to generations of feminist propaganda if you promote the idea of pursuing a distinctly feminine life path you will get attacked and labelled a misogynist!
Don't forget feminism was very much a creation of the ruling classes (the 'patriarchy'). It was funded by the Rockefellers who admitted they just wanted to get women into the (male) workplace to be taxed like men, and get children away from their mothers at the earliest possible age and into the state indoctrination camps. It worked!
This reminded me of a podcast by The Atlantic I recently listened to: https://youtu.be/7F4xdCeXIWc?si=UFZNlZeHAb70ancF
Think you’d find it interesting!
Zach de la Rocha said "anger is a gift", homie. :)
I'm scratching my head a bit with this post because looking around, there's a damn nuclear war happening against women's rights. Not only do I want to see women angry, I want to find ways to support their anger, even if some of it is directed to me as a representative of "men." What I don't see above are the data illustrating the largest regression of women's rights in the United States and why blame is exactly what is needed. A man who won a presidency after losing a popular vote was given power to nominate other men to a lifetime of judicial power that is now mingled with some idea of divine order to regress women's rights. And, hey, he's coming for more!
What else is there but anger and blame? And why should men ask women to tone it down?
I can understand your points above that, at the end of the day, we need a lot more discourse than just spraying blame everywhere and/or generalizing that blame to an entire population of people. But I also don't think we should diminish that there is a party out there right now running a very open message that white men should be back in large scale power in this country. And if it doesn't happen, there will be violence. And that violence will be directed to women, to minorities, to anyone nonconforming to whatever "norms" they've outlined. What then?
I agree. The anger is justified and I’d love to see it leveraged to expand women’s rights and diminish male violence. (Rather than performatively posting photos of thighs or trying to get someone like me fired for a harmless tweet.)
When has anger ever helped anyone? Seriously, when? Name a dozen angry men you admire and trust? It is a negative emotion. It helps nothing. We a can only build a better society by making positive, well thought-out changes. Too often, anger leads to rushed decisions and mistakes that result in backlash.
We need to get rid of that anger and focus on improvement. No one listens to screaming people making demands. The increasingly hysterical nature of American politics is helping no one. That is a game men like Trump know how to win. Let's stop handing it to them.
I always wondered how so many people willing took up the victim label and called it empowerment. It is really sad, and frustrating. Rich white ladies have decided that they are horrifically oppressed, spending their time trying to get random people fired so they can feel joy in his children's suffering.
The military continues to do a good job of creating heros, but I fear for the young men who never find their way into that proper head space. They seem to be a growing number every day, and they are angry. I have met more angry racist young men in the last few years than in the previous forty. If we do not change course, it will only be a question of time until poor whites begin to organize and demand their share, and our democracy will fail. There are millions of single mothers hard at work to make this happen. I have seen it in my own family. It is terrifying. These women will denigrate all males in front of their sons, say their father is worthless, then say "you are just like your father" to little boys. It is like a grooming school for psychopaths. Donald Trump is simply the beginning.
I hope I am wrong. I hope the lost boys find their way to the military or some other place to man up. The consequences of modern victim culture could be horrifying. I have read old Nazi speeches. They read just like feminist diatribes, only replace "the Jews" for "the patriarchy." We know how that mindset always ends.
I see you're getting a bunch of comments on this. It's not your best - or maybe it is good because it's provoking responses. I see others have made valuable points and corrections (esp. @annadlc).
But I want to hone in on the tweet/apology point. I've been in pretty close to that exact position (casual comment/tweet-> feminist outrage -> HR called in). It was a learning experience and I still have bruises. And I do think that some of my tormentors were disproportionate and mean, over-sensitive, etc. But my learning is that it's good to apologize - even for harm you didn't mean to cause. Even for things that don't seem harmful. Even when the demander seems disingenuous or incorrect. Apologies are very very cheap and go a long way to righting the social and emotional boat so you can get back to sailing. They also (should) require some introspection and reflection, "why did I say that? what did I think would happen? why did something else happen?" and "could I have done/said something different? was I thinking of everyone who might be affected?" One thing I learned is that people in positions of power and privilege have an obligation to be more careful, more mindful. We can't just say whatever pops up. It doesn't seem fair. But that's what structural inequality means. Our words and interactions are more influential and powerful - even if we don't realize it or wish it to be true.
So now, when asked to apologize, I think - what principle or value am I upholding by refusing to apologize? Is it that I should be able to say whatever I want? Or that I should be interpreted correctly? Or that other people should be less sensitive?
I recently apologized in a very public way for something that, technically, I didn't do. I could have argued the point. I was annoyed because there were a lot of bad-faith arguments and old resentments involved. But, it was a way of healing a rift and, importantly, putting it behind me.
Usually, an apology is a way to say "hey - I see you and acknowledge your importance and feelings." So I just do it and it makes the world better. I'm much more proud of the times I have apologized than the times I refused to.
Hi Gawain,
I appreciate you taking the time to draft and share this comment. Usually, I would respond in private. But I'll respond in public since the unabashed point of this post was to, however, modestly, influence The Culture.
A previous version of me relates to your impulse to apologize in a very public way for something that you didn't do so that others feel acknowledged, and so that you don't have to deal with the unpleasantries of conflict.
To put a finer point on it, it used to be that I would apologize to any woman, person of color, or LGBQT person in a way that I would never apologize to a straight, white male. In a similar vein, I stopped challenging the arguments of my female colleagues for fear of perceived mansplaining. Frequently, I endorsed their views even when I disagreed so that they would like and accept me.
It took a couple of friends (of color) to point out how insidious and patronizing this can become when you adjust your principles and behaviors based on a (rapidly evolving) demographic status hierarchy.
We agree about the value of introspection, but I have learned that introspection doesn't have to end in self-criticism. I stand by my tweet and decision not to apologize. If I were in their shoes, if I was offended on behalf of others by something I read on Twitter, I would reach out directly. It would never occur to me to ask someone's employer to fire them. And if I did, then I would introspect, and I would apologize for my behavior.
So what is the value of saying what you believe instead of what others would prefer to hear? It doesn't make you more popular, or more liked. It certainly doesn't get you elected. But to be the most genuine version of me makes me love myself more. It clarifies my relationships with those who love me for who I am as much as how I make them feel.
After all, the Golden Rule goes both ways: treat others how you'd like to be treated. But also, expect to be treated how you treat others.
I’m currently reading The Coddling of the American Mind and I really like the book. The authors organize their thoughts around three untruths: Fragility, Emotional Reasoning and Us Versus Them: Life is a Battle. As a teacher, I’ve observed these truths play out in my school and among the students for the past 5 years mostly, probably the worst between 2019-2023. My only interest in reading this book and things like your Substack is merely to learn and understand. I say this because after being on Substack for some time now, I’m starting to see some of the negatives for me: writers who for some reason think they are experts or think their ideas are the correct ideas, and writers who seem to judge. When it comes to feminism, I stand on the side of Chelsea Handler, she just does it for me.
I like how modern men think they are clever because they’re blaming “feminists” instead of “feminism” for women feeling miserable and poor men feeling oh so beat down. You aren’t. Men having been blaming feminism, and feminists, for any woe or bad feeling men might feel at any women calling any man out for misogyny. This isn’t new, or interesting.