Although clearly anathema to an individualistic outlook, I can also see the advantages of a system in which divorce is completely off the table. Of course it would be terrible to be stuck with a monstrous spouse. But then life is often terrible. If divorce isn’t an option then you have to just accept and deal with your spouse’s faults and limitations just as you must accept and deal with your own faults and limitations. The ease of divorce is like a carrot perpetually dangling in the air.
The Amish system works that way. People can never remarry as long as their spouse is alive, because that counts as bigamy. If one spouse leaves the Amish the remaining spouse needs to stay single.
"I think this is what we are seeing right now. In our current hyper-individualistic society, people are supposed to be true to their feelings when choosing mating strategies. So many high-status men are honest about wanting to have several sexual partners. On the other side, many women are honest that they only want a partner who can truly meet their needs. Both sexes have pulled away in their respective directions and the middle ground where they can meet has shrunk"
I think this is an important conversation to have, but i also think this assumption of symmetry between the two sides is a bit off. The experpt from your post above is, I think, valid. But that describes what, in your words, 'high status' men are doing and what 'many women' are doing. But most men are not high status. And I think what is missed is that men have not really been socially organized in the way women have in the post MeToo era. There is not this collective dialogue among men about what our experience is and what it ought to be in the way that there is among women. I think there are many ways to be critical of men but, romantically, I think the hyper-individualism that you speak of has more impacted women than men. I do not find many men who have this orientation of 'I am going to be true to myself and will not change and will only get with someone who accepts me as a being who has achieved their final form.' I think it is women and not men who have become so selective and rigid in their assessment of the opposite sex and reluctance to engage in the sort of change and compromise that relationships require.
Overall, I'd say our dialogue about gender dynamics has really suffered as a result of how the discussion has really only been from women's point of view. We know what women's grievances are with men, and we know what women's collective experience is; but we don't really have anything comparable with men. And this is not to say that the female POV is inherently wrong, but it is to say we can't really have holistic conversations, as this post seeks to do, because we don't understand the other side.
For some reason, men aren't relationship-focused the same way as women. And, as you write, in the current situation, they have good reasons to be.
As far as I have seen, hitherto the most hyped solution has been the pick-up artists: a few high-status men are supposed to educate the majority of men how to act high-status too. From my point of view most of that spectacle is sad. The kind of movement you are talking about is badly needed to balance the picture.
What I'm getting at is more that we have heard women articulate what it is like to be a woman, what their struggles are, and what their grievances with men are, but we have not heard the other half of that. So I think discussions like this necessarily proceed based on a partially constructed framework (e.g. I know why men are shit and women are great, but in what ways are men great and women 'shit'). And I think that is really important with respect to the basic endeavor to understand ourselves, this moment in time, and ourselves within the context of this moment in time.
Concerning the post you linked to, it has always occured to me that women prefer to consume entertainment that focuses more on interpersonal dynamics, and men more prefer the story. So I think you are getting at something real. I think from a guy's point of view a relationship is 'I love this person, I like spending time with them, I want to keep spending time with them' but for women, I suppose, it is endeavor aimed at building something. Maybe it's true that for men the relationship is the terminal point, and for women it is the entry point into something larger. I just don't think we view relationships as being as complex as women do. (I confess I did not read the whole thing, but I am reading it. You're articulating some cool and unique ideas) But I think the guy's POV of how you suggest women approach relationships (building a project that requires the man be shaped) is that women expect you to change and compromise, but that only goes one way. The compromise comes from one direction.
I think a lot of it really just comes down to the responsibilities that are implied by each sex's role in reproduction. Women focus on raising the kid, men focus on spreading their genes.
"As far as I have seen, hitherto the most hyped solution has been the pick-up artists"
can you elaborate on what problem you are saying pickup artists are a solution to?
I’d also add that I think this movement you speak of may be on the verge of beginning. The grievances of the ‘manosphere’ are, I think, an unappreciated driver of trumps win. Things are about to change a lot. In probably a bad way at first, but eventually a good one.
I mean pick-up artists teach men how to get better at relationships. Pick-up artists tell men that they can't just wait for relationships to happen, but need to actively work on them. In that sense, the pick-up scene makes men more similar to women. But I doubt that it increases the level of understanding between men and women. But as you say, the manosphere as a whole might be the beginning of something new.
Pick up artists teach men how to get women to sleep with them. Or, at the very least, how to get a date with them. There is no relationship element there.
And to the extent that I can speak for all men on this, I don't think it is even remotely common for men to consume pickup artist stuff. Maybe it is different in incel circles.
Anecdotally, I think the way most men approach getting with women is that they just say/do/be whatever they think the woman wants.
"So many high-status men are honest about wanting to have several sexual partners."
High status men are probably the first ones getting married. People just decided to buy the Chad slayer meme, and then they can't stop talking about "High status men" as promiscuous, when they are probably monogamy oriented dudes with good careers that have been in a long term relationship with a commited partner since 2015 or something.
Somehow I lucked out. I went from a desperately unhappy young man to a happy old one, secure in two items of knowledge:
1) I love my wife more than I ever have, more than life itself.
2) She loves me more than she ever has.
Of course, #1 is necessarily a more secure item of knowledge than #2, but all indicators are that it is so.
Each time our daughter and I go out and close the karaoke bar together, I almost always sing "Nature Boy." In fact last time I prefaced it by getting on the mic and saying, "I tell you what, I been bangin' around this fuck-in (of course I was sloshed. It's the Way of Karaoke) planet for 74 fuck-in years (wild cheering - I'm always the oldest fart there, that old guy who gets up there and gives it everything he's got) and I gotta tell ya, this song's got a message, in fact (channeling Janis Joplin) I'd even call it The Truth!"
"So many high-status men are honest about wanting to have several sexual partners. On the other side, many women are honest that they only want a partner who can truly meet their needs."
I don't think it is that lopsided as about 20% of married men cheat, compared to 13% of married women, and 57% of men and 54% of women admit to committing infidelity at some point in their lives.
I do agree with the point: "From the reasoning above, it looks like the system of yesterday was better. More men and women could be together and people tend to become happier together."
But here is the missing point based on my experience and understanding, and that science. Human behavior that derives from human nature is malleable within a lifetime.
I believe this is a biological thing... that you can train yourself to a different standard for how you think, feel and behave... really no different than you can change the physical appearance of your body. But, it takes work... you have to practice.
And this gets me to my concluding explanation for what is hurting general relationship happiness... we have grown lazy, entitled and selfish. And we have lost the ability to understand delayed gratification. We push a button on our phone and dinner arrives in 30 minutes. We push another button and clothing, appliances, tools and furniture arrive in a day or two. So we have had our minds trained to expect almost immediate fulfilment of our needs and wants without having to expend much effort. Many of the same young people involved in protests over female and gender ideology are also committed to a low-work or no-work agenda. The 4B movement in South Korea is against the misogynist cultural behavior of men in that county, but it is also against the work standards of more than 40 hours per week.
I have been married for 45 years to a girl I met when she was 17 and was 19. She claims love at first sight. Mine bloomed over the first year we dated.
I have never cheated, although I have flirted quite a bit during my corporate career. I have spent time in strip clubs and attended parties where party girls made the rounds. These were always related to my job. I always told my wife about these events, and even the flirting at the office where a female coworker was coming on strong. The only time I went to a strip club with my wife was a male strip club with her and some girl friends for her birthday where I was the designated driver.
It takes work to power through jealousy and insecurity. It takes work to practice putting your own needs and wants to the side while you give to your partner. It takes work to practice the behavior of happiness and contentment so that you become more happy and content. It takes work to understand your internal feelings and to be able to communicate them well with your partner. It takes work to tamp down your highly charged emotional reactions to things... and to become a calm and steady person that provides a foundation for the times that your partner will need help doing the same. It takes work to stop believing that there is always something better to be had when what you already have is good enough and maybe great. It takes work to partner rather than just do it yourself.
But when you do all the work it all becomes second-nature.
The reason our marriage and relationship trends were better in the past is because we all worked harder. I think it is simple as that.
Indeed people worked harder on their relationships when that was the norm. But there was no time when everybody was as relationship-conscientious as you and your wife. I think your example illustrates the point that some people are better created for good relationships than others.
I am starting to think that the entire civilizational structure of modernity is built on monogamy and marriage, as well as free markets. If men who are just ordinary schmucks' best hope for a reasonably satisfying sexual relationship is lifetime commitment, they can devote their energy to bettering their own well-being and that of their wives and children. Men who do their jobs and appear to do their duty to family have some degree of status. Warrior polygyny seems like a more consistent evolutionary solution, but it seems kinda unlikely to support an industrial society. Any thoughts?
"Both sides are right, for a simple reason: For humans, being together is really, really hard."
Especially when one partner accuses the other partner of oppressing her.
It shouldn't need saying that being a feminist (AKA accusing men of oppressing women) and being in an intimate relationship with men are not compatible. It makes no sense that any feminist would even WANT to be in a relationship with her oppressor.... assuming she is being sincere and not just using patriarchy theory as a way to morally dominate men and manipulate men by shaming them.
"Men and women are natural enemies. "
There you go! Such an attitude makes healthy relationships impossible. This is why high quality men avoid feminists like the plague.
"What is clear is that no system for human relationships has yet allowed the vast majority of people to be happy together. "
Relationships are bound to be miserable if viewed through the lens of entitlement. But when viewed through the lens of practical reality relationships suddenly become a lot more appealing and rewarding. The problem is that there are now three people in a relationship: a man, a woman and the state (a man with a gun). This is what feminists demanded and the men with guns used feminism to justify the massive expansion of the state into every facet of our lives.
Now women can extract resources from men by force via the state which means:
a) she is not going to appreciate her husband as much if she marries
b) she is going to have more incentive to remain 'single' which is now a euphemism for marrying the state (men with guns) and having the state force all men to support her via taxes (ie a harem for women, paid for by ordinary working men).
Imagine we got rid of the state tomorrow. Now suddenly men become much more valued, because they can provide resources and support a stable family home - allowing a woman to self actualise her womanhood with full support from him.
Now let's try flipping the genders.... imagine how much less men would appreciate their wives if 'menininsm' had created a state, but instead of taxing men's labour and giving it to women, the state provided men with free sex and female companionship with attractive women who did not try to shame or bully them all the time, and who wanted to bear their children and raise them at home. Imagine how unsatisfied men would become with their wives, or with the prospect of marriage, or with modern women in general!
This is basically the situation feminism has created. By 'winning' the gender war, feminists have achieved a hollow victory. They can no longer appreciate, respect or truly love men.
So rich in terms of mating strategies. However the data from Titanic survivors show men in extreme, instinct-based circumstances saving 100% of 1st and 2nd class children and women while only 10% of first and second class male passengers survived.
This means a universal heroism instinct exists in men across the entire male bell curve regardless of the small overlap in todays culture that affords the leisurely time to date and mate, different from the extreme Titanic circumstances that reveal only unconscious instincts, not reason and logic that courtship includes.
This reveals that there are indeed masculine instincts not at all culturally determined by the fads of the year or decade but evolving over eons of evolutionary scales of time.
Right around the sinking of the Titanic was the high point of chivalry. You'll find men in most cultures don't care *that* much about women that aren't immediate family, whether that's modern Westerners or basically all other peoples in history compared to Victorian/Georgian era Europe. Men killing themselves to save women would not happen in a society today, I could see it for children though.
This is interesting other periods of history and also cultures I’d like to hear examples shared. Thats fascinating. Martin Seagers point (and Barry Liddon Kingerslee and others) is that the Titanic was a giant emergency disaster. Not a placid serene place where people have the leisure to debate and argue and make laws and break laws and reach compromises. It bubbles up only raw instincts. And those of males were the same as other males and those of females were the same as other females yet the male and female behavior in this tragic laboratory was not at all the same. It was definitely not just “chivalry” because the force of a cultural fad (even of a hundred years duration) pales in the face of the biological power of raw human, masculine and feminine instincts.
E g I think of chivalry as a sociological fad, meme etc. if there’s something durable biologically underneath it (and any similar sociological fads that arise in history) it’s Barry and Seagers uncovering of the first male instinct that is present in all world cultures and throughout history: the “Provider/Protector” instinct that is term the Zeus Instinct. Here’s a video describing the spirit of their work: https://youtu.be/eRCLBpHifJo?si=uKI7Nv2GPWuWDdgR
It's the first time I've seen both sides of this debate --whether the sexual revolution helped women or not-- presented as equally correct, just coming from different angles. Also the first time I see someone acknowledge in writing that women don't all think or want the same when it comes to these issues. Really appreciated the graphs too!
Jordan PeterPan of course offers a stock solution: "enforced monogamy", which is exactly what it sounds like. But if it was so natural, it wouldn't have to be "enforced", now would it?
We can argue whether it is natural or not until we are blue in the face. But there are three kinds of monogamy: strict, lifelong, and universal. Pick at most two out of three. Because that's all that Mother Nature will allow, to say nothing of the iron laws of supply and demand.
Ultimately, like just about everything else, (non)monogamy falls on a spectrum, with most people being somewhere in the middle. Shoehorning everyone into a binary is counterproductive.
Perhaps our bonobo cousins had the right idea all along? Live and let live, love and let love. That's what I say.
We already have "enforced monogamy". Bigamy, polygamy is illegal in most if not all western countries and many non-western ones. Marriage is by default monogamous in these countries. Sure, some people cheat, but they aren't legally allowed to marry the person they cheat with while still being married to their original spouse. Divorce must take place first. Hence, enforced monogamy. Enforced by law.
True, of course. But Jordan PeterPan was referring more to the kinds of (often informal) restrictions on women's (but not men's) sexuality that prevailed before the sexual revolution, though in practice even that was typically honored more in the breach than in the observance. Basically, he is euphemistically calling for a return to slut-shaming and sexual double standards.
What really has his and his ilk's undies in a bunch is not women out here "slutting it up" but women who are not playing the game at all. Bumble put up billboards begging women to give up celibacy and get back on their app and out there in dating world again. NOPE! Women are like, "We can do bad all by ourselves, thank you very much." Women value peace now. There's no going back.
"Reactionary Feminism" is an oxymoron. Yes there are tradeoffs to literally everything in life, granted. But to follow their specious nostrums would simply trap women in the same 7000+ year patriarchal quagmire they have spent the past 200 or so years trying to get out of.
Although clearly anathema to an individualistic outlook, I can also see the advantages of a system in which divorce is completely off the table. Of course it would be terrible to be stuck with a monstrous spouse. But then life is often terrible. If divorce isn’t an option then you have to just accept and deal with your spouse’s faults and limitations just as you must accept and deal with your own faults and limitations. The ease of divorce is like a carrot perpetually dangling in the air.
The Amish system works that way. People can never remarry as long as their spouse is alive, because that counts as bigamy. If one spouse leaves the Amish the remaining spouse needs to stay single.
"I think this is what we are seeing right now. In our current hyper-individualistic society, people are supposed to be true to their feelings when choosing mating strategies. So many high-status men are honest about wanting to have several sexual partners. On the other side, many women are honest that they only want a partner who can truly meet their needs. Both sexes have pulled away in their respective directions and the middle ground where they can meet has shrunk"
I think this is an important conversation to have, but i also think this assumption of symmetry between the two sides is a bit off. The experpt from your post above is, I think, valid. But that describes what, in your words, 'high status' men are doing and what 'many women' are doing. But most men are not high status. And I think what is missed is that men have not really been socially organized in the way women have in the post MeToo era. There is not this collective dialogue among men about what our experience is and what it ought to be in the way that there is among women. I think there are many ways to be critical of men but, romantically, I think the hyper-individualism that you speak of has more impacted women than men. I do not find many men who have this orientation of 'I am going to be true to myself and will not change and will only get with someone who accepts me as a being who has achieved their final form.' I think it is women and not men who have become so selective and rigid in their assessment of the opposite sex and reluctance to engage in the sort of change and compromise that relationships require.
Overall, I'd say our dialogue about gender dynamics has really suffered as a result of how the discussion has really only been from women's point of view. We know what women's grievances are with men, and we know what women's collective experience is; but we don't really have anything comparable with men. And this is not to say that the female POV is inherently wrong, but it is to say we can't really have holistic conversations, as this post seeks to do, because we don't understand the other side.
I think you are right that women are much better than men at discussing their grievances. Partly because of the phenomenon I wrote about here:
https://woodfromeden.substack.com/p/men-consume-relationships-women-produce
For some reason, men aren't relationship-focused the same way as women. And, as you write, in the current situation, they have good reasons to be.
As far as I have seen, hitherto the most hyped solution has been the pick-up artists: a few high-status men are supposed to educate the majority of men how to act high-status too. From my point of view most of that spectacle is sad. The kind of movement you are talking about is badly needed to balance the picture.
What I'm getting at is more that we have heard women articulate what it is like to be a woman, what their struggles are, and what their grievances with men are, but we have not heard the other half of that. So I think discussions like this necessarily proceed based on a partially constructed framework (e.g. I know why men are shit and women are great, but in what ways are men great and women 'shit'). And I think that is really important with respect to the basic endeavor to understand ourselves, this moment in time, and ourselves within the context of this moment in time.
Concerning the post you linked to, it has always occured to me that women prefer to consume entertainment that focuses more on interpersonal dynamics, and men more prefer the story. So I think you are getting at something real. I think from a guy's point of view a relationship is 'I love this person, I like spending time with them, I want to keep spending time with them' but for women, I suppose, it is endeavor aimed at building something. Maybe it's true that for men the relationship is the terminal point, and for women it is the entry point into something larger. I just don't think we view relationships as being as complex as women do. (I confess I did not read the whole thing, but I am reading it. You're articulating some cool and unique ideas) But I think the guy's POV of how you suggest women approach relationships (building a project that requires the man be shaped) is that women expect you to change and compromise, but that only goes one way. The compromise comes from one direction.
I think a lot of it really just comes down to the responsibilities that are implied by each sex's role in reproduction. Women focus on raising the kid, men focus on spreading their genes.
"As far as I have seen, hitherto the most hyped solution has been the pick-up artists"
can you elaborate on what problem you are saying pickup artists are a solution to?
I’d also add that I think this movement you speak of may be on the verge of beginning. The grievances of the ‘manosphere’ are, I think, an unappreciated driver of trumps win. Things are about to change a lot. In probably a bad way at first, but eventually a good one.
I mean pick-up artists teach men how to get better at relationships. Pick-up artists tell men that they can't just wait for relationships to happen, but need to actively work on them. In that sense, the pick-up scene makes men more similar to women. But I doubt that it increases the level of understanding between men and women. But as you say, the manosphere as a whole might be the beginning of something new.
Pick up artists teach men how to get women to sleep with them. Or, at the very least, how to get a date with them. There is no relationship element there.
And to the extent that I can speak for all men on this, I don't think it is even remotely common for men to consume pickup artist stuff. Maybe it is different in incel circles.
Anecdotally, I think the way most men approach getting with women is that they just say/do/be whatever they think the woman wants.
"So many high-status men are honest about wanting to have several sexual partners."
High status men are probably the first ones getting married. People just decided to buy the Chad slayer meme, and then they can't stop talking about "High status men" as promiscuous, when they are probably monogamy oriented dudes with good careers that have been in a long term relationship with a commited partner since 2015 or something.
What fucking retard wants low commitment from a relationship? Why bother in the first place then?
Somehow I lucked out. I went from a desperately unhappy young man to a happy old one, secure in two items of knowledge:
1) I love my wife more than I ever have, more than life itself.
2) She loves me more than she ever has.
Of course, #1 is necessarily a more secure item of knowledge than #2, but all indicators are that it is so.
Each time our daughter and I go out and close the karaoke bar together, I almost always sing "Nature Boy." In fact last time I prefaced it by getting on the mic and saying, "I tell you what, I been bangin' around this fuck-in (of course I was sloshed. It's the Way of Karaoke) planet for 74 fuck-in years (wild cheering - I'm always the oldest fart there, that old guy who gets up there and gives it everything he's got) and I gotta tell ya, this song's got a message, in fact (channeling Janis Joplin) I'd even call it The Truth!"
The song ends with,
"The greatest thing,
You will ever learn,
Is just to love,
And be loved,
In return."
Men and women CAN be happy; they only have to CHOOSE to do what it takes to get along and then MAKE IT HAPPEN.
Happiness is a choice. Cooperation is a choice.
Choose to be married, choose to make it work. Live the choices you make.
Amen brother. That's what I did and I don't regret it for an instant.
"So many high-status men are honest about wanting to have several sexual partners. On the other side, many women are honest that they only want a partner who can truly meet their needs."
I don't think it is that lopsided as about 20% of married men cheat, compared to 13% of married women, and 57% of men and 54% of women admit to committing infidelity at some point in their lives.
I do agree with the point: "From the reasoning above, it looks like the system of yesterday was better. More men and women could be together and people tend to become happier together."
But here is the missing point based on my experience and understanding, and that science. Human behavior that derives from human nature is malleable within a lifetime.
I believe this is a biological thing... that you can train yourself to a different standard for how you think, feel and behave... really no different than you can change the physical appearance of your body. But, it takes work... you have to practice.
And this gets me to my concluding explanation for what is hurting general relationship happiness... we have grown lazy, entitled and selfish. And we have lost the ability to understand delayed gratification. We push a button on our phone and dinner arrives in 30 minutes. We push another button and clothing, appliances, tools and furniture arrive in a day or two. So we have had our minds trained to expect almost immediate fulfilment of our needs and wants without having to expend much effort. Many of the same young people involved in protests over female and gender ideology are also committed to a low-work or no-work agenda. The 4B movement in South Korea is against the misogynist cultural behavior of men in that county, but it is also against the work standards of more than 40 hours per week.
I have been married for 45 years to a girl I met when she was 17 and was 19. She claims love at first sight. Mine bloomed over the first year we dated.
I have never cheated, although I have flirted quite a bit during my corporate career. I have spent time in strip clubs and attended parties where party girls made the rounds. These were always related to my job. I always told my wife about these events, and even the flirting at the office where a female coworker was coming on strong. The only time I went to a strip club with my wife was a male strip club with her and some girl friends for her birthday where I was the designated driver.
It takes work to power through jealousy and insecurity. It takes work to practice putting your own needs and wants to the side while you give to your partner. It takes work to practice the behavior of happiness and contentment so that you become more happy and content. It takes work to understand your internal feelings and to be able to communicate them well with your partner. It takes work to tamp down your highly charged emotional reactions to things... and to become a calm and steady person that provides a foundation for the times that your partner will need help doing the same. It takes work to stop believing that there is always something better to be had when what you already have is good enough and maybe great. It takes work to partner rather than just do it yourself.
But when you do all the work it all becomes second-nature.
The reason our marriage and relationship trends were better in the past is because we all worked harder. I think it is simple as that.
Indeed people worked harder on their relationships when that was the norm. But there was no time when everybody was as relationship-conscientious as you and your wife. I think your example illustrates the point that some people are better created for good relationships than others.
I am starting to think that the entire civilizational structure of modernity is built on monogamy and marriage, as well as free markets. If men who are just ordinary schmucks' best hope for a reasonably satisfying sexual relationship is lifetime commitment, they can devote their energy to bettering their own well-being and that of their wives and children. Men who do their jobs and appear to do their duty to family have some degree of status. Warrior polygyny seems like a more consistent evolutionary solution, but it seems kinda unlikely to support an industrial society. Any thoughts?
"Both sides are right, for a simple reason: For humans, being together is really, really hard."
Especially when one partner accuses the other partner of oppressing her.
It shouldn't need saying that being a feminist (AKA accusing men of oppressing women) and being in an intimate relationship with men are not compatible. It makes no sense that any feminist would even WANT to be in a relationship with her oppressor.... assuming she is being sincere and not just using patriarchy theory as a way to morally dominate men and manipulate men by shaming them.
"Men and women are natural enemies. "
There you go! Such an attitude makes healthy relationships impossible. This is why high quality men avoid feminists like the plague.
"What is clear is that no system for human relationships has yet allowed the vast majority of people to be happy together. "
Relationships are bound to be miserable if viewed through the lens of entitlement. But when viewed through the lens of practical reality relationships suddenly become a lot more appealing and rewarding. The problem is that there are now three people in a relationship: a man, a woman and the state (a man with a gun). This is what feminists demanded and the men with guns used feminism to justify the massive expansion of the state into every facet of our lives.
Now women can extract resources from men by force via the state which means:
a) she is not going to appreciate her husband as much if she marries
b) she is going to have more incentive to remain 'single' which is now a euphemism for marrying the state (men with guns) and having the state force all men to support her via taxes (ie a harem for women, paid for by ordinary working men).
Imagine we got rid of the state tomorrow. Now suddenly men become much more valued, because they can provide resources and support a stable family home - allowing a woman to self actualise her womanhood with full support from him.
Now let's try flipping the genders.... imagine how much less men would appreciate their wives if 'menininsm' had created a state, but instead of taxing men's labour and giving it to women, the state provided men with free sex and female companionship with attractive women who did not try to shame or bully them all the time, and who wanted to bear their children and raise them at home. Imagine how unsatisfied men would become with their wives, or with the prospect of marriage, or with modern women in general!
This is basically the situation feminism has created. By 'winning' the gender war, feminists have achieved a hollow victory. They can no longer appreciate, respect or truly love men.
Good of you to link to the more fact based article refuting your claims.
So rich in terms of mating strategies. However the data from Titanic survivors show men in extreme, instinct-based circumstances saving 100% of 1st and 2nd class children and women while only 10% of first and second class male passengers survived.
This means a universal heroism instinct exists in men across the entire male bell curve regardless of the small overlap in todays culture that affords the leisurely time to date and mate, different from the extreme Titanic circumstances that reveal only unconscious instincts, not reason and logic that courtship includes.
This reveals that there are indeed masculine instincts not at all culturally determined by the fads of the year or decade but evolving over eons of evolutionary scales of time.
https://youtu.be/eRCLBpHifJo?si=uKI7Nv2GPWuWDdgR
Right around the sinking of the Titanic was the high point of chivalry. You'll find men in most cultures don't care *that* much about women that aren't immediate family, whether that's modern Westerners or basically all other peoples in history compared to Victorian/Georgian era Europe. Men killing themselves to save women would not happen in a society today, I could see it for children though.
This is interesting other periods of history and also cultures I’d like to hear examples shared. Thats fascinating. Martin Seagers point (and Barry Liddon Kingerslee and others) is that the Titanic was a giant emergency disaster. Not a placid serene place where people have the leisure to debate and argue and make laws and break laws and reach compromises. It bubbles up only raw instincts. And those of males were the same as other males and those of females were the same as other females yet the male and female behavior in this tragic laboratory was not at all the same. It was definitely not just “chivalry” because the force of a cultural fad (even of a hundred years duration) pales in the face of the biological power of raw human, masculine and feminine instincts.
E g I think of chivalry as a sociological fad, meme etc. if there’s something durable biologically underneath it (and any similar sociological fads that arise in history) it’s Barry and Seagers uncovering of the first male instinct that is present in all world cultures and throughout history: the “Provider/Protector” instinct that is term the Zeus Instinct. Here’s a video describing the spirit of their work: https://youtu.be/eRCLBpHifJo?si=uKI7Nv2GPWuWDdgR
It's the first time I've seen both sides of this debate --whether the sexual revolution helped women or not-- presented as equally correct, just coming from different angles. Also the first time I see someone acknowledge in writing that women don't all think or want the same when it comes to these issues. Really appreciated the graphs too!
Men and women are natural enemies.
Men and women having competing agendas due to sex-based asymmetries.
https://expressiveegg.substack.com/p/women-and-men
Jordan PeterPan of course offers a stock solution: "enforced monogamy", which is exactly what it sounds like. But if it was so natural, it wouldn't have to be "enforced", now would it?
We can argue whether it is natural or not until we are blue in the face. But there are three kinds of monogamy: strict, lifelong, and universal. Pick at most two out of three. Because that's all that Mother Nature will allow, to say nothing of the iron laws of supply and demand.
Ultimately, like just about everything else, (non)monogamy falls on a spectrum, with most people being somewhere in the middle. Shoehorning everyone into a binary is counterproductive.
Perhaps our bonobo cousins had the right idea all along? Live and let live, love and let love. That's what I say.
(Mic drop)
We already have "enforced monogamy". Bigamy, polygamy is illegal in most if not all western countries and many non-western ones. Marriage is by default monogamous in these countries. Sure, some people cheat, but they aren't legally allowed to marry the person they cheat with while still being married to their original spouse. Divorce must take place first. Hence, enforced monogamy. Enforced by law.
True, of course. But Jordan PeterPan was referring more to the kinds of (often informal) restrictions on women's (but not men's) sexuality that prevailed before the sexual revolution, though in practice even that was typically honored more in the breach than in the observance. Basically, he is euphemistically calling for a return to slut-shaming and sexual double standards.
What really has his and his ilk's undies in a bunch is not women out here "slutting it up" but women who are not playing the game at all. Bumble put up billboards begging women to give up celibacy and get back on their app and out there in dating world again. NOPE! Women are like, "We can do bad all by ourselves, thank you very much." Women value peace now. There's no going back.
And now the 4B Movement is trending, ever since Trump won the 2024 election.
Indeed
"Reactionary Feminism" is an oxymoron. Yes there are tradeoffs to literally everything in life, granted. But to follow their specious nostrums would simply trap women in the same 7000+ year patriarchal quagmire they have spent the past 200 or so years trying to get out of.