All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 19, 2017 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
38:45
3903 International Men's Day: The State of Masculinity
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
So today is International Men's Day, and let me ask you, let me know what you think in the comments below.
What is it like being a man these days?
It is a big challenge, and there is a significant problem between men and society in the West at the moment.
I want to share a couple of thoughts.
Just let me know what you think in the comments below.
I'm really curious.
Let's canvas the male opinion and see where we stand.
So, traditionally, of course, men have evolved to gather resources and to use those resources in the aid of raising a family.
The more resources you can gather, in general, the higher quality woman you can get a hold of, from a genetic standpoint, and from a personality standpoint as well, because...
As the old saying goes, no matter how beautiful the woman is, somewhere in the world there is a man who's tired of having sex with her.
And the sort of hot crazy matrix is not particularly fulfilling after, I don't know, a weekend or so.
And so you want a woman who's got, you know, a strong healthy body, but also a positive disposition, a problem-solving ease, and a commitment to her own family, to raising the children in a loving manner.
And... It used to be, of course, that a man would go out and gather resources and men would compete with other men for the gathering of those resources.
It was kind of like a win-lose situation.
You get the high-paying job, some other man doesn't.
That gives you more resources with which to provide for your family.
And this is one of the great challenges of being a man, is that there's natural female in-group preferences.
This is how women have evolved, to cooperate with each other, particularly because they were all kind of in the village raising the children and needed the cooperation of each other to raise the children effectively.
As Hillary Clinton, I think, once memorably said, it takes a village to satisfy my husband.
No, sorry, it takes a village to raise children or to raise a child.
And so women have this natural in-group preference, which when combined with political power through the vote becomes kind of totalitarian in a way.
If you sort of look at family courts and gynocentrism around the West, it has become pretty powerful.
Men don't have the same in-group preference, and any in-group preference that men do have is automatically lambasted as quasi-homosexual.
Like if you have a male friend, it's like it's a bromance.
As in there's something kind of gay about it, which is an insult to gays and to male friendship.
But this lack of in-group preference among men, this fact that men compete for women, if you get the head cheerleader, some other guy in the past, like, wouldn't, because you'd marry her and there would be an expectation of monogamy.
So the fact that women have this in-group preference that works really well, and it's actually called the wah effect in psychology.
So women are wonderful effect, like I went to see a play last night called The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Nighttime, which also could be renamed...
Men, bad, women, good. Men, bad, women, good.
Men, bad, women, good. Men, bad, women, good.
Because all the women are nice and gentle and soft and loving and nurturing and all the men scream at a boy who has autism.
And they're all violent and, you know, it's natural.
That this kind of happens because there is this female in-group preference that occurs and there's not the same camaraderie among men, right?
Like the old coarse statement, bros before hoes, doesn't really work, evolutionarily speaking.
You compete with men to win women.
And now women do go through a short period of competing for men, but they do it by making themselves more attractive rather than elbowing aside the other woman to bag the man, so to speak.
And so that's a very brief moment in their sort of late teens, early twenties, and then they were supposed to get married, settle down, and have a monogamous relationship and no longer compete with women.
So the fact that men compete with each other, women cooperate with each other, combined with the power of female suffrage has created a very distorted society.
And what do men normally provide?
Men normally provide protection.
And resources. That has been the role.
Like the male lion. What does he do?
Well, the female lions hunt a lot, of course, but the male lion patrols around where the pride of lions lives and makes sure that no other males are coming to kill him, to kill the young male cubs, to kill all the cubs, and to mate with the women.
So, providing resources and protecting the tribe has been the traditional role of men.
Now... That has largely fallen away.
And I think male anxiety and depression and suicidality and shortening lifespans, particularly among white males, is resulting from the fact that men have become temporarily relatively useless in society.
Or, to put it another way, the transfer of resources from men to women has become involuntary.
Involuntary. A man's sexual market value is related to the resources that he can provide to his family.
And since the state, through the welfare state, takes the resources from men by force and transfers them to needy women, male sexual market value is being removed by force through the state and provided to women.
And this has had massive effects on society.
I know people are like, oh, why are you bringing this up again?
It's because... We really still have yet to fully understand what it has done to society in terms of gender relations, in terms of the power and ever-increasing size of the state, in terms of national indebtedness, and in terms of genetics.
What has happened when you transfer resources from more irresponsible people to less responsible people, and responsibility has a significant genetic component as to all personality characteristics, you are Reducing the spread of responsible genes and you're increasing the spread of irresponsible genes, what's been called by Perkins in the book called The Welfare Trait, the employment-resistant personality.
So we have all of this going on, which is unbelievably tragic for men.
Men are there to provide resources to women, but that role has been taken over by the state, which forcibly takes resources from men and gives them to increasingly often irresponsible women.
So men have no part to play, nothing to provide in particular to the family.
Males have become extraneous in the core responsibility and purpose of gathering resources and using it to raise children.
When men no longer compete with each other in terms of productivity, then what happens is women no longer choose a man's character.
They choose a man's prettiness.
They choose status with regards to base material considerations.
You know, how tall he is, does he have, as Taylor Swift's saying, hella good hair?
Does he have, you know, is he high status from that standpoint?
Does he have a nice car? Is he buff?
Has he worked out? Does he have the Stranger Things youthful pompadour going on?
And what's happened is all males have the capacity to work towards getting better resources, becoming more responsible, becoming a better provider, becoming more stable, becoming a better husband and father.
All men have that capacity.
But in terms of height, you can't make yourself taller.
In terms of handsomeness, there's not much you can do to make yourself more handsome.
You can, of course... Work out more and build up your body that way and so on, and some men are certainly taking that approach.
But what's happened is, women are now gravitating not towards the character of men, but to the prettiness of men.
It's kind of reversed.
Men used to gravitate, use resources to gravitate towards the prettiest of women, right?
The old Sam Cooke song, or the old song called Summertime, your daddy's rich and your mama's good looking.
And so now things have been kind of reversed, that women are now looking for pretty boys rather than stable providers because they can get their stable provisions through the state.
So now they can indulge in shallow petty lust rather than mating on a permanent basis with a man of good character.
So what's happened, of course, is that women's standards of male attractiveness have gone through the roof.
Like when surveys are done of women and they show them sort of a random sampling of males, like 80% of the males are considered below average in attractiveness.
And what this means is in general the top 20% of attractive men are getting the sex.
And this creates an interesting and terrifying and challenging cohort of men who basically can't get involved in the sexual marketplace.
They cannot get involved in the sexual marketplace.
Now, that used to be a big problem because what would you do?
You'd be considered weird or alienated or you'd be bored.
But now, of course, you know, there's infinite movies, there's YouTube, there is video games, there are enormous numbers of ways to distract yourself from an increasingly empty life of, you know, pixel dopamine stimulation rather than Being a father, being a husband, being a member of your community, and having all of the rich interpersonal relationships and support structure and health-enhancing structures that those represent.
Isolation is bad for your health.
Loneliness is like smoking.
And so we have, at the same time as men have become increasingly extraneous, because they're no longer needed to provide resources on an individual level, at a collective taxpayer level, yes.
On an individual level, men have become increasingly extraneous.
Unnecessary. On a looks level, on a sexual market value level, the majority of men are now excluded in many practical ways from the dating market because women's standards have become impossibly high.
And it's funny, you know, because all you ever hear is complaints about how men have unrealistic standards for female attractiveness and so on.
But that's not really true.
The people whose standards have risen enormously in terms of looks are women, not men.
And this is statistically borne out.
And this is actually a very primitive place in society.
A long time ago in the past, a significant proportion of men didn't breed, didn't reproduce.
You can check this out through the genetic lineage.
And now we're back to another situation where significant numbers of men are no longer getting involved in relationships, or at least getting involved in families becoming fathers.
And this has a lot to do, of course, with the government wants to push women into the workforce.
Of course, right? Because when they're in the workforce, they're paying taxes.
Whereas if they drop out early and have kids, then they're not paying taxes, but instead the government has to provide more resources in terms of school, education, health care, you name it.
So of course politicians want to talk women into going into the workforce.
I mean, it's net positive to them financially.
And the negatives, like a woman who's 20, 25 or whatever, and even when you're in your 20s, the risk of birth defects starts to go up.
But a woman who's in her 20s, if the government can convince her to go to work, Then what happens is she pushes off her reproductive window to the point where she may start, you know, sifting through the detritus of broken, abandoned, lonely and divorced and brokenhearted men in their 30s.
Maybe she can have a baby or two, but of course the tax revenue accumulated by the government from having two people in the workforce rather than one person in the workforce and one person raising children.
Fantastic for governments in the moment.
But what happens is, of course, the problems that accrue decades down the road when there aren't enough children to replace the population.
Well, the politicians are retired or long dead by that point, so they don't fundamentally care in any way about that kind of stuff.
I mean, it's just no incentive for them to do so.
Now, another thing that's happened, of course, is as men have become more extraneous, as women's standards have risen, another factor has occurred as well, which is that women wish to marry up.
They wish to date up.
They wish to mate up.
It's called hypergamy, and it is the idea that a woman who's a doctor doesn't want to marry a guy who works at McDonald's.
A woman who is a lawyer doesn't want to marry a plumber.
She wants to marry up.
Now what's fascinating about this is as more women become more educated, and there are like 130 women in graduate school in America these days compared to every 100 men, as women become more and more educated, the opportunities for them to marry up diminish, which is really fascinating.
Since so many women are getting graduate degrees, and a woman, even with a master's degree, doesn't necessarily want to marry someone who only has an undergraduate degree, and certainly not somebody who only has high school, As women get more and more advanced in education and professional opportunities, Then their hypergamy becomes less and less satisfied because there are fewer and fewer men who are above them in the economic ladder.
Now, of course, because there are fewer men above these women in the economic ladder, those men then have their choice of women.
And when men, historically, when men have a choice of women, they tend not to settle down.
So women are all aiming upwards, but there are fewer and fewer men for them to aim upwards at.
And because they're all aiming upwards, a small proportion of men has the vast majority of choice when it comes to having sex.
And this makes, of course, women even more unsatisfied.
And so what's happened is that there's an enormous number of childless women in the West at the moment, or childless white women in particular.
Although even in the black community in America, if a black woman gets pregnant, the fetus, the baby in the belly, only has a 50-50 chance of making it out versus being aborted.
So this has created an enormous...
Void, vacuum, and pain that is catered to by a lot of artists.
Like, I was thinking the other day.
Like, when was the last time you saw a genuinely happy, contented, and positive family on a show?
It's rare. No, it didn't used to be rare.
Like, I grew up with, you know, things like Leave It to Beaver and My Three Sons and, you know, even things like the Beverly Hillbillies and so on.
They're pretty functional and happy families.
And now they're gone.
And I think one of the reasons for that is that the baby rabies that hits a lot of women in their 30s where they feel like it's like a feeling like they just have to have a baby.
They've got to have a baby. They're dying for a baby.
One woman described it as you always feel hungry.
You always feel like you want to pee.
It's like an insistent non-stop feeling of yearning for a baby.
But of course it's tough to find a man in your 30s who's a stable positive provider.
And again, if he's in his 30s and you're in your 30s, if he is a high status male in sexual market value, then he's going to be looking for a woman in her 20s.
Because the more sexual partners a woman has, the more likely she is to divorce her husband.
I mean, it's a straight stairway to hell itself going up.
It's dose-dependent. You know, penises, destroying marriages is dose-dependent.
You put lots of condoms on, you take the ring off eventually.
And it's one of these horrifying statistics.
We kind of all instinctively understand it.
that a woman who has slept with a lot of men is just going to be a bad mother and a bad wife.
And in general, statistically, this is true.
So a man who is high sexual market value in his 30s is going to be looking for a woman in his 20s.
Now, I mean, it's probably not possible for many people outside of religious, very religious communities, to fulfill the old adage, no hymen, no diamond.
But statistically, that's what you want.
You want a woman who's a virgin because then she's very unlikely to ever divorce you.
But if a woman has been with a whole bunch of men, you're toast.
And for men, of course, that is unbelievably destructive to be dragged through the family court system.
You can get charged with stuff.
You can end up in jail. You can end up with these virtually lifetime support payments that if you fail to pay them, you can also end up in jail.
They can't be discharged through bankruptcy or anything like that.
It's like student debts. So what's happened is there are a lot of women out there who have had a lot of sex, have destroyed their sexual market value, and are now trying to find a good provider with hypergamy aiming up when the supply of men is enormously low.
In your 30s, what happens?
They don't get what they want. And this is why a lot of women are depressed.
You know, men in their sort of mid to late 30s are like women in their early to mid 20s.
High in demand from sexual market value.
Women aren't getting what they want, and they're not getting the families, they're not getting the kids, and this is really, really painful to women.
It's painful to men too, but I think it's a little bit more painful for women.
So what's happened is, if you show a happy family, you know, a woman who's loved, who's cherished, a man who's stable, who's positive, who's great with the kids, happy families around a table arguing and debating and erupting into random food fights, you know, and all the stuff that happens in my family, If you show the joys and pleasures and deep abiding passions and loves of a happy family life, it's really painful for a lot of women out there.
It's really painful.
And so, given that movies about relationships rather than, say, explosions, are aimed more towards women, if you have a movie or a TV show showing a happy family, it causes a lot of pain in women and they will rail against it.
They will turn against it, particularly if it's a white family.
And so I think it's just become economically somewhat impossible to show happy families.
Because your market is composed of a lot of women who are very unhappy.
And this is another reason why you can't show very positive male role models.
Because even if the woman has kids, significant odds are that she either married the wrong guy and he left or she left him.
Or she married the right guy.
But, you know, incessant nagging or whatever drove him away.
Or she had an affair. Either way, her judgment is suspect.
And if a woman...
Who's a single mom goes to see a movie about, which has a wonderful, happy, positive father in it.
It's very painful. If her kids go to see a family on screen or on TV where there's a positive, happy, effective, engaged father, it's very painful for them as well.
So again, we have this economic incentive to not just avoid happy families, but to avoid positive families.
Men, to avoid positive male role models, like the play I went to see last night.
It was as regular as clockwork.
The women were all nice, and if the women had bad behavior, it was...
It's sensitively described as occurring off-screen, like one of the women said, oh, and I ended up hitting your father, which was wrong, but I was overwhelmed, and, you know, and the piano playing, so you sympathize with this.
This is a woman who abandoned, sorry, spoilers, a woman who abandoned her mentally challenged son and went to go and live in another city with her boyfriend and never came to visit him, never came to visit him.
I mean, it's a horrible person.
Sorry. Flat-out horrible person, leaving the father to deal with all of this stuff and going off to have sex with her boyfriend in another city while the father is struggling to raise a mentally challenged son.
Horrible. But, of course, the father screams at the son.
He hits the son.
The boyfriend of the woman, he screams at the son.
He shakes the son. And, you know, just monstrous.
An endless parade of horrible men.
And what this means, of course, is that because there are so many women who either can't get men or who have ended up as single moms, the more you portray men as horrible, the more comfort you give people whose hearts have been broken by father absence or husband absence.
And this is absolutely horrible.
Horrible stuff. So men, I think, are feeling...
Let me speak in generalities and, again, tell me where I go astray.
It's just my thoughts. But men are feeling pissed off, angry.
There's a lot of men who don't get any play in the romance market.
A lot of men who can't get dates, can't get married, can't get ahead, can't gain resources.
And men, of course, are in competition with the welfare state and men are losing to the welfare state.
Because the welfare state is reliable, at least until everything runs out.
The welfare state is predictable, and the welfare state doesn't pull the covers.
The welfare state doesn't fart at the dinner table.
The welfare state doesn't scratch whatever itches in that simian male comfortable way.
Men are in competition with the welfare state and men are being pillaged for the welfare state.
The majority of taxpayers are white males and the majority of tax consumers are women and other groups.
And so men are kind of pissed.
We can't get ahead. Wages are stagnant.
Job opportunities are declining.
Debt is increasing. And education is becoming increasingly gynocentric, which means it deals with feelings rather than facts in general, which is why there's such a thing as hate speech.
You know, speech is simply an argument.
If an argument is bad, you rebut it.
But applying a negative emotional pejorative to an argument is not an argument.
But it has validity in the realm of feelings.
I feel upset about this argument, therefore this argument is bad.
Said virtually no man ever, but it has become commonplace in the media, it has become commonplace in higher education, to deal with feelings rather than with facts.
To deal with emotional responses rather than to deal with evidence.
Reason. Empiricism.
And men just don't do very well in that environment.
It's like the man confronted by the crying woman.
I have no spine.
So men are kind of pissed.
Because men are being used as tax livestock to provide resources to irresponsible women in general.
And livestock no likey.
Livestock? No likey.
Being kept as tax cattle and having your resources constantly shifted to women, which, you know, men would shift resources to women in the past in return for a sexual monogamy, right?
Like a man has an excess of resources and a woman has an excess of fertility, so they would trade resources for fertility.
And the monogamy was to make sure, genetically, that the man's resources...
We're going to someone who was in fact his son or daughter, right?
I mean, you want to make sure you need that monogamy, you need that commitment from the woman, which is why men used to have to choose more quality women and now they just go for hot women, which again, a lot of women now let themselves go, put on the blue hair, get the extra baby fat rolls and all that because they're out of the sexual market value.
Because you don't need a good woman anymore because you're just colliding in this, I don't know, base, penis-stimulating dopamine orgasm flyby.
And so the quality.
Virtue used to command significant coinage as sexual market value.
Virtue, consistency, honesty, loyalty.
And now it doesn't so much anymore because if you make a mistake in terms of choosing the wrong person...
Well, I mean, if you're a woman, then the state will force the man to pay for it anyway, and if you're married and getting divorced, then the state will force him to pay for things anyway, and there's no risk.
I mean, how good are you going to be at your job if you get paid, whether you show up or not?
If you get paid whether you produce or not.
If you quit and still get paid the same amount, how difficult are you going to be as an employee?
The employer has no leverage because you're going to get paid whether you show up or not.
And this is why women have become often increasingly difficult in marriages because they get paid whether they show up to do the job or not.
So men didn't used to mind transferring resources to women in return for running the household, sexual monogamy, and so on.
But now they're being forced to transfer their resources to women, but women are not being forced to transfer anything in return back to the men, running the household, sexual monogamy, and so on.
A man's resources is his sexual market value, just as a woman's sexuality is often her sexual market value.
Forced transferring male resources to women is...
Biologically similar to force transferring female sexual availability to men.
And it's really, really hard for people to understand this, but I think we kind of get this all kind of deep down in our guts.
So... Men are kind of pissed.
We're being used as tax cattle in order to buy the votes of women.
And this means that we get progressively treated worse and worse.
You know, if you're some Soviet restaurant and you get paid whether or not your customers are satisfied, you get paid whether or not customers show up, you don't really care about the customers.
You can treat them like crap. In fact, you resent customers.
Who show up because it interferes with you sitting out back on the upturned white pails of coleslaw delivery, smoking your cigarettes.
Yeah, I worked in restaurants when I was younger.
I know. I know the scene.
So if you're in some Soviet-era restaurant, you get paid whether or not customers show up, whether or not they're happy or not.
You don't care about the customers.
You can treat them like crap and they can't do anything about it.
So for women, if you get paid whether or not you provide value to a man...
And again, I'm not just talking about sex.
I'm talking about...
You know, being a good partner, giving him good advice, caring for him, running his household, if that's the way things are shaking out, raising his children well, and providing massive essential civilization-sustaining resources.
So because... Men are being forced to support women.
Women don't have to treat men well.
If taxpayers are forced to support the Soviet restaurant, then they don't have to treat their customers well.
Customers become an annoyance rather than, come on in, let me help you.
How can I enhance your meal?
I know you could choose from any of a thousand restaurants or choose to stay home and make your own food.
So, you know, come on in. I want to treat you well.
So, sexual relations have been socialized.
They've been turned into basically communism, which is forced to transfer of value, usually in a one-directional way.
And so men are resentful because, in the same way that if you have to eat at some Soviet restaurant where they don't care about the satisfaction, you'd resent them, right?
Because they're slow, they're annoying, you're annoyed that they're there, they give you some crappy...
You know, half-crapped on cabbage soup with three bugs in it.
So everyone ends up with this mutual resentment.
And that's what happens when there's not a free market in sexual market value, when there's not a free market in dating, when there's not a free market in resources.
Penises and vaginas have become communist.
And this is one of the main reasons in which communism is spreading.
And so men feel like, well, women don't care for us anymore.
They don't respect us.
They don't need us. They don't care for us.
They're treating us like crap. And this is the endless jokes of, you know, the dumb female and the smart male, you know, or in Stranger Things.
I had just a review of that recently.
You should check it out. There's a scene in a family...
Where the boy is asking the father, what do you do when you do something wrong with mom?
He says, I apologize.
And then she buys whatever she wants.
And then the son says to the father, what do you do when mom's wrong?
And the mom leans in like, you're going to be in trouble for this?
And he's like, your mom's never wrong, son.
You know, I mean, this is childish.
That's how you treat a three-year-old.
That's a great picture of a tree.
Well, it's not, but, you know, he's three.
Saying that someone's never wrong.
And someone, like, listening to that and accepting it, that the man's always wrong, the woman's always perfect, that's horrible.
I mean, it's horrible behavior.
It displays a complete lack of a capacity for self-criticism, a lack of empathy, a lack of a reasonable assessment of one's own abilities that we're all wrong sometimes, of course.
I mean, can you imagine if I, as a public intellectual, I'm always right and everyone else is always wrong?
I mean, that would be considered narcissistic and megalomaniacal and vain and, I mean, it would just be horrible.
But, you know, you can apply this to women as a whole and women don't sit there and say, what do you mean we can't be wrong?
What kind of scam are you trying to pull in us?
They're like, oh, uh-huh, we can't be wrong.
Mm-hmm, mm-hmm, mm-hmm.
So men are resentful and we have a kind of mirror image because we've got a lot of men who can't date, a lot of women who won't have kids.
And then you have this interesting mirror of migrants coming in who are young men who generally have very low sexual market value in the West and who can't date and who can't settle down and can't get married.
So you have the domestic population and the migrant population that are kind of a mirror of each other.
Neither have particular access to higher sexual market value, to settling down and so on, because women are married to the state, and therefore they can scorn men, and they can turn up their noses at men, and they can attack men as a whole while slavishly going after the 10-20% of high alphas and attempting to lasso them with the vagina, but the men always getting away, because if you try and catch a man with a vagina...
Well, he'll use his penis to burrow through the wall to get to the next catch, which is easy enough for him.
So, men are resentful because they're concerned about coming conflict.
Diversity plus proximity historically has equaled war.
So they're concerned about upcoming conflict, and it's one thing for men to be asked to fight for societies that give the men respect and power and deference and so on.
But if you're kind of scorned and neglected and excluded from the sexual market value, if politicians scorn you, if women look down upon you, if your economic future is destroyed, if the entire higher education becomes gynocentric and you get attacked for bringing reason, And evidence to a feels fight, then you are not very positive or keen on your society.
I have this fairly unique view, like I do a call-in show, get lots of comments on my videos and emails and so on.
Men are not happy. Men are not happy, and it's fascinating to men that when women aren't happy, society bends itself backwards to try and make them happier.
Women are dissatisfied. Women are unhappy.
Women are marching. Oh, let's give women whatever they need to make them happier.
But men are unhappy. And what happens?
What happens? Society doesn't care.
Males are disposable.
Men are tax cattle. If the farmer's wife is unhappy, Well, he's motivated to do something.
If the farmer's cows are unhappy, well, as long as he can still get milk out of them, what does he care?
You know, you get cows in stalls, they're so tight that they beat their heads back and forth bloody, just to get some stimulation.
Well, that's terrible. Do you think that the female cows, in order to produce milk, are kept in a constant state of pregnancy?
They're not happy. But they're still producing milk, so what is the pharmacare?
And so when you start treating men as tax livestock, as disposable entities, then what happens is you lose any motivation that the men have to defend the society.
And in that case, men may well cheer the end of what is as a liberation.
Like at the end of the Roman Empire, a lot of times, like one of the reasons the Roman Empire fell was they raised taxes On the cities.
It's the only easy way to collect taxes was in the cities.
They raised taxes in the cities, which drove men out into the country.
And that meant that there were fewer men available to take as conscripts into the army, like a lot of times the Roman Empire.
You would end up having to spend 20 years in the army, which, you know, you get three cuts and one infection and you're dead in some foreign land.
So more and more men fled the cities to escape conscription and to escape taxation, which meant that in order to defend...
The borders of the empire and the empire itself, they had to turn more to mercenaries.
Which meant that they had to raise more taxes to pay for the mercenaries, which drove more young men out of the cities, more men out of the cities.
And you ended up, when they couldn't pay the mercenaries anymore, the mercenaries came and sacked Rome.
And so, the end of the Roman Empire, I mean, we look at it sometimes.
I've got a whole presentation on this, which you should really check out.
But the end of the Roman Empire was hugely liberating for a lot of men because there no longer was a central agency that forced you into being a tax slave, that forced you into being an army slave, a soldier slave.
And so now men, rather than, I think, fighting and working to defend the system that is, which doesn't care that male mortality is going up, that doesn't care that men are miserably unhappy, that doesn't care that disproportionately men are incarcerated, that doesn't care that disproportionately men kill themselves, that doesn't care that men are depressed, that doesn't care that men are anxious, that doesn't care that boys are unhappy in school.
As schools have become progressively female, too...
Attempt to repair a problem that statistically didn't exist at all to begin with, which, oh, women are failing, women are failing.
Well, men's brains keep growing for almost half a decade after women, so there's that.
And also, you know, this basic bell curve statistics that at the highest levels of IQ, men outnumber women 10 to 1 or 12 to 1 or even higher.
And at the very highest levels of IQ, there are no women at all.
And this whole wage gap myth, right?
That women only earn 75 cents.
No, they don't. They earn exactly what they deserve to earn in the marketplace.
Because women take time off to have kids.
Women pursue degrees that are less economically viable.
And women work less than men on average.
Of course, they're going to be paid less. But the idea that now, well, now men need to give things up.
Oh, now, by the way, you have to give up your job to a minority or a woman.
And by the way, you can't even apply for some jobs if you're a white male.
Well... At some point, the white male's indifference turns to active hatred of the society that is.
And if the farmer has a heart attack, the cows meet you.
If the farmer fails to pay the electricity bill and the fence breaks down, the cows may cheer because they can shoulder their way through the fence without being pushed back by the electricity.
So I think for a lot of men there's a rooting for the end of the system, that is.
A rooting for the end of male disposability, a rooting for the end...
Of harnessing the economic productivity of males in order to buy votes.
From others, there is a significant amount of contempt.
And in a society which is mathematically unsustainable, we all know this, mathematically a society that is unsustainable, in a society that is unsustainable, When the men no longer wish to defend it, when the men are going galt, when the men say, okay, so if I get a job and pay a lot of taxes, I really don't get to keep that much money, which means I can't really attract a high-quality woman.
Even if I attract a high-quality woman, she can divorce me and keep all my money, so she's going to be real difficult to live with.
I'm not going to have much negotiating power.
In the same way that if you're the boss and your employee wins the lottery or wins like $200,000, It's kind of tough to negotiate with that employee because they have too many options.
So the man says, okay, well, if I work, make a lot of money, get scooped up in taxes, I can get married, but then I could end up destroyed, literally destroyed, financially, spiritually, emotionally.
I could end up a cripple.
It could destroy any future sexual market value.
Having to support a wife or a wife and kids means I'm going to be less attractive to whoever's coming down the road.
And also, because I'm mathematically literate, what happens is if I pay a lot of taxes, the government uses that as collateral in order to Borrow against my future productivity and the productivity of my children.
Oh, and if I have a son, he's going to go in a school which is heavily gynocentric, which means that he's going to be bored, he's going to be restless, because everything's going to be sitting in rows and being nice and boys are viewed as defective girls.
And, by the way, if he then ends up bored and restless, then he's going to be drugged.
Or people are going to want to drug him, which is going to be harmful to his brain and bad for him as a whole.
And, oh, by the way, then if he graduates or gets out of high school and goes to university, then some drunken accusation from a woman who regrets a sexual encounter can destroy his life.
And he's not allowed to bring, as I said before, reason and evidence to a field fight.
And if he gets all of this education, then when he goes into the workforce, there's going to be lots of applications, whether explicitly or implicitly, that say, well, if you're not a woman or a minority, no luck.
So if I get a woman, if I have a daughter, she's going to be programmed and indoctrinated in social justice warrior stuff and probably end up viewing me as a nasty patriarch.
If I forget a son, he's going to be despised and drugged and then he's going to be programmed with social justice warrior crap.
He's going to be attacked. And he could get kicked out of school on the say-so of a woman, and then even if he graduates with all of that, what are his opportunities if he's not a woman or a minority?
Not really that great. So, as a whole, really, what's the incentive here?
And that is, I think, where a lot of men are.
And I'm curious what you think on this International Men's Day.
What do you think of the system?
Where do you think it's heading? Are you in for it?
Do you want it to continue?
▲
Export Selection